v. CASE NO. 2009-10480
Petitioner is the state department charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 466, Florida Statutes.
At all times material to this Complaint, Respondent was a licensed dentist within the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 16489.
Respondent's address of record is 1815 SW 29th Street, Ocala, Florida 34471.
Respondent provided treatment to Patient D.A., a 79 year old female, on or about March 20, 2009.
Patient D.A. presented to Respondent as a new patient at "Spivey Dental Cala Hills Clinic" (Cala Hills) located at 2130 SW 22nd Pl # 102, Ocala, FL, 34471, on or about March 20, 2009. Cala Hills is one of six clinics in the Ocala, Florida area which the Respondent apparently operates under a dental management company known as "Dental Health Services" (DHS). DHS clinics in the Ocala area also include Canopy Oak Clinic, Steeplechase, Health Brook, Spivey Modern Dentistry, and Spivey Modern Dentistry, South.
Respondent presented complaining of pain in her lower right mouth and blood in her mouth. Respondent performed a comprehensive
( new patient exam, and notated in treatment notes for that exam that he
took 2 periapical, 4 bitewing, and panoramic x-rays. Respondent diagnosed Patient D.A. as having an infection, and prescribed antibiotics.
The medical history form contained in Respondent's treatment
records for Patient D.A. is unsigned and dated 7-23-09, four months after Patient D.A.'s appointment. Respondent notated in the treatment notes for the March 20, 2009 visit, that he reviewed the medical history form with
J; \PSU\Medical\ wayne mitchell\1-lOf..AC's\Spivey(x)(m)(t) 09-10480,ACexam.xtrn.dntrS.credit).doc
',' ' '
'
'' '
Patient D.A. However, that would not have been possible with the form dated 7-23-09, which was never signed/verified by the patient. This clearly shows Respondent proposed and embarked upon treatment without adequately reviewing Patient D.A.'s updated medical history with her.
On or about March 20, 2009, Respondent formulated and presented a treatment plan for Patient D.A. consisting of the following as included in Respondent's treatment notes for Patient D.A.; the Treatment Plan "Patient Informed Consent Agreement":
Ten surgical extractions: Teeth #1,2,3,6,11,12,13,14,28,29 code D7210 surgical removal of erupted tooth.
Teeth #2-15 code D5810 interim complete denture. Teeth #19-30 code 5811 interim complete denture.
· Teeth # 2-15 code D5730 reline complete upper denture. Teeth #19-30 code D5731 reline complete lower denture. Plan notes: Provider Comments: pt accepts all t:x.
Agreement: I understand the recommended treatment for my conditions, and the risks of such treatment, any alternatives and their risks as well as the consequences of doing nothing. All fees have been explained. (hand· written next to this part of statement was: "NO!'') All of my questions have been answered and I have not been given any guarantees.
According to the Respondent's notes, Patient D.A. agreed with this plan and signed it. Respondent further reported that Patient D.A. agreed to have impressions made during the initial visit for the planned full upper/lower dentures, and accordingly entered into a Capital One "Care
,,, · Credit" financing contract with Respondent whereby her insurance was to
J:\PSU\Medical\wayne mitchell\l•l0f •.AC's\Spivey(x)(m)(t) 09-10480,ACexam.xtrn.dntrs,credit).doc
APR-29-2011 17:29 P.07/15
pay $737.87, while she paid approximately $5,000 (the plan consent lists amount as $4102) in full to Respondent for the proposed work through the line of credit, for which she would make monthly payments back to the credit company. The Capital One loan account was originated on or about
.·i
March 23, 2009.
Patient D.A. refused any further treatment from Respondent
I'
after the initial March 20, 2009 visit. On or about March 27, 2009, Patient
D.A. demanded a refund or credit back to the Capital One line of credit which was opened by Respondent in her name, for the full amount she was being billed by capital One ($5000).
Respondent apparently had immediate full dentures fabricated for Patient D.A. by the time she presented demanding a refund in full of the unauthorized loan on March 27, 2009. Respondent had his office credit
back only a portion of the $5000 credit, asserting that Patient D.A. needed
','
1
, to pay for the initial exam, impressions and fabrication of the temporary
dentures. Respondent credited back $2837.87 to the Capital One account opened in Patient D.A.'s name.
Patient D.A. filed this complaint in May 2009, asserting that she did not know that she was getting impressions for dentures taken by
J:\PSU\Medic.al\wayne mltchell\1·10f..AC's\Splvey(x)(rn)(t) 09-10480,ACexam.xtrn.dntrs.credlt).doc
APR-29-2011 17=29 P.08/15
i Respondent on March 20, 2009, or that she was consenting to further treatment in that she did not present back for further appointments.
· Patient D.A. further stated she had no idea a loan was being taken out by Respondent in her name that day. Patient D.A. claimed that she did not sign for, or otherwise authorize a loan from Capital One to be taken out for dental treatment at Respondent's clinic.
Respondent failed to produce a signed copy of any credit or health loan application for Patient D.A. dated on or about March 20, 2009, when requested to do so in the course of investigating this case and in an attempt to verify Patient D.A.'s claims.
This left Patient D.A. without the immediate full dentures Respondent purportedly fabricated and billed her for, requiring full payment in advance absent her authorization and final consent. Patient D.A. refused any further treatment after the initial visit, and those dentures have never been delivered to her.
Patient D.A. refutes authorizing Respondent to open a $5000 health care loan in her name, while Respondent has failed to produce a loan application copy signed by Patient D.A. to substantiate his claim that
J: \PSU\Medi<:c1I\ wayne mitchell\1-1Of.. AC's\Spivey( x)(m)(t) 09-10480,ACexam.xtrn.dntrs.credit).doc
the patient authorized payment in full for his treatment plan to extract all remaining teeth and fabricate full upper/lower dentures.
Respondent to date has not attempted, and/or has refused, to
),
[,:
' · refund or credit back to Patient P.A. the full amount paid in advance once further treatment and/or the immediate dentures were refused.
!· COUNT ONE
Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through sixteen (16) as if fully set forth herein.
the course of treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, test results, and x-rays, if taken, constitutes
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
j . billed or collected, remedial education and/or any other relief that the .
Board deems appropriate.
J:\PSU\Medical\wayne mitchell\1- lDf..AC's\Spivey(x)(m)(t) 09-104B0,ACexc1m.xtrn.dntrs,credlt).doc
Respondent has the right to request a hearing to be conducted in accordance with Section 120.569 and 120.57, Florida 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 his behalf if a hearing is requested.
Respondent is placed on notice that Petitioner has incurred costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this matter. Pursuant to Section 456,072(4), Florida Statutes, the Board shall assess costs related to the investigation and prosecution of a disciplinary matter, which may include attorney hours and costs, on the Respondent in addition to any other discipline imposed.
