STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DENTISTRY ; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Petitioner, CASE NO. 2015-10155 v. PHYLLIS LAURA THOMPSON, DH, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Petitioner Department of Health, by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, PHYLLIS LAURA THOMPSON, DH, and 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 dental hygienist in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbered DH 11828. 3. Respondent's address of record with the Board of Dentistry is 11000 62" Avenue, Apt. 102-A, Seminole, Florida 33772. 4. By letter dated April 15, 2015, Professionals Resource Network (PRN) reported that Phyllis Laura Thompson, a dental hygienist, is in violation of section 456.072(1)(hh), Florida Statutes. 5. PRN is the State of Florida's Impaired Practitioners Program, serving as the Consultant to the Department of Health and Board of Dentistry on matters of substance abuse, chemical dependency, psychiatric illness, disruptive behavior, boundary violation, cognitive impairment, and physical disability among health care practitioners. 6, Ms. Thompson initially self-reported to PRN on November 11, 2011, secondary to a history of alcohol dependence and recent release from twenty months of incarceration at Lowell Correctional Facility for a felony conviction following her fourth Driving Under the Influence (DUI) charge within four years. She had an additional DUI conviction in 1996, 7, PRN referred her for evaluation by UF Shands—Florida Recovery Center; the Evaluation Report indicated that although she professed abstinence since entering prison, she admitted when confronted with testing that she had resumed drinking after being released from prison. 8. The evaluation stated that her reported drinking pattern was to abstain from alcohol during the week and then on Saturday, while cleaning the house, she would begin consuming beer at 10:00 a.m. and throughout the day. drink up to eighteen beers, a pattern that was in place for ten years, until she went to prison. She denied use of other drugs. 9, The Shands report diagnosed her with Axis I: Alcohol dependence; Axis Il: Cluster B features, narcissistic, histrionic, antisocial factors likely secondary to alcohol dependence; Axis III Psoriasis and perimenopause; Axis IV: Severe familial, career, financial, and legal stressors related to her alcoholism; and Axis V: GAF! score of 70. 10. The evaluator advised that Ms. Thompson was a candidate for intensive outpatient treatment in that she had never had a primary treatment experience in the past. He added that she has considerable denial and rationalization about her drinking, and if she responded well to the program and receives support, she should be safe to practice even while engaged in the outpatient program. Other than her time off while in prison, he concluded that she had not had work effects on her practice as a dental hygienist 1 “GAF" stands for Global Assessment Functioning and rates on a scale of 0-100, with higher scores indicating higher functioning. Optimal scores range from 91-100, and persons with mild psychological problems fall into the 71 to 90 range. A GAF rating is made as a standard part of all psychiatric/psychological diagnoses. -3- directly related to alcohol, and was appropriate for participation in a PRN program. ; 11. On December 21, 2011, Ms. Thompson signed a five-year PRN Chemical Dependency Monitoring Contract which required that she enter and successfully complete an intensive outpatient treatment, and that she remain withdrawn from dental hygiene practice until cleared by PRN. She entered into the program on January 9, 2012, and was successfully discharged from outpatient treatment on April 12, 2012, after several negative urine tests and one negative PEth test.? She was cleared to return to practice in May 2012. She was still required to submit to drug testing. 12, On June 12, 2014, PRN added a PEth test for Ms, Thompson as a result of her having had five dilute urine test results. A “dilute” urine test means that the donor was exceptionally hydrated at the time of the test and the urine—along with everything in the urine—was diluted. 13, On June 19, 2014, PRN received Ms. Thompson's June 42m positive PEth test results of 23.41 ng/mL, which indicated a huge ingestion of alcohol and recent heavy drinking. She was refrained from practice on 2 Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) testing is described as the most accurate blood test to determine alcohol abuse for family courts, fitness to practice, clinical studies, and treatment centers, It provides a detection of alcohol use with 99% sensitivity within the past three weeks, and even longer the larger or more frequent the binge session, PEth testing detects “direct biomarkers” formed only after someone has consumed alcohol. -4- June 20" and evaluated again on July 10, 2014 by a Department-approved evaluator. ; ! 14... According to the July 10 evaluation, Ms. Thompson's diagnosis was Axis I: alcohol dependence; Axis IT: Narcissistic traits; Axis ITI: Psoriasis; Axis IV: Financial hardship: and Axis V: GAF 75. The evaluator added: “Ms. Thompson appears to remain in denial about her recent use of alcohol. She has five Driving Under the Influence charges in the past. She has tested positive for alcohol on two PEth tests (one through PRN and one for this evaluation). It is recommended for continued monitoring by PRN to ensure her sobriety. Ms. Thompson is recommended for return to work once she is testing negative for alcohol and completed an Intensive Outpatient Program.” 15. On July 21, 2014, PRN provided Ms. Thompson options for outpatient treatment. The same day, she contacted a PRN compliance manager with regard to her treatment options and stated: “I am drinking vodka and I do drink, but I am not an alcoholic. I have destroyed my integrity and no one believes me. It will not take me long to end my life.” 16. Based on this definitive suicidal statement, the PRN compliance manager contacted the Pinellas County Sheriff's office to complete a wellness check on Ms. Thompson. Immediately after reporting to Ms. Thompson's residence, the Sheriff’s officers were able to subdue her and transfer her to Largo Medical Center to be evaluated psychologically. Following that evaluation, Ms. Thompson was transferred to the Personal Enrichment and Mental Health Services and placed on 72-hour residential evaluation. 17. On August 1, 2014, Ms. Thompson entered into intensive outpatient treatment at Operation PAR and was later discharged from that facility on November 4, 2014, after completing 90 days of treatment with negative drug screens. She was given a new monitoring contract on December 19, 2014, which required her to refrain from practice until she successfully completed treatment and was re-evaluated for safety to practice, 18. By January 30, 2015, Ms. Thompson had not signed the contract and PRN sent her a certified letter on that date with a February 13 deadline to sign and return it. PRN received the signed contract on February 16, 2015. 19. On February 26, 2015, Ms. Thompson had a dilute urine drug screen and was warned by PRN that she must not submit dilute drug screens. Ms. Thompson did not check into the toxicology system for testing on either March 18 and 19, 2015. PRN ordered a test for March 20, but Ms. Thompson never resumed testing. 20. OnMarch 20, 2015, Ms. Thompson informed her group facilitator that she was dropping out of PRN due to finahcial reasons, and told her PRN compliance manager that she was planning to move to Atlanta, Ga., to start her life over, since she could not afford PRN. 21. PRN sent Ms. Thompson a certified letter on March 17, 2015, giving her a deadline of March 30, 2015, to contact PRN. She did not contact PRN by that date and PRN has had no further contact with her. Her file has been closed. 22. It is PRN’s opinion that Ms, Thompson's practice as a dental hygienist could constitute a danger to the citizens of Florida. 23, Section 466.028(1)(mm), Florida Statutes, provides that disciplinary action may be taken against a licensee for violating any provision of Chapter 466 or 456, Florida Statutes, or the rules promulgated thereto, 24, Section 456.072(1)(hh), Florida Statutes, provides that being terminated from a treatment program for impaired practitioners, which Is overseen by an impaired practitioner consultant as described in s. 456.076, Florida Statutes, for failure to comply, without good cause, with the terms of a monitoring or treatment contract entered into by the licensee, or for not successfully completing any drug treatment or alcohol treatment program. 25. By failing to complete her contracted PRN treatment program, Ms. Thompson violated section 456.072(1)(hh), Florida Statutes, thereby violating section 466.028(1)(mm), Florida Statutes. 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 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. 4h. yO SIGNED this \2 day of J wy , 2016. Celeste Philip, MD, M.P.H. Surgéon General and Secretary ED oer eon oF ea ol lo} Deputy Clerk cot Hill vad ord cuprk fave! 5 Assistant General Counsel pate JUL 13 201 DOH Prosecution Services Unit - —s 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Florida Bar # 909289 850.245.4640 FAX 850.245.4681 PCP: July 8, 2016 PCP Members: Joe Thomas, DDS Thomas Britten, DDS Kathryn Cavanzon, DH -

Docket for Case No: 16-006838PL