STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DENTISTRY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, | PETITIONER, | v. CASE NO. 2011-04317 JACK A. CLINE, D.D.S., RESPONDENT. ——$ $$ 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, Jack A. Cline, D.DS, 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 8037. 3. Respondent's address of record is 654 Via Verona, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442. 4. Respondent provided dental treatment to Patient HJ. from on or about November 14, 2008, through on or about September 27, 2010. 5. On or about November 14, 2008, Patient H.J. presented to Respondent as a new patient for the purposes of establishing a general dentist-patient relationship. Respondent performed a comprehensive oral examination and exposed a full mouth set of radiographs. A periodontal screening and recording was documented. A charting of existing conditions was completed. Respondent advised Patient H.J. that, “#18 - 20 Bridge is out, will not recement, tooth broken down.” | 6. Onor about September 14, 2009, Patient H.J. presented back to Respondent. Respondent's treatment notes documented that a new bridge needs to be completed for teeth numbers 18 through 20. 7. On or about September 17, 2009, Patient H.J. presented back to Respondent. Respondent presented a treatment plan to Patient H.J. to construct a new bridge for teeth numbers 18 through 22. Respondent advised Patient H.J. a new bridge was necessary due to recurrent decay in tooth number 20. Tooth number 20 had prior endodontic treatment that was decayed and had a fractured steel post. Respondent advised Patient H.J. that if she could not afford to have tooth number 20 extracted, the tooth could be -2- ® @ left in place to help retain the height of the alveolar ridge. “Respondent advised this course of action, even though tooth number 20 had recurrent decay, was broken, and no longer able to adequately support a bridge. 8. At the September 17, 2009 appointment, Patient HJ. signed the proposed treatment plan, agreeing to Respondent's plan to fabricate a new bridge for teeth numbers 18 through 22. Respondent's treatment plan should have included removal of decayed tooth number 20, before seating a new permanent bridge. | 9. On or about October 20, 2009, Patient H.J. presented back to Respondent to begin treatment for the new bridge for teeth numbers 18 through 22. Respondent's treatment notes documented, “bridge Prep 18-22.” 10. On or about November 4, 2009, Patient H.J. presented back to Respondent to have the new bridge seated. Respondent's treatment notes documented the bridge for teeth numbers 18 through 22 was seated. The new bridge was permanently cemented, over tooth number 20, which had a decayed root canal. Respondent failed to properly treat Patient H.J.’s dental problems by leaving tooth number 20 in place instead of removing it before the new bridge was cemented. This was not an acceptable treatment plan. ® e 11. Asa result of the dental treatment Respondent provided, Patient H.J.s new bridge caused her discomfort and sensitivity. Patient Ha. went to a Subsequent treater, Dr. R.G. Dr. R.G. extracted tooth number 20, to relieve Patient H.J.'s pain. | 12. The prevailing standard of diagnosis and treatment for rendering dental treatment requires a dentist to address compromised teeth before seating a permanent bridge. Respondent should have extracted tooth number 20, then placed a temporary bridge from teeth numbers 18 through 22, allowing time for the surgical area TO heal, before proceeding to seat the permanent bridge. : 13. Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2008 - 2010), provides that “[bJeing 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[,]” shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Dentistry. 14. 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: By failing, on or about November 4, 2009, to extract decayed root canal tooth number 20, before proceeding with fixed prosthetic treatment. Respondent should have extracted tooth number 20, created a temporary bridge for teeth numbers 18 through 22, and allowed the surgical area to heal before seating the permanent bridge. 15. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2008-2010), by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by falling 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. DAT 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. LA 4 day of fAay, 2012. STEVEN L. HARRIS, M.D., M.Sc. Interim State Surgeon General Florida Department of Health JENNIFER A. TSCHETTER Interim General Counsel Florida Department of Health KARIN BYRNE Attorney Supervisor Prosecution Services Unit ri 4 err ttre nentnineremnsn nent MENT ‘OF HEALT Jeff G. Peters DEPART TY CLERK Assistant General Counsel SIGNED this CLERK aa else DOH Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3265 _ Florida Bar No. 718343 850.245.4640 850.245.4683 FAX PCP: 05-04-12 PCP Members: J.T.M. & C.M. 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. Jack A. Cline, D.D.S.; Case # 2011-04317

Docket for Case No: 16-004998PL