STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, PETITIONER, Vv. CASE NO. 2007-37768 VINCENT J. MONTICCIOLO, D.D.S. RESPONDENT. ee | ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW Petitioner, Department of Health, by and through its undersigned counsel, and files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Dentistry against Respondent, Vincent J. Monticciolo, D.D.S., and in support thereof alleges: 1. 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. 2. At all times material to this Complaint, Respondent was a licensed dentist within the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 14899. Filed September 30, 2011 4:12 PM Division of Administrative Hearings 3. Respondent’s address of record is 4530 Grand Boulevard, New Port Richey, Florida 34652. 4. Respondent provided treatment to Patient M.M. from on or about May 13, 2004, through on or about October 10, 2006. 5. On or about*May 13, 2004, Patient M.M. presented to Respondent as a new patient with a fracture on tooth number 8. Respondent discovered that Patient M.M.’s tooth number 9 also had a fracture. Respondent recommended a build-up and crown for each fractured tooth. Respondent took impressions for the proposed crowns on tooth numbers 8 and 9, and cemented temporary crowns. 6. On or about May 13, 2004, Respondent failed to take an adequate full mouth series of radiographs of Patient M.M.’s dentition. The full mouth series of radiographs taken by the Respondent during this visit failed to show the entirety of the teeth roots to the apices of the patient's teeth numbers 1, 11, 17, 29, and/or 32. Respondent's failure to take an adequate full mouth series of radiographs on or about May 13, 2004, prevented Respondent from performing and/or evaluating the results of a complete radiographic examination of Patient M.M. as part of a new patient examination. -2 DOH v Vincent J. Monticciolo, DDS: Case #2007-37 765 7, On or about May 24, 2004, Patient M.M. presented to Respondent with a swollen upper lip. According to the treatment records, Patient M.M. had been waking up with a swollen upper lip every morning subsequent to her May 13, 2004, visit. Respondent performed a limited examination of Patient M.M. and prescribed cortisone and antibiotics to help with the patient’s swelling and combat potential infection. 8. On or about June 9, 2004, Patient M.M. presented to Respondent for the final cementation of crowns on tooth numbers 8 and 9. According to the treatment notes; Respondent-also. attempted to perform a new patient examination of Patient M.M., but failed to record the results of such an examination and/or failed to document a discussion of treatment plan options with Patient M.M. According to the treatment records, Respondent was to perform crown preparations on Patient M.M.’s tooth numbers 4-13 at the patient's next visit. 9, Respondent noted in a response to Petitioner’s investigation that Patient M.M. presented with “rampant decay, recession and collapsed dentition.” Despite Respondent's admission of this early assessment, he failed to perform, create, and/or record that he performed or created the following prior to initiating restorative treatment: (a) pre-treatment vitality ud QD 8 DOR v Vincent J, Monticcloie, DDS; Case #2007-377 testing; (b) excavation of Patient M.M.’s decay; (c) an analysis of Patient M.M/s collapsed vertical dimension of occlusion, occlusal function and/or occlusal planes; (d) pre-treatment diagnostic casts and/or pre-diagnostic mounted casts of Patient M.M.s dentition; and/or (e) a treatment plan protocol to restore the patient’s proper vertical dimension of occlusion and facial length. 10.. On or about December 6, 2004, over six (6) months after Patient M.M/s initial visit, Respondent performed a complete periodontal —examination-that-revealed-periodental-_pocket.depths that-were between 4 mm and 9 mm. Based on Respondent's periodontal findings, Patient M.M. was classified as a Type III periodontal case, meaning Patient M.M. had moderate periodontitis. Respondent further found that Patient M.M. had generalized alveolar periodontal bone loss, bleeding on periodontal probing, loss of gingival attachment, and gingival recession. i1. Despite diagnosing Patient M.M. with moderate periodontitis, Respondent treatment planned for only one (1) periodontal maintenance appointment. This appointment occurred on or about December 6, 2004, the same day that the Respondent performed the patient's periodontal examination. ~4- DOH v Vincent J. Monticciolo, DS; Case #2007-37768 12. Respondent failed to adequately treat and/or develop an adequate treatment plan for Patient M.M.s periodontal disease prior to initiating restorative treatment, despite diagnosing Patient M.M. with moderate periodontitis on or about December 4, 2004. 13. On or about March 29, 2006, Respondent permanently cemented crowns on Patient M.M.’s tooth numbers 18-20, 21, 22-27, and 28-31. Radiographs taken on or about April 19, 2006, revealed a poor marginal fit and/or contour of the crown on Patient M.M.’s tooth number -25:-Radiographs-taken-on-or-about-September13,-2006,.also revealed an open contact between Patient M.M.’s tooth numbers 28 and 29. COUNT ONE 14. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) as if fully set forth herein. 15. Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2003-2006), provides 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 to, the undertaking of diagnosis and treatment for which the dentist is not qualified by training or experience or being guilty of dental 5 gC DOH v Vincent J. Monticciolo, DDS; Case #2007-37768 malpractice constitutes grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Dentistry. 16. The prevailing standard of care requires that a dentist perform, document, and evaluate the results of both a complete radiographic examination and a complete periodontal examination, including periodontal pocket depth charting, as part of a “new patient” examination. 17. The prevailing standard of care requires that a dentist not perform major restorative work, such as the fabrication and final —~cementation-of crowns-and/er-bridges;-on-a patient with .active, moderate to severe periodontal disease without first diagnosing, treatment planning, and treating the patient's periodontal condition. 18. The prevailing standard of care when treating a patient with collapsed vertical dimension of occlusion requires that a dentist perform an analysis of the occlusal problem(s) and/or create a treatment protocol to appropriately restore the patient’s proper vertical dimension of occlusion, bite opening and facial Jength. 19. The prevailing standard of care requires that a dentist properly seat crowns with appropriate margins in the patient's mouth, -6- DOH v Vincant J. Monticciclo, DDS; Case #2007-3776€ 20. Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance in one or more of the following ways: a. on By taking an inadequate full mouth series of radiographs on or about May 13, 2004, that failed to show the entirety of the tooth structure, including the entirety of the roots to the apices of Patient M.M.’s teeth numbers 1, 11, 17, 29, and/or 32; . By failing to properly document the results of a new patient examination of Patient M.M. on or about June 9, 2004; By failing to perform pre-treatment vitality testing of Patient -M:Ms—-dentition,-despite.-Respondent’s assessment that Patient M.M. presented with “rampant decay”, . By failing to appropriately excavate Patient M.M’s decay prior to initiating restorative treatment, despite Respondent’s assessment that Patient M.M. presented with “rampant decay”; . By failing to adequately perform an analysis of Patient M.M.'s collapsed vertical dimension of occlusion, occlusal bite, occlusal function and/or occlusal planes, despite Respondent’s assessment that Patient M.M. presented with “collapsed dentition”; . By failing to make pre-treatment diagnostic casts and/or pre-diagnostic mounted casts of Patient M.M.’s dentition, despite Respondent’s assessment that Patient M.M. presented with “collapsed dentition”; DOK v Vincent 3, Monticcioio, DDS; Case #2007-37768 g. By failing to create a treatment protocol to restore the patient’s proper vertical dimension of occlusion and facial length, despite Respondent’s assessment that Patient M.M. presented with “collapsed dentition”; h. By waiting until on or about December 6, 2004, nearly six (6) months after Patient M.M.'s initial visit, to perform a complete periodontal examination, including periodontal pocket depth charting; i. By failing to adequately treat and/or develop an adequate treatment plan for Patient M.M.'s periodontal disease prior to initiating restorative treatment, despite diagnosing Patient M.M. with moderate periodontitis on or about December 4, 2004; | By-seating-a-crown-on Patient-M.M.’s tooth-number 25 with a poor marginal fit and/or contour; and/or k. By seating crowns on Patient M.M.'s tooth numbers 28 and 29 with poor marginal fit and open contact between the two teeth. 21. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2003-2006), 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 experience or being guilty of dental malpractice. . g& - DOK v Vincent 2. Monticciolo, DDS; Case #2007-37768 COUNT TWO 22. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) as if fully set forth herein. 23. Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2003-2006), 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 discipline by the Board of Dentistry. 24. Rule 64B5-17.002, Florida Administrative Code requires that a dentist shall maintain written records on each patient which shall contain, at a minimum, appropriate medica! history; results of clinical examination and tests conducted including the identification, or lack thereof, of any oral pathology or diseases; any radiographs used for the diagnosis or treatment of the patient; treatment plan proposed by the dentist; and treatment rendered to the patient. A dentist shall maintain the written dental record of a patient for a period of at least four (4) years from the date the patient was last examined or treated by the dentist. ~Q- DOH vy Vincent 1. Monticcioio, DDS: Case #2007-3B776& 25. Respondent failed to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment in one or more of the following ways: a. By taking a full mouth series of radiographs on or about May 13, 2004, that failed to show the entirety of the tooth roots to the apices of Patient M.M/s teeth numbers 1, 11, 17, 29, and/or 32; b. By failing to record the results of a new patient examination of Patient M.M. on or about June 9, 2004; c. By failing to record a discussion of treatment options with Patient M.M. in the patient treatment record prior to initiating restorative treatment on or about June 9;-2004;- d. By failing to record the results of any pre-treatment vitality testing of Patient M.M.s remaining dentition; e, By failing to record the results of an analysis of Patient M.M.S collapsed vertical dimension of occlusion, occlusal function, or occlusal planes; f, By failing to take and/or retain any pre-treatment diagnostic casts made of Patient M.M.'s mouth; and/or g. By failing to document in the patient treatment record a treatment plan protocol to restore Patient M.M.’s proper vertical dimension of occlusion and facial length. 26. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2003-2006) by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of DOH v Vincent J. Monticciole, DDS; Case #2007-37768 treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, test results, and x-rays, if taken. 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: ~~ merce soem a SIGNED this a4 day of Vs _ Bee, 2008. Ana M. Viamonte Ros, M.D., M.P.H. State Surgeon General ff) / yy) | Hy FILED Wayne Mitchell DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Assistant General Counsel CLERK Ros UTY CLERK DOH Prosecution Services Unit DATE Rachel Brooky 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 41(07/2008 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Florida Bar # 869414 850.245.4640 Ext. 8189 850.245.4683 FAX \ PCP Members: (77, DE Fé q DOH v Vincent 7. Monticciolo, DDS: Case #2007-37 768 DOR v Vincent 3. Monticcioia, DDS; Case #2007 NOTICE OF RIGHTS 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 her behalf if a hearing is requested. NOTICE REGARDING ASSESSMENT OF COSTS Respondent is placed on notice that Petitioner has incurred costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this matter. Pursuant toe 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. DOH v Vincent J. Monticciolo, DDS; Case #2007-37768 caw-4 DOH v Vincent J. Monticcioio, DDS; Case #2007-37768

Docket for Case No: 11-005076PL