STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DENTISTRY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, PETITIONER, Vv. CASE NUMBER: 2012-02188 CHARLES A. TOMEO, D.M.D., RESPONDENT. ee / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Petitioner Department of Health, by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Administrative Complaint action before the Board of Dentistry s eeking disciplinary action against the Respondent, Charles A. Tomeo, D.M.D., and, in support, alleges: 1. Petitioner is the agency charged with regulating the practice of Dentistry pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 466, Florida Statutes. 2. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 7780. 3. Respondent's address of record with the Department of Health is 1906 D 59” Street West, Bradenton, Florida 34209, 4. On or about January 8, 2009, Patient CP was seen by Respondent for the purpose of extracting tooth number 19. 5. Prior to the extraction, Respondent and Patient CP discussed a plan of treatment that included the need for a bone graft and a dental implant at extraction site #19. 6. Where a dental implant is anticipated after extraction, the minimum standard of diagnosis and treatment requires that the root(s) must be fully extracted. 7. Before the extraction, Respondent noted that tooth number 19 appeared to have a fractured furcation, and the tooth actually fractured on luxation. 8. On February 16, 2009, Patient CP. presented with discomfort and tenderness at extraction site #19, at which time the site was reopened, debrided and resutured. 9. The minimum standard of diagnosis and treatment requires that the dentist recognize and promptly diagnose the root fracture and remove entire the root in a timely manner when a dental implant is contemplated for that site. 10. No x-ray was taken after the extraction of tooth number 19 to confirm the complete removal of the fractured root. ii. No x-rays were taken on Patient CP’s return visit of February 16, 2009. 12. An x-ray taken at either time would have shown the entire mesial root of tooth number 19 extending from its apex up to the crest of the ridge. _ 13. A panoramic x-ray taken on November 2009 shows the entire mesial root of tooth number 19 extending from its apex up to the crest of the ridge. 14. A later periapical x-ray also shows the entire mesial root of tooth number 19 extending from its apex up to the crest of the ridge. 15. Alternatively, the minimum standard of diagnosis and treatment requires that the dentist recognize and promptly diagnose the root fracture; inform the patient that there is a retained root tip; inform the patient of the risks of leaving or removing the root tip; and inform the patient of the alternatives to dental implant if the root tip is retained. 16. Respondent did not inform Patient CP that there was a retained root tip, failed to inform Patient CP of the risks of leaving or removing the root tip, and failed to discuss with Patient CP that a dental implant could not be placed without removal of the root tip. 17. Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2009), 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 constitutes grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Dentistry. 18. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent violated section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2009), 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, . WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board of Dentistry enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: suspension of Respondent's licensure, or restriction of Respondent’s 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. ; wh SIGNED this 22 day of 2013. John H. ameter MD, FACS State neral and Secretary of Health Assistant General Counsel DOH Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 FILED DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DEPUTY CLERK CLERK Angel Sanders ~. PATE APR 2 2 2013 PCP: April 19, 2013 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3265 Florida Bar # 0630071 (850) 245-4444 (850) 245-4681 fax PCP Members: C.M., S.L., J.T. 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 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. DOH v. Tomeo, case number 2012-02188

Docket for Case No: 14-000576PL