STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DENTISTRY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, PETITIONER, Ve CASE NO: 2013-04914 KRISTINE MARSHALL, 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, Kristine Marshall, D.D.S., and in support thereof aileges: 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 13561. 3. Respondent's address of record is 7873 10th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida 33707. 4, The Department has reason to believe that Respondent may also be located at 2325 Ulmerton Road, Suite 27, Clearwater, Florida 33762. 5. On or about November 27, 2012, Patient T.V. presented to Respondent's practice for a consultation and examination. 6. Respondent developed : a treatment plan which included permanent crowns on multiple teeth and fixed bridges for teeth numbers ten (10) through fifteen (15), and numbers twenty-nine (29) through thirty-one (31). Respondent also treatment planned to extract Patient T.V’s tooth number eleven (11). 7. The minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment in the practice of dentistry requires a dentist to adequately diagnose the periodontal health of a patient prior to performing restorative work. 8. On that date, Respondent did not perform an evaluation to assess Patient T.V’s periodontal condition. 9. Radiographs taken by Respondent on that date indicated that Patient T.V. suffered from periodontal disease. 10. Respondent failed to diagnose Patient T.V’s periodontal condition. 11. On or about December 26, 2012, Patient T.V. presented to Respondent's practice for the extraction of tooth number eleven (11), along with preparations for the crowns and ‘the six-unit bridge from teeth numbers ten (10) through fifteen (15). 12. Following the extraction of tooth number eleven (11), Respondent placed a collagen-based bone filling augmentation material in. the extraction site and placed a suture. 13, On that date, Respondent also took final impressions for the crowns in preparation for the permanent restorations. . 14. On that date, Respondent did not provide any diagnosis of or treatment for Patient T.V.'s periodontal condition, 15. The minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment in the practice of dentistry requires a dentist to remove decay before placing restorations such as crowns. 16. The minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment in the practice of dentistry requires a dentist to adequately seat and verify the fit of a restoration such as a crown so as to avoid open margins. 17. Poor margins in restorations may lead to problems such as decay, compromised gum health, and tooth failure. matt ys” 18. On or about January 24, 2013, Patient T.V. presented to Respondent's practice for the seating of crowns on several teeth and for the seating of the fixed six-unit bridge from teeth numbers ten (10) to fifteen (15). 19. The long span fixed bridge from teeth numbers ten (10) to fifteen (15) had four replacement teeth to be supported by two natural teeth. _ 20, Patient T.V’s teeth numbers ten (10) and fifteen (15), the natural teeth serving as abutments supporting the six-unit bridge, were in a periodontal disease state. 21. The minimum. standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment in the practice of dentistry requires a dentist to assess whether abutment teeth are healthy enough to support a fixed bridge. 22. Seating a bridge on diseased teeth compromises the stability of the bridge and can lead to the bridge coming loose, as well as cause Injury to the abutment teeth. 23. On or about January 28, 2013, and on or about February 1, 2013, Patient T.V. returned to Respondent's practice with a complaint that the crowns placed by Respondent were too large and bulky, causing Patient T.V. to bite her lower lip. 24. Respondent took an impression for a study model to demonstrate to Patient TV. the differences in her teeth pre-treatment and post-treatment, 25. According to the clinical record for February 1, 2013, Respondent advised Patient T.V. that she needed to take time to get used to the new crowns and bridge. Patient T.V. did not return to Respondent's practice. 26. The minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment in the practice of dentistry requires a dentist to adequately treat a complication such as lip biting. 27. Lip biting can lead to ulcerations, inflammation, and discomfort to a patient. 28. Respondent failed to address and treat Patient T.W’s lip biting condition when Patient T.V.’s presented to Respondent's practice on January 28, 2013, and/or on February 1, 2013. 29. Radiographs taken by a subsequent treating dentist on February 11, 2014, showed that Patient TVs fixed six-unit bridge from teeth numbers ten (10) to fifteen (15) had residual decay and open margins. 30. The subsequent treating dentist observed that teeth numbers ten (10) and fifteen (15), the abutment teeth for the long span bridge, were mobile. 31. Section 466.028(1)(x),. Florida Statutes (2012), states 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 perforrnance[,]” shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Dentistry. 32. Respondent violated Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes, in one or more of the following ways: A. By failing to diagnose the periodontal health of Patient T.V. prior to performing restorative work; B, By failing to remove decay before placing restorations; C. By failing to adequately seat and verify the fit of restorations; _ D, By seating a fixed bridge on abutment teeth in a periodontal disease state; and/or E. By failing to address’ and treat Patient T.V’s lip biting condition on January 28, 2013, and/or on February i, 2013. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board of Dentistry enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: 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, SIGNED this 18" day of elu. 2015. John H. Armstrong, MD, FACS Surgeon General & Secretary Ridge AAMcPoymeds Bridget K. McDonnell Assistant General Counsel FILED DOH Prosecution Services Unit DEPARTMENT OF HEALT: 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 DEPUTY CLERK q Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Florida Bar #99874 CLERK: ) K€ Qrauers | 850.245.4444, FAX: 850.245.4681 eek aos wy ok Express Mail Address: DATES LS 2585 Merchants Row, Suite 105 Email: Bridget.McDonnell@fihealth.gov PCP: February 13, 2015 PCP Members: C.M., T.M., LB, DOH v. Kristine Marshall, D.0.S., Case # 2013-04914 7 coe 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. Kristine Marshall, D.D.S., Case # 2013-04914 8

Docket for Case No: 20-002096PL