MAY-27-2818 15:51 pHCA May 2P 2010 15:00 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, PETITIONER, v. CASENO.: 2005-65765 MOUNIR ALBERT, D.D.S., RESPONDENT. ADMINIST RATIVE COMPLAINE COMES NOW Petitioner, Department of Health, by and through its undersigned counsel, and files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Dentistry against Respondent, Mounit Albert, D.D.S., and in support thereof alleges: 1. Petitioner is the state department charged with regulating the practice of deritistry pursuant fo Section 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 466, Florida Statutes. . 2. _ At all times material to this Complaint, Respondent was a licensed dentist within the State of Florida, having been issued license number 10217. P.ae/at MAY-27-2018 15: 15:52 eHCA May 27 2010 15:00 3. Respondent’s address of record is 2200 North Dixie Highway, Boca Raton, Florida 33431. 4. Patient G.P., a 56 year-old female, Was an established patient of record of the Respondent from on or about May 10, 2002, to on OF about May 27, 2004. From May of 2002 through on oF about March 29, 2004, Respondent attempted a course of treatrnent to nlace two fixed bridges; one each in the right and jeft upper quadrants of Patient G.P’s mouth at teeth numbers 2-8 and 9-14. 5. During this course of treatment, Respondent failed to produce adequate pre OF post-op (full mouth) x-rays OF comprehensive treatment plan options to justify such major restorative treatments on this patient. Respondent apparently presented his fixed bridge treatment plan, but did not present any alternate written treatment plans with explanation of risks and benefits, and did not present options for removable prostheses OF impiant supported bridgework which would have been more appropriate for the patient's oral health and teeth bone structure. 6 On of about May 10, 2002, Patient G.P. presented to Respondent's office complaining of a loose temporary acrylic full upper mouth bridge (placed by a previous provider) which was causing her discomfort and pain. Respondent performed an intra-oral examination of DOH v. Mounitr Albert, 0.D.5. case no. 2005-65765 2 P.@a/a1 MAY—27-281B 15:52 May 2? 2010 15:01 AHCA Patient GP, took 4 periapical y-rays, and advised the patient he could provide beautiful fixed porcelain bridges to replace the full mouth upper temporary bridge. Respondent noted periodontal conditions with 3-4 mm pockets on all the upper teeth. There was no documentation that Respondent attempted to fully diagnose Patient G.P’s comprehensive oral health including extstence of adequate bone structure, or need to clear any periodontal conditions or infection before proceeding with further restorative treatment. 7. The Respondent also attempted prée-bridge crown seating restorations at teath numbers 8, g, and 10, treatments which either failed or were deficient with poor over-hang contours contributing to periodontal involvement in Patient G.P’s mouth. ‘Temporary bridges were placed between May of 2002 and June 11, 2003. Bridge Placement Work (8. From on or about June 14, 2003, through on or about May 27, 2004, Patient G.P. presented to the Respondent for prep work, impressions and placement of the fixed bridges in both the upper quadrants between teeth numbers 2-8 and 9-14. Respondent proceeded with prasthetic placement without awaiting resolution of previously diagnosed periodontal conditions and without fully determining that Patient G.P’s bone structure DOH v. Mourir Albert, D.0.5. Case no. 2005-65765 3 P.a4/a1 MAY-27-26 . 1G 15:52 AHA May 2? 2010 15:01 around abutment teeth was inadequate to support fixed prosthetics, 45 was evident in the pre-op x-rays he had taken. 9, During the entire course of treatment, Patient G.P. returned to the Respondent multipie times with complaints of pain, soreness and discomfort while eating and chewing related to the bridges. Patient G.P. complained the bridgework caused retention of food particles making hygiene difficult and tne sub-standard bridges looked and felt uncomfortable. Respondent was unable to alleviate the problems with the itHitted bridges and crowri restoration work tO remady Patient GP's complaints. 40. On or about May 1, 2005, Patient G.P. went fo 4 subsequent treating dentist for an evaluation and giagnesis of the bridge and restoration work that the Respondent had completed in August 2003. The subsequent treater determined that three options were possible: (a) Teeth numbers 2, 4, and 6, were compromised and needed extraction prior to replacement of the fixed bridge with implant supported bridgework (four implants with a maxillary overdenture); (b) Four implants with 4 Fixed restoration from canine to canine or 1* premolar to 4* premolar with 2 precision attachment partial denture to replace missing posterior teeth; and/or DOH v. Mounir Albert, D.D.S. Cage no. 2005-45765 4 P.@5/31 Mav-27-2010 15:53 auca May 2? 2010 15:01 (c) Place six implants following a sinus lift in maxillary right quadrant to facilitate the additional impiants, and replace the fixed prosthetics by the Respondent, with a fixed implant supported restoration from tooth numbers 4-13 with cantilevers at tooth numbers 3 and 14 positions. 11. The subsequent treater proposed a comprehensive remedial treatment plan for replacing ali the bridges following other restorative and therapeutic work, Subsequently, Patient G.P. filed this complaint with the department on or about September 26, 2005. 42. On or about March 16, 2006, Patient G.P. presented for & clinical examination before an agency ratained expert, conducted for the sole purpose of ascertaining whether the restorative and prosthetic treatment provided by the Respondent was within the prevailing standard of care for such treatments in the dental community or whether it was sub- standard. The agency expert initially determined that the Respondent failed to produce to the department adequate treatment records, including comprehensive full mouth x-rays, to justify such a comprehensive extensive course of dental restorations in Patient G.P’s mouth. DOH v. Mounir Albert, D.D.5. Case no. 2005-65765 5 P.B6/ 31 MAY-27-2618 15:53 HCA May 2f 2010 15:02 13, The agency expert specifically determined the following deficiencies existed in the restorative work and bridgework performed by the Respondent in Patient G.P’s mouth: a) Respondent had utilized teeth numbers 2, 4, 6, 13, and 45 as abutment teeth for the bridges without adequately determining that bone structure was deficient, that tooth number 4 was endodontically compromised with a distal pocket extending to its apex, that tooth number 2 was periodontally compromised, that tooth number 13 exhibited a periapical rarefaction indicating need for a root canal, and that the root of tooth number 6 was broken off under the gums; b) Respondent utilized compromised tooth number 4 a5 an abutment, which subsequently broke off and had to be rebuilt prior to placement of the fixed bridge, and broken off tooth number 6 was never recognized by the Respondent. Crown restorations at teeth numbers 8, 9, and 10, aither failed or were deficient with poor over-hang contours contributing to periodontal involvement in Patient G.P's mouth; c) The expert also determined from Respondent's pre-op * rays provided by the patient that there was indication of decay and/or periodontal problems with Patient G.P,, but Respondent performed restorative work without resolving those conditions regardless. . 14. The prevailing standard of dental care in performing bridgework requires a dentist to perform adequate diagnosis to determine the optimal design and appropriate use of a bridge and to properly make, seat, and fit DOH v. Mounir Albert, D.D.S. Case no. 2005-65765 6 Paral May 2? 2010 15:02 MAY-2?-2818 15:53 AHCA such a device to strong abutment natural teeth. The Respondent utilized Patient G.P’s teeth numbers.2, 4, 6, 13, and 15 as abutment teeth for bridges without determining from a comprehensive examination if these teeth were compromised and further weakened by endodontic and periodontal problems in Patient &.P’s mouth. The Respondent dic not perform complete - examinations including adequate x-rays, study models of the patient's mouth or present any full mouth x-rays to support a comprehensive treatment plan involving extensive restoration and prosthetic work in Patient G.P’s mouth. 15. The minimum standards of dental performance require a dentist who seats and places crowns to properly prep the teeth being restored, and to properly make, seat and fit crown restorations without overhang to prevent aggravation of gums and surrounding tissue. The Respondent failed to meet this standard in seating crowns in Patient G.P's mouth for use in conjunction with prosthetic appliances placed by the Respondent. COUNT ONE 16. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through fifteen (15) as if fully set forth herein. DOH v. Mounir Albert, D.D.5. Case no. 2005-65765 7 Peat MAY-27-2018 15:53 AHCA May 27 2010 t102 17. Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2001-2003), states that being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance, including, but not limited te, the undertaking of diagnosis and treatment for which the dentist ts not qualified by training or axnerience or being guilty of dental maipractice, shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Dentistry. 18. The Respondent was negligent and failed to meet the minimum standards of dental performance in diagnosing and treating Patient GP. in one or more of the following ways: a) The Respondent failed to provide a comprehensive diagnosis with adequate radiographs, and comprehensive treatment plan options prior to initiating restorative work in Patient G.P’s mouth in 2002-2003; ; b) The Respondent failed to give ample consideration to clear up the periodontal conditions/infections Patient G.P. initially presented with in May 2002, before proceeding with restorative bridge work; c) The Respondent failed to diagnose and treat periodontal and endodontic conditions in Patient G.P’s5 mouth before proceeding with comprehensive restorative bridge work; d) Respondent utilized teeth numbers 2, 4, 6, 13, and 45 as abutment teeth for the bridges without DOH v. Mounir Albert, 2.0.8. Case no. 2005-65765 8 P9731 MAY-2?-2618 15:54 e) 19. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent has violated Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2001-2003), by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance, including, but not limited to, the undertaking of diagnosis and treatment for which the dentist is not qualified by training or May 2? 2010 15:03 AHCA adequately determining that bone structure was deficient, that tooth number 4 was endodontically compromised with a distal pocket extending to its apex, that tooth number 2 was periodontally compromised, that tooth number 13 exhibited a periapical rarefaction indicating need for a root canal, and that the root of tooth number 6 was broken off under the gums; Respondent utilized compromised tooth number 4 as abutment, which subsequently oroke off and had to rebuilt prior to placement of the fixed bridge, and broken off foath 6 was never recognized by the . Respondent. Crown restorations at teeth numbers 8, 9, and 10, either failed or were deficient with poor over-hang contours contributing to periodontal invoivament in Patient G.P’s mouth. experience or being guilty of dental malpractice. 20. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through COUNT TWO fifteen (15) as if fully set forth herein. DOH v. Mounir Albert, 0.0.5. Case no. 2005-65765 P.1@/a1 MAY-2?-2618 15:54 AHCA May 2? 2010 15205 21. Section 466,028(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2001-2003), provides that failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, test results, and X rays, if taken, constitutes grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Dentistry. 22. Respondent failed to produce adequate treatment records or full mouth x-rays to justify the course of treatment in Patient G.P’s mouth. Respondent apparently presented his fixed bridge treatment pian, but did not present any alternate written treatment plans with expianation of risks and benefits and did not present options for removabie prostheses of implant supported bridgework which would have been more appropriate for the patient’s oral health and teeth bone structure. There was no documentation that Respondent fully diagnosed Patient G.P’s cornprehensive oral health including existence of adequate bone structure or need to clear any periodontal conditions before proceeding with restorative treatment. 93. Basect on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2001-2003), by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient. DOH v, Mounir Albert, D.D.5. Case no, 2005-65765 10 P.ii/at MAY-2?-2618 15:54 AHCA May 2¢ 2010 15%05 WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board of ' Dentistry enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: permanent revocation or suspension of Respondent's license, restriction of practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of Respondent on probation, corrective action, refund of fees billed or collected, remedial education and/or any other relief that the Board deems appropriate. SIGNED this yh day of Suby , 2006. M. Rony Francois, M.D, M.S.P.H., Pr.D. Secretary, Departrnent of Health FI LE D Wayne Mitchell OEPARTMENT OF HEALT+ Assistant General Counsel DEPUTY cL ous laura i DOH Prosecution Services Unit OATE - 0 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Florida Bar #869414 (850) 245-4640/FAX: 245-4683 DOH v Mounir Albert, D.0,S., Case No, 2005-65765 pep: 7/2,/ a & PCP Members: C7, WK, JT JAPSU\Medicalwayne mitchell\1-O6fdntAC's\albert 2005-65765(x)(m)brdgrstms.doc DOH v. Mounir Albert, D.D.5. Case no. 2005-65765 . N P.ile/at May 27 2010 15:0 MAY-2?-2818 15:55 AHCA , ° P.13/31 NOTICE OF RIGHTS Respondent has the right to request a hearing to be conducted in accordance with Section 120.569 and 120.57, Fiorida Statutes, to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative, to present evidence and argument, to call and cross-examine witnesses and to have subpoena and subpoena duces tecum issued on his or her behalf if a hearing is requested. NOTICE REGARDING ASSESSMENT OF casts Respondent is piaced on notice that Petitioner bas incurred costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this matter. Pursuant to Section 456.672(4), Florida Statutes, the Board shall assess casts related to the investigation and prosecution of 4 disciplinary matter, which may include attorney hours and costs, on the Respondent in addition to any other discipline imposed. DOH v Mounir Albert, D.D.S., Case No, 2005-65765 DOH v. Mounir Albert, D.D.S. : Case no, 2005-65765 if May 2? 2010 15:04 P1434 MAY-27-2618 15:55 AHCA M urphy, Myra From: Murphy, Myra Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:17 PM To: ‘drmouniralbert@ aol.com’ Subject: Case 2005.65765 Attachments: Albert.200565765.pdf RE: Case No. 2005-65765 Attached is the Administrative Complaint for the above referenced case, | will send this via certified mail also. Albert.200565765, paf (604 KB) Myra Murphy Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health/MQA 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin # C-65 Tallahassee, FL 32599-3265 850.245.4640 ext. 8189 Fax: 850.245.4683 Myra_Murphy @doh.state.fi,ug The mission of the Department of Health is to promote, protect and improve the health of aif people in Florida, Our vision is a healthier future for the people of Florida. MQA’s purpose 15 to protect the publi¢ through health care licensure, enforcement and information and our focus (§ to be the nation's leader ih quality health cara regulation. Please note: Florida has a very broad public records aw. Most writtan communications to or from stale officials regarding state businass are public records available to the publle and media upon request, Your e-mail communications may therefore be subject to publle disclosure.

Docket for Case No: 10-002907PL