The Issue The issue is whether the score that Respondent assigned to the Patient Amalgam Preparation section of the clinical part of Petitioner's June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination was arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination. A passing score for the clinical part of the examination is 3.0. Petitioner received a score of 2.9, so he failed the clinical part of the examination. Petitioner has challenged the grade of 2.0 that he received on the Patient Amalgam Preparation of the clinical part of the examination. The score of 2.0 is derived from averaging the 3s that Petitioner received from two evaluators and the 0 that he received from one evaluator. Petitioner challenges only the score of 0, and he needs two additional points to pass the clinical part of the examination. The administration of the clinical part of the dental examination requires Respondent to recruit and train numerous examiners and monitors, all of whom are experienced, licensed dentists. The training process includes standardization exercises designed to ensure that all examiners are applying the same scoring criteria. The evaluation of specific procedures are double-blind, with scoring sheets that identify candidates by test numbers, so examiners do not know the identity of the candidate whose procedures they are scoring. The section that is the subject of this case requires the candidate to demonstrate certain skills on a live patient. While working with the patient, the candidate is supervised by a monitor. When the candidate has completed the required dental work to his satisfaction, he so advises the monitor, who sends the patient to the dental examiners. For the section that is the subject of this case, three dental examiners examine the patient and score the procedure. These examiners do not communicate with each other, and each performs his or her examinations and scores the procedure in isolation from the other examiners. Communications between examiners and candidates are exclusively through monitor notes. For the section that is the subject of this case, the maximum possible score that a candidate may receive is a 5. Passing grades are 3, 4, or 5. Nonpassing grades are 0, 1, or A score of 3 indicates minimal competence. The Patient Amalgam Preparation section of the clinical part of the examination required Petitioner to remove caries from one tooth and prepare the tooth for restoration. These procedures are of obvious importance to dental health. Poor preparation of the tooth surface will probably result in the premature failure of the restoration. A restoration following incomplete removal of caries will probably result in ongoing disease, possibly resulting in the loss of the tooth. Written materials, as well as Respondent's rules, which are discussed below, require a 0 if caries remain, after the candidate has presented the patient as ready for restoration. Other criteria apply to the Patient Amalgam Preparation procedure, but this criterion is the only one of importance in this case. Examiners 207 and 394 each assigned Petitioner a 3 for this procedure, but Examiner 417 assigned him a 0. Examiners 207 and 394 noted some problems with the preparation of the tooth, but neither detected any caries. Examiner 417 detected caries and documented her finding, as required to do when scoring a 0. Examiner 207 has served as an examiner for 10 years and has conducted 15-20 evaluation examinations during this time. Examiner 417 graduated from dental school in 1979. Examiner 394 has been licensed in Florida since 1995 and has served as an examiner only three years. The instructions to examiners emphasize that they are to detect caries "exclusively" tactilely, not visually. Tactile detection of the stickiness characteristic of caries is more reliable than visual detection. For example, caries assumes the color of dentin as the decay approaches the dentin. Despite the requirement to detect caries by touch, not sight, Examiner 417 initially testified that she detected the caries by sight. Later in her testimony, she backtracked and stated that she was not sure if she felt it or saw it. Her earlier, more definitive testimony is credited; Examiner 417 never found caries by touch, only by sight. In DOAH Case No. 03-3998, Examiner 417 readily conceded that she must have missed the caries that another examiner had detected, inspiring little confidence in her caries-detection ability. In that case, her value as one of two dentists in the majority was insignificant, even though the majority finding prevailed. In this case, Examiner 417's role as the lone dentist who found caries is too great an evidentiary burden for her to bear. The vagueness of her testimony and her reliance upon visual caries-detection preclude a finding of caries in this patient. Three other additional factors undermine Examiner 417's finding of caries. First, Examiners 207 and 394 found no caries. Examiner 207 has considerable experience. Examiner 394 has less experience, but he was the lone evaluator in DOAH Case No. 03-3998 to detect calculus deep below the gums, proving that he is both meticulous and a demanding grader. Together, then, the findings of Examiners 207 and 394 of no caries carry much greater weight than the contrary finding of Examiner 417. Nor was it likely that Examiner 417 accidentally dislodged the caries. No evidence suggest that she was the first examiner to examine the patient, and her means of detecting caries was visual, not tactile. Second, the location of the caries in this case was directly in the center of the tooth. So located, it was difficult for Petitioner and Examiners 207 and 394 to miss. Third, by two monitors' notes, Petitioner twice obtained the evaluators' permission to expand the drilled area, due to the extensiveness of the caries, suggesting that Petitioner was devoting careful attention to the removal of all caries, even if it meant an atypical site preparation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order granting Petitioner an additional two points on the clinical part of the June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination and determining that he has passed this part of the dental examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 James Randolph Quick Driftwood Plaza 2151 South U.S. Highway One Jupiter, Florida 33477 Cassandra Pasley Senior Attorney Department of Health Office of the General Counsel 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Petitioner, Cecelia Diaz, is qualified for licensure as a dentist in Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Dentistry was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of dentists in this state and the regulation of the dental profession. Petitioner is not licensed as a dentist in Florida. Petitioner was awarded a degree in General Dentistry at the University of Santiago de Cuba in October 1973. Thereafter, for almost fifteen years, she practiced dentistry in Cuba. In 1981 her husband was forced to leave Cuba for political reasons but, because of her advanced schooling, she was denied permission by the Cuban government to leave with him. In 1987, Petitioner was permitted to leave Cuba for the United States with her two daughters. In February 1991, for reasons not relevant to the issues here, Petitioner and her husband were divorced. She was forced to provide for her two daughters with no financial help from their father. At the time she was both working and studying to prepare for her dental licensing examinations. In May 1991, Petitioner sat for and passed Parts I and II of the National Examination. The following November, she presented her documents for the mannequin examination, the third part of the examination and the last one to be offered in Florida. Initially, Petitioner was denied permission to take the mannequin examination because, it was alleged, she did not have the requisite educational credentials. However, one week before the mannequin examination was to be given, she appeared before the Board of Dentistry and convinced the members to allow her to take the mannequin examination with the understanding her results would be withheld pending receipt of appropriate documentation from Cuba. Petitioner did not pass the mannequin examination, and, she contends, between 1991 and 1995, there was no way for a foreign dentist to be licensed as a dentist in Florida, upon testing by a mannequin examination. Only New York and California administered a mannequin examination, and Petitioner went to California to take a course to prepare herself for taking the mannequin examination in California. After taking the course, she returned to Florida to prepare to take the examination, and in March 1994, in furtherance of that aim, searched for patients who met the criteria needed for the examination to practice on. She admits this was a mistake. As a result of her actions, on April 1, 1994, she was charged in Circuit Court in Hillsborough County with practicing dentistry without a license. Her attorney recommended she accept a plea bargain with pre-trial intervention. Based on her successful completion of the pre- trial intervention program, the matter was closed without Petitioner having a conviction on her record. In 1995, Florida initiated a program for the licensing of foreign dentists and Petitioner was selected to participate in January 1996. She was in the program for two years at the University of Florida, assisting full time. In June 1998, Petitioner took the State of Florida Dentistry examination. She passed the written part of the examination and was given high passing grades on the clinical portion by two of the three examiners. The third clinical examiner, however, gave her a grade low enough to cause her to fail the clinical portion. Petitioner went to appear before a review panel in Tallahassee where, she claims, the examiner who did the review agreed with her on the discrepancy. The review examiner recommended, however, that though she could request a hearing, the hearing would be held after the next examination, and he felt, from looking at her work, that she could pass the examination. Therefore, she did not request a rehearing. Petitioner took the clinical portion of the dental examination in December 1998. She did not pass, though she feels she did well on all questions except that relating to what she referred to as the RCT, not otherwise defined. This one question caused her to fail the examination by .007 of a point. Petitioner considers it unusual that in the past, everyone who took the review course for foreign dentists at the University of Florida, the one she took, passed the exam. She did not. Ms. Diaz requested a review of the procedure for which she did not obtain a passing grade and found that the reviewer assigned to her was the same individual who had conducted the review of her prior effort. The reviewer began examining her work in a way which she did not consider fair, and when she tried to explain her procedure, he accused her of screaming at him. She requested the review be terminated and she left the office in tears. After that review, Petitioner filed an application for formal hearing, but before the hearing could be held, in May 1999 she received notification from the Board that she had passed and the hearing was not necessary. However, before a license was issued, in August 1999, Petitioner was again arrested in Hillsborough County and charged with practicing dentistry without a license. Petitioner admits that at the time alleged in 1999 she practiced dentistry without a license, and that in 1994 she also practiced dentistry without a license. Petitioner contends that she only began seeing patients in both instances when people from Cuba, who knew she was a dentist and who had no money for dental care, asked her for help. She claims to have taken little money for the work she did - only a small amount to pay for the supplies it was necessary for her to buy. A search of Petitioner’s home was conducted on July 28, 1999, pursuant to a search warrant. The investigator conducting the search found an appointment book, dental records, books and papers, in addition to a dental chair with a basin, as well as an x-ray machine and cabinets of dental equipment and supplies. Taped to some cabinets were before and after pictures of patients. Petitioner contends that at the time of the search she had all that equipment, which she had been given without pay by the custodian of a mall in which a dentist’s office had closed. The custodian was told by the landlord to get rid of the equipment, and he remembered Petitioner who had come into the mall earlier in search of a site for a dental office when she opened. At the time, the space had been rented to another tenant. However, the custodian remembered Petitioner and called her to ask if she wanted the equipment. She did, and he helped her transport it to her home. At no time did he take any money from Petitioner, nor did she do any dental work for him. Nonetheless, Petitioner was again convicted of practicing dentistry without a license. At its meeting in Tampa on January 8, 2000, the Board of Dentistry considered Petitioner’s application for licensure and voted to deny it based on her implication in two incidents of practicing dentistry without a license. Even though no adjudication of guilt was entered in either case, it was the official action which constituted being found guilty of those offenses regardless of adjudication which supported the Board action. Petitioner is currently working as a receptionist in an office making $300 per week working nine-hour days. Her current financial obligations for school loans and other debt exceeds $42,000. No evidence of any malpractice or inappropriate treatment was forthcoming.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry issue a license to practice dentistry in Florida to the Petitioner, Cecelia C. Diaz, such license being placed on probation for a period of five years under such conditions as the Board may specify. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 2000. In Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs, The Capital, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dominic J. Baccarella, Esquire Baccarella & Baccarella, P.A. 4144 North Armenia Avenue Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33607 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Insurance Commissioner should discipline the Respondent, Brian Craig Parker, for alleged violations of the Insurance Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Brian Craig Parker, is a licensed health and life insurance agent. He had a contract with Denticare appointing him to act as Denticare's agent in selling prepaid dental insurance. On or about March 19, 1992, the Respondent, acting as an insurance agent, met with Christine Gamse and accepted her application for Denticare coverage and her check in the amount of $75, representing a $60 premium, plus a $15 "policy fee." The Respondent never submitted Gamse's Denticare application or premium to the insurer. In May, 1992, Gamse complained to Denticare that she still was not covered. Denticare confirmed that Gamse was not covered and offered to telephone the Respondent. When contacted by Denticare, the Respondent stated that he thought he had sent the application and premium to Denticare but that he had been very busy and that his recall was sketchy. Denticare had Gamse reapply directly to Denticare. On or about April 3, 1992, the Respondent, acting as an insurance agent, met with Donald Naegele for the purpose of presenting two dental insurance policies. Naegele decided to apply for Denticare dental insurance. The Respondent advised Naegele to write the Respondent a check in the amount of $104 to accompany Naegele's insurance application, representing a $89 premium, plus a $15 "policy fee." The Respondent told Naegele that he would submit the application by April 20 and that Naegele's coverage would be effective on May 1, 1992. The Respondent negotiated Naegele's check on or about April 7, 1992, but he never submitted Naegele's Denticare application or premium to the insurer. On or about May 1, 1992, Naegele attempted to use Denticare to pay for dental services and was informed that he was not covered by Denticare. He telephoned the Respondent several times and left messages on an answering machine but none were returned. He then telephoned Denticare, and it was confirmed that Naegele was not covered. Denticare offered to telephone the Respondent to resolve the matter. Soon after telephoning Denticare, Naegele got a telephone call from the Respondent, who offered to refund Naegele's $104. Within a few days, Naegele received the Respondent's check for the refund. Under the Respondent's agency contract with Denticare, the Respondent was not authorized to charge a policy fee. The Respondent's commission for Denticare policies was to be paid by Denticare out of the initial premium. Although the contract allowed the agent to ask for additional compensation, the Respondent did not do so, and Denticare would not have allowed him to charge a $15 policy fee. Under the Respondent's contract with Denticare, the Respondent was to promptly submit applications and premiums received from insureds. If Denticare received an application and premium by the 20th of the month, coverage would be effective on the 1st of the following month. If the Respondent had timely submitted their applications and premiums, both Gamse and Naegele would have had coverage by May 1, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Insurance Commissioner enter a final order revoking the license of the Respondent, Brian Craig Parker, to act as a health or life insurance agent in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of February, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph D. Mandt, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Brian Craig Parker 4004 Bainwood Court Tampa, Florida 33614 Brian Craig Parker 15713 Woodcock Place Tampa, Florida 33624 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer & Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceedings concern whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive a passing score on the December 1999 dental licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Carlo Coiana, was an unsuccessful candidate for the December 1999 dental licensure examination. He failed to pass several procedures of that licensure examination, according to the Department's graders and grading method. The December 1999 dental licensure examination consisted of two parts: (1) The clinical, and (2) The laws and rules section. The clinical portion consists of nine different procedures of which the Petitioner challenged six. The Department, in is scoring method, selects three examiners to grade each candidate's performance. The average of the three scores from each examiner, produces the overall grade for that procedure. Rather than having only one examiner score, the Department allows for three examiner scores because this provides a more fair, reliable indication of the candidate's competency and true score. Each examiner must be a licensed dentist for a minimum of five years and have no complaints or negative actions on his or her licensure record. Each examiner must also attend and successfully complete a standardization session which trains each examiner to use the same internal grading criteria. The examiners who graded the Petitioner's examination successfully completed the standardization session and training. During the administration of the dental examination the Department requires the use of monitors who are also licensed dentists. The monitor's role is to preserve and secure the integrity of the examination. The monitor also gives instructions to each candidate as to what to expect. The monitor has no part in the grading of the candidate's performance on the examination but acts as a messenger between the candidate and the examiner since there is a "double-blind" grading of the examination. The Petitioner contested the score he received on the Class II Composite Restoration on a model. The Class II Composite Restoration Portion of the examination is a procedure involving restoring a cavity (Class II) preparation with a tooth-colored filling. The procedure was done by the Petitioner with a comment by the examiners that there was a discrepancy in the resulting shape of the tooth and proper contact to the adjacent tooth. There was also a marginal discrepancy and a "gingival overhang." The margin is where the tooth and filling meet and there was a discrepancy felt there, a bump or a catch when the junction of the two surfaces should be smooth. A gingival overhang is in the area between the tooth where a non- smooth transition between the filling and the tooth is detected. This can be a damning area which will collect plaque and lead to re-current decay. The Respondent's expert, Dr. John Joffre, concurred with the overall findings of the examiners and felt that this procedure should not be accorded a passing score but rather the score accorded by the examiners. The Petitioner also contested the score for procedure number four of the examination, the Endodontic procedure. The Endodontic procedure of the examination is referred to as a "root canal." This procedure involves removal of the nerve and blood vessels inside a tooth in order to clean out that area. It then requires the shaping of the canal and, finally, filling it with an inert material to rid the body of the infected area in question. This procedure is performed on an extracted tooth. The minimum of the working length the Department required in order to receive a passing score for the filled material in the tooth in question was two millimeters. The Petitioner's expert had the working length of the filled area in the root canal or Endodontic procedure done by the Petitioner measured. It measured closer to three millimeters which is totally unacceptable according to Dr. Joffre. Even in accordance with the literature that the Petitioner relied upon in this case it is not provided that three millimeters short of the working length is an accepted working length, which is why the Petitioner received less than a passing score. All three examiners and the expert witness Dr. John Joffre were in agreement about this scoring. Three millimeters short of the required working length will cause the procedure to definitely fail sometime in the future and renders the procedure useless. An Endodontically treated tooth that is three millimeters short will fail clinically, and that justifies a failing grade on this procedure. The next procedure contested by the Petitioner as to score was the Amalgam Restoration done with a model. This procedure is similar to the Class II Composite Restoration. However, the difference between the two procedures is that the Amalgam is referred to as a silver filling containing mercury, silver, etc., as opposed to the Composite material in the above- referenced procedure which is a "tooth-colored" restoration. Although the Composite and the Amalgam serve the same function, they require different tasks and different procedures on how they are to be handled in their installation in the mouth. The major problem found with the Petitioner's performance on this procedure concerned an overhang. As referenced above, a gingival overhang at the margin of where the filling and the tooth meet results in a less than smooth transition and can be an area where food accumulates and decay can start anew. All three examiners also noted a problem with the proximal contour of the Amalgam restoration which has to do with the shape of the filling in terms of how it meets the tooth next to it. The testimony of Dr. Joffre, which is accepted, shows that the examiners comments and grades and Dr. Joffre's opinion itself justifies the scoring on this procedure. Dr. Joffre agrees with the examiners' scoring. The last procedures in question are called the "Patient Amalgam." These procedures, two and three, involve cutting of the tooth before the filling is actually placed into it ("cutting the box"). Procedure three is the actual filling, involving scoring what the filling is like after the filling procedure is completed. The criticism found by both examiner 304 and 346, as to the first part of the procedure, the cutting part, was ". . .did not break the gingival contact, subject to recurrent decay." The gingival contact down in the box cut for the filling must be cut deep enough to reach the point where there is a separation between the edge of the box and the adjacent tooth. Halfway down the tooth, towards the gum, the teeth are still touching. As one progresses further down toward the gum, the teeth separate because they naturally get narrower toward the gum line. A dentist needs to cut the box that the filling should be placed in down far enough toward the gum line so that he gets to the point where the teeth are no longer touching. Both dentists 306 and 346, examiners, found that he did not cut the box low enough so that he "didn't break gingival floor contact with the molar" (meaning the adjacent tooth). Thus, these examiners gave the Petitioner the lowest grade of "one" on that part of the procedure. The filling or restoration portion of the procedure failed. The filling was not adequately carved or shaped so that it was protruding too high above the adjacent tooth surfaces. This caused the patient to break the filling very shortly after it was finished and he was biting downward and putting pressure on it. Indeed it broke while the third examiner was examining the procedure. The reason why the fracture in the filling occurred was because it protruded too high. The Petitioner did not adequately reduce the size or height of the filling, so when the teeth came together the tooth below it or above it was hitting too hard against that one spot and caused the metal to break before the patient, on whom the procedure was done, ever left the building. The Respondent's expert, Dr. Joffre, who agreed with examiners comments and score, found that the Petitioner had failed to properly perform these procedures and that his score had been appropriately arrived at by the examiners. The Petitioner contested the score he received on the Fixed Partial Denture Procedure. The Department ultimately conceded that he should be awarded additional points on that procedure, however, even with the additional points awarded the Petitioner still failed to score adequately on the overall examination for passage, although he came close, with a score of 2.92 out of a minimal score of 3.00 required for passage of the examination.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition challenging to the grades assigned the Petitioner for the December 1999 Dental Licensure Examination and finding that the Petitioner failed to pass that examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlo Coiana N1 Via Delle Coccinelle Cagliari, Italy 09134 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health Office of the General Counsel 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Theodore M. Henderson, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, Richard Alan Cohen, sat for the dental licensure examination in December 1992 and received an overall score of 2.98 for the clinical portion of that examination. The minimal passing score for the clinical portion of the examination was 3.0. After receiving notification that he failed to achieve a passing score on the examination, petitioner challenged respondent's grading of three procedures, number 01, 05 and 06. Respondent rejected petitioner's challenge, and petitioner filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to contest respondent's grading of those procedures. At hearing, petitioner abandoned his challenge to the grading of procedures 01 and 05. The examination procedure During the course of the examination at issue, the candidates were called upon to exhibit, with regard to procedure 06, certain manual skills relevant to an endodonic procedure. Specifically, the candidate was required to prepare a tooth, which had been extracted and mounted in a mold, for what is commonly called a "root canal." Preparing for the procedure included the cleaning and shaping of the interior of both root canals from each apex (the tip of the root) up to the access area near the crown (top) of the tooth. Thereafter, sealant was to be sprayed into the canal, and gutta percha condensed (compressed) in the canal until it was completely filled. The goal of the procedure was to get a seal within one half to one millimeter of the apex, and to fill the canal so there were no voids. The quality of a candidate's performance on the procedure was graded by three examiners who assigned grades of 0 to 5 based on their assessment of the candidate's performance. The scores assigned were then averaged to derive the score achieved by the candidate on the procedure. In scoring, a grade of "0" represented a complete failure, a grade of "3" represented a minimally acceptable dental procedure, a grade of "4" represented a better than minimally acceptable dental procedure, and a grade of "5" represented an outstanding dental procedure. See, Rule 61F5-2.013, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's examination results Petitioner received a grade of 3.66 for procedure 06, based on scores of 3, 3, and 5 from the individual examiners. Although a passing score on procedure 06, petitioner's overall score on the clinical part of the examination was 2.98; a score below the minimum 3.00 required to pass that portion of the examination. According to the grade sheets, the two examiners who assigned petitioner a grade of 3 observed that petitioner failed to properly fill the canal spaces with gutta percha. In the opinion of the one examiner who testified at the hearing, such observation was based on his examination of an x-ray (petitioner's exhibit 1D) which reflected that the canal was filled beyond the apex and there appeared to be some spacing between the wall of the canal and the filling material. A review of the examination results At hearing, the proof demonstrated that the quality of petitioner's performance on that portion of procedure 06 pertinent to this case is aptly reflected on the x-ray marked as petitioner's exhibit 1D. That x-ray reflects, with regard to one of the canals petitioner filled, what is either a void or filling material beyond the apex of the root. Either event evidences a failure to properly fill the canal space, and warrants a grade of less than 5. Here, petitioner contends he should be awarded a grade of 4 for the procedure. The proof fails, however, to support his contention. If the image reflected by the x-ray is gutta percha beyond the apex, petitioner's performance on the procedure would not meet minimally acceptable dental standards and would merit a failing grade. If on the other hand, the material extending beyond the apex is sealant or the image reflected by the x-ray is a void, the procedure was acceptable, but warranted a grade of less than 5. Under such circumstances, it is concluded that the proof fails to demonstrate that the grades of 3 accorded petitioner were baseless, lacking in reason or that in deriving such grades the examiners departed from the essential requirements of law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the subject petition. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of February 1994. Hearings 1550 Hearings 1994. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 22nd day of February
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Lorenzo J. Anderson was licensed by the Department of Professional Regulation as a dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN0008311. On March 12, 1985, Deidre Tomasovic visited the dental office of Respondent for a dental checkup and necessary treatment. Upon arrival at the time scheduled for the appointment Dr. Anderson was not present and the appointment was rescheduled for 11:30 A.M. that same day. At this scheduled appointment Respondent took x-rays of Tomasovic's teeth for which Patricia Krajack (Tomasovic's mother) paid Respondent $65 by check. Respondent also noted work that needed to be done on several of Tomasovic's teeth and scheduled Tomasovic for an appointment to perform this work. No dental work was performed on Tomasovic. Tomasovic arrived for the scheduled appointment but Respondent was not present. Whereupon Ms. Krajack asked for the x-rays to take to another dentist to perform the work indicated on Tomasovic. She then learned that the x-rays had been submitted to Krajack's insurance carrier. Ms. Krajack contacted her insurance carrier to obtain the x-rays and learned that Respondent had submitted a bill for some $875 to the insurance company which included the x-rays for which Krajack had paid as well as work on teeth numbers 10, 11, 15 and 19. (Exhibit attached to Exhibit 3). This dental claim form indicated the dental work was performed on March 12, 25, and April 5, 1985. Subsequent to the discovery of the claim submitted for unperformed dental work and before any other dental work was performed on her, Tomasovic was examined by Dr. William E. Robinson, D.D.S., who was accepted as an expert in general dentistry in these proceedings. On the insurance claim form submitted Respondent showed that on tooth No. 19 he accomplished a post and core restoration, a root canal, and covered the tooth with a gold crown. Dr. Robinson's examination showed only a DOLI amalgam filling was needed for tooth No. 19. On the claim form Respondent showed he performed a composite restoration on tooth No. 10. Dr. Robinson's examination showed only the facial surface of this tooth had decay present. On the claim form Respondent showed that he accomplished a composite restoration of tooth No. 11 (mesial, facial and lingual) when only the mesial and facial required restoration. On the claim form Respondent showed he accomplished a mesial occlusal lingual alloy filling whereas Dr. Robinson found only occlusal decay in this tooth. None of the dental work included on the claim form submitted by Respondent to the insurance company (except the exam and x-rays) was performed on Tomasovic by Respondent. Subsequent to the filing of these charges, Respondent has filed for bankruptcy and indicated he desires to pursue a career other than dentistry (Exhibit 1).
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 0006941. In May, 1987, Respondent's son Cesar L. Palomeque was neither licensed as a dentist in the State of Florida nor as a dental hygienist. He became a licensed dentist in the State of Florida in August, 1987. Cesar L. Palomeque was employed by Respondent and worked in her office during May of 1987. At that time Respondent knew that Cesar Palomeque was not a licensed dentist or a licensed dental hygienist. In early May of 1987, J.L.'s mother and grandmother were in a cafeteria/bakery located downstairs from Respondent's dental office in Hialeah. J.L.'s grandmother struck up a conversation with a gentleman who was there. He introduced himself to the women as Cesar Palomeque, told them that he was a dentist who practiced upstairs, and encouraged them to visit him professionally since he charged quite reasonable prices. Pursuant to an appointment made by his mother, on May 13, 1987, J.L. went to Respondent's Hialeah office. On that date, patient J.L. had x-rays taken, received a prophylaxis and scheduled further treatment. He returned for that subsequent treatment on May 20, 1987. During May of 1987, Respondent's dental office consisted of a waiting area and a large operatory. The operatory consisted of three treatment bays. The treatment bays were separated from each other only by partitions which extended a few feet up from the floor. Although patients seated in a chair in one of the treatment bays could not see a patient in one of the other treatment chairs due to the partition, everything occurring within one of the treatment bays could be heard throughout the room, and a person standing anywhere in the room could see what was taking place within any of the treatment bays. On May 20th, J.L. was escorted into the operatory and placed in one of the treatment bays by Cesar Palomeque. At the time that Cesar Palomeque escorted J.L. into the operatory and placed him in one of the treatment chairs, Respondent and her dental assistant were working on a patient in the first treatment bay. Cesar Palomeque placed J.L. in one of the chairs, placed a bib on him, laid out instruments and filled the water cup. During the time J.L. was in the chair on May 20th, he was very nervous and restless since he knew he was going to have a tooth drilled and filled. He would not open his mouth and was very uncooperative. Cesar Palomeque spoke with the boy and attempted to comfort him unsuccessfully. Cesar Palomeque summoned J.L.'s mother into the operatory because J.L. was so uncooperative. J.L.'s mother came into the operatory, stood a few feet away from the chair in which her son was seated, told him to be cooperative, and stayed there observing during the balance of the treatment her son received that day. On May 20, 1987, Cesar Palomeque drilled and filled one of J.L.'s teeth. While Cesar Palomeque was drilling and filling J.L.'s tooth, Respondent could hear the disturbance created by J.L. and could see the treatment being rendered to J.L. by Cesar Palomeque. She knew at the time that Cesar Palomeque was drilling and filling J.L.'s tooth. On May 13 or on May 20, 1987, when J.L. was leaving Respondent's office, he was given a tooth brush bearing the inscription "Dr. Cesar Palomegue." Drilling and filling a tooth is a non-reversible dental procedure. It constitutes the practice of dentistry. All monies paid to Respondent for services rendered to J.L. were refunded.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her in this cause and suspending Respondent's license to practice dentistry for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of October, 1989. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 89-1964 Petitioner's proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1, 3, 4, and 7-12 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact numbered 2 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues in this cause. Petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issues under determination in this cause. Petitioner's proposed Finding of Fact numbered 6 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact numbered 3-8, 10, 11, 14, and 19 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1, 2, 9, 12, 13, 16, and 18 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues in this cause. Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact numbered 15 and 20-23 have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed Findings of Fact numbered 17 and 24 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack L. McRay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Suite 406 Miami, Florida 33156 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should receive on the the clinical portion of the examination additional credit, which is sufficient to receive a passing grade on the December 1997 dental licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Neda Raeisian, was a candidate for the dental licensure examination administered by the State of Florida in December 1997. The dental examination administered in December 1997 consisted of three parts: a "Florida Laws & Rules" part, an "Oral Diagnosis" part, and a "Clinical" part. The Petitioner received passing scores on the "Florida Laws & Rules" and "Oral Diagnosis" parts of the examination. Petitioner received a score of 2.95 on the Clinical part of the examination. A score of 3.00 was required on the Clinical part of the examination. The Petitioner failed the Clinical portion by .05 of a point, and, therefore, she failed the overall dental examination. Three examiners grade each candidate's clinical portion of the dental examination. Three examiners are used because by averaging the scores of the three examiners, the Respondent is more likely to capture the candidate's true score than by using one or two examiners. Before an examiner may be used for an examination, he or she must be recommended by an existing examiner or by a member of the Board of Dentistry. The proposed examiner may not have any complaints against his or her license and he or she must have been actively practicing and licensed for at least five years in the State of Florida. The examiner must complete an application that is sent to the Board of Dentistry examination committee, where it is then reviewed by the committee, and if approved, the examiner is entered into the pool of examiners. Before every examination, the Respondent conducts a standardization session, which is a process by which examiners are trained to grade using the same internal criteria. The Respondent uses assistant examiner supervisors who are appointed by the Board to train examiners on the different criteria that are used during the examination. The assistant examination supervisors go through and describe what a score of five would be, all the way down to a zero, the different criteria for each of those particular grades, and under what circumstances those grades should be given. After the examiners go through a verbal training, they are shown slides of teeth and told what the score on that procedure should be. After the standardization, there is a post- standardization exercise where the examiners are required to grade five mannequin models to make sure they have been able to internalize the criteria. After the post-standardization exercise, the Respondent evaluates the examiners to determine whether they are acceptable to use during the examination. There are also post-examination checks on the examiner, whereby the Respondent decides whether or not to use the examiners again. The Respondent runs the post-examination statistical checks to make sure that the examiners grade with consistency and reliability. There is generally a very high agreement rate between the examiners. Typically if there is an inconsistency in grading, it is usually the examiner who gives the higher grade that is incorrect because he or she missed an error; any error found by an examiner must be documented. The examiners grade the examination independently of each other; that is, they do not confer with each other while scoring the examination. The examination is also double-blind graded. Double- blind grading is the process through which examiners have no contact with the candidates. The examination is conducted in such a way that there is one clinic that is monitored by a licensed dentist in which the candidates actually perform the procedures. When the candidates are finished a proctor walks the patient over to another clinic where the examiners are located, and the examiners grade the examination. The candidates perform the patient portion of the examination on human beings that they are responsible for bringing in. If the patient has the necessary characteristics, the patient could serve for two different candidates or on two different examinations. The examination is a minimum competency examination. The grading system used during the clinical portion of the examination is as follows: A zero is a complete failure, a one is unacceptable dental procedure; a two is below minimally acceptable dental procedure; a three is minimally acceptable procedure, which is the minimum required to pass the clinical portion; a four is better than minimally acceptable dental procedure; and a five is outstanding dental procedure. An overall score is determine by averaging the three examiners' scores on the eight clinical procedures, putting different weights into a formula, and calculating the final grade. It is required in Board rule that the scores of the examiners be averaged. The Petitioner challenges the score given to her for her performance on Procedure 03, "Amalgam Final Restoration," of the Clinical portion of the examination. The Petitioner performed Procedure 03, the "Amalgam Final Restoration," on a live patient, Ms. Desiree Peacock. The Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03 was graded by three examiners: examiner number 290, identified as Dr. Richard Tomlin, of Pinellas Park, Florida; examiner number 299, identified as Dr. Haychell Saraydar, of Pinellas Park, Florida; and examiner number 176, identified as Dr. Leonard Britten, of Lutz, Florida. The Petitioner received a grade of 4 on a scale of 0-5 for her performance on Procedure 03 by examiner number 290; and a grade of 3 on a scale of 0-5 for her performance on Procedure 3 by examiner number 299. However, she received a grade of 0 on a scale of 0-5 for her performance on Procedure 03 by examiner number 176. The reason the Petitioner was given a score of 0 on procedure 03 by examiner number 176 was that the examiner felt that there was a lack of contact at the amalgam restoration site. The Respondent's dental expert, Jorge H. Miyares, D.D.S., testified that a score of 4 is given on Procedure 3 when, in the judgment of the examiner, there are only minor errors present which will not jeopardize the procedure; that a score of 3 is given on Procedure 03 when, in the judgment of the examiner, the procedure is completed at entry level; and that a score of 0 on Procedure 03 is mandatory if there is a total lack of contact. The examiners are taught and trained to check for contact when grading a candidate's performance on Procedure 03, as a lack of contact is a very significant error that jeopardizes the integrity of the amalgam restoration. There are two different types of contact involved in a Class II Restoration. The type of contact that was referenced by Examiner 176 in his grade documentation sheet is proximal contact. Proximal contact is when a tooth is restored, the proximal tooth next to it must be touching the tooth that has been prepared. Contact is something that either does or does not exist between two teeth. Contact is checked visually and by running a piece of dental floss between the teeth to see if there is resistance. Examiners 290 and 299 would have been required to give the Petitioner a grade of 0 on Procedure 03 if they had found a lack of contact. The findings of examiners 290 and 299 during their review of the Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03 were inconsistent with the findings of examiner 176 (lack of contact) during his review of the Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03. The inconsistency between the findings of examiners 290 and 299 and the findings of examiner 176 during their review of the Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03 were statistically unusual. Respondent performed Procedure 03 on the patient Desiree Peacock. Following the exam, Peacock used dental floss on the affected area and she believed she felt resistance. Although the grading on Procedure 03 of the clinical portion of the examination is inconsistent, the Respondent followed its standard testing procedures for the December 1997 dental examination. The evidence is insufficient to prove that the Respondent's examiner acted arbitrarily or capriciously or with an abuse of discretion in refusing to give the Petitioner a passing grade on procedure 03 of the clinical examination.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grade assigned her for the clinical portion of the December 1997 dental licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Anne Williamson, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Neda Raeisian 2161 Lake Debra Drive Apartment 1726 Orlando, Florida 32835 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Board of Dentistry (Board) should discipline the Respondent on charges that she violated section 466.028(1)(z), (ff), and (gg), Florida Statutes (2009-2012),1/ by: improperly delegating professional responsibilities to persons not qualified to perform them; operating her dental office below minimum acceptable standards; and allowing the administration of anesthesia, in violation of Board rules.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Miranda Whylly Smith, D.D.S., holds license DN15873, which authorizes her to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. She has held this license since January 2002. No discipline has been imposed against her license to date. Since July 2009, the Respondent has owned and operated a dental practice called "Smiles and Giggles" in Spring Hill, Florida. Prior to May 2011, Smiles and Giggles was located on Mariner Boulevard; in May 2011, it moved to County Line Road. The Respondent is the only dentist practicing at Smiles and Giggles. She employs dental assistants, not dental hygienists. Count I--Improper Delegation Count I charges the Respondent with improperly delegating professional responsibilities to her dental assistants. Expanded-function dental assistants employed by the Respondent have included: Lillian Torres, who worked at Smiles and Giggles from late 2009 to March 2012 and functioned as the "head dental assistant" with responsibility for overseeing the work of other dental assistants working in the office; Kristina Plumadore, who has worked there since 2009; and William Hemme, who has worked there since late 2011 and now serves as head dental assistant. Priscilla Davila worked there as a dental assistant without an expanded-function certificate from May 2011 to August 2011. Incorporated in that charge are specific factual allegations regarding Ms. Torres and an unnamed male expanded- function dental assistant (who, the evidence revealed, was Mr. Hemme). (The Administrative Complaint includes other specific allegations based on statements from other dental assistants who did not testify, and those allegations are omitted here, since there was no evidence to support them.) Also incorporated in the charge are general factual allegations that all dental assistants improperly performed many of the same tasks at the direction of Ms. Torres and Mr. Hemme, with the Respondent's knowledge and approval, including taking impressions and bite registrations2/ for dentures, delivering dentures, adjusting dentures with grinding devices, using drills on cavities, filling cavities, and other tasks for which they were not qualified. Count I charges that the Respondent delegated to dental assistants the taking of final impressions for dentures and the making of adjustments to dentures, including the use of high- and/or low-speed drills, which made unalterable changes to the teeth.3/ As the factual basis for that charge, the Administrative Complaint alleges that Ms. Torres took the final impressions for dentures for a patient, L.C.; that Mr. Hemme adjusted dentures for the patient L.C. by "grinding [them] down"; and that both Mr. Hemme and Ms. Torres did "[a]ll denture fabrication and adjustment procedures" for L.C. In some respects, L.C.'s testimony on this allegation was inconsistent with the dental records introduced by the Respondent, which are more accurate in those respects. L.C. presented to the Respondent in late 2009. Initially, it was planned that a partial upper denture would be made, and an immediate complete lower denture would be made for use after her remaining lower teeth were extracted. In mid- January 2010, the plan changed, and an immediate complete upper denture was made for use after her remaining upper teeth were extracted. The upper teeth were extracted in mid-January 2010, and the immediate upper denture was fitted. In July 2010, attempts were made to adjust the denture because it was uncomfortable and also loose. In October 2011, L.C. returned to Smiles and Giggles with more complaints that the upper denture did not fit correctly and was loose. In late October and early November 2011, the upper denture was relined in an attempt to address the patient's complaints, but her complaints persisted. Later in November 2011, impressions were done for the patient's immediate complete lower denture. In January 2012, the patient's remaining lower teeth were extracted, and her immediate lower denture was fitted and adjusted. L.C. continued to complain about the fit of both dentures, and several attempts were made in the spring of 2012 to adjust them, to no avail. The patient then complained to Medicaid, and she returned to the Respondent to have both dentures redone in January 2013. L.C. testified that the Respondent took no impressions for dentures and did not fit or adjust her dentures until after the spring of 2012. She testified, prior to that all the work was done by Ms. Torres and Mr. Hemme. Ms. Torres and Mr. Hemme testified that they took impressions, but not final impressions or bite registrations, which were done by the Respondent. The dental records reflect that the provider of all these services was the Respondent. However, in this instance, the patient's testimony is credited, and the contrary testimony of Ms. Torres and Mr. Hemme (as well as the possible contrary inference from the dental records) is rejected. On questioning by counsel for the Respondent, Mr. Hemme appeared to take the position that the impressions were not final because they were for immediate dentures, which sometimes are replaced by permanent ones. However, it is clear from the evidence that L.C.'s immediate dentures were intended to be permanent. It was not until after her complaints to Medicaid that the Respondent agreed to make permanent dentures for her. Most, if not all, dental assistants working at Smiles and Giggles took impressions for dentures. It is not clear from the evidence whether these were all final impressions, except in the case of the patient L.C. Another patient, V.C.,4/ testified that Ms. Torres also took final impressions for her dentures. The testimony was elicited, in part, as proof of what paragraph 72 of the Administrative Complaint alleges Ms. Davila5/ witnessed. Ms. Davila's testimony gave no indication that she witnessed dental care being provided to V.C., and it seems unlikely from the evidence that Ms. Davila's short tenure working for Smiles and Giggles included the time when the care in question was provided to V.C. No dental records were introduced regarding the patient V.C. that could have helped answer that question. The testimony of the patient V.C. also could have been elicited as proof of a general allegation in paragraph 70 of the Administrative Complaint that all Smiles and Giggles dental assistants supervised by Ms. Torres performed various unauthorized tasks, including making dentures.6/ According to Mr. Hemme, he adjusts patients' dentures by using a handpiece to polish or smooth down rough spots where they come in contact with the gums to try to make them fit more comfortably. This is what he says he attempted to do to L.C.'s dentures. According to Ms. Torres, she uses an acrylic burr to "bring down high spots" that are identified by the Respondent and to make "minute adjustments" to dentures. These adjustments can be remedied only by making a new set of dentures. Although evidence was presented regarding the taking of bite registrations, the Administrative Complaint does not allege that the Respondent delegated this task to dental assistants. In any event, the evidence was not clear and convincing that dental assistants at Smiles and Giggles took bite registrations for dentures for patients other than L.C. To the contrary, there was no evidence that they did, and several denied it. Count I charges that the Respondent delegated to dental assistants the placement of filling materials and the use of dental instruments, including high- and/or low-speed drills, which made unalterable changes to the teeth. As the factual basis for that charge, the Administrative Complaint alleges: that Ms. Torres has admitted to placing amalgam and composite fillings, using low- and high- speed drills, and using a spoon excavator to take out the upper part of a cavity during the time she worked at Smiles and Giggles; and that all assistants working at Smiles and Giggles, while Ms. Torres worked there, used low-speed drills, all with the Respondent's knowledge or direction. The Administrative Complaint also alleges that Ms. Davila saw dental assistants use high-speed drills and complete fillings on patients during the time she worked at Smiles and Giggles, all with the Respondent's knowledge or direction. The Administrative Complaint also alleges that Ms. Torres "placed fillings" for a patient, T.F., when she had dental work done at Smiles and Giggles in the summer of 2011.7/ The evidence was clear that dental assistants at Smiles and Giggles were using flowable resin to fill cavities. This is a composite material that hardens when cured and can only be removed by being drilled out by the dentist using a high-speed handpiece. Dental assistants at Smiles and Giggles also were packing amalgam filling material to fill cavities. The Respondent would then review the restoration. If adjustments were needed, the Respondent or, sometimes, a dental assistant would use a slow-speed handpiece to try to bring down rough or high spots. After the patient T.F. was diagnosed with cavities in the summer of 2011, she returned to have those teeth restored. The Respondent used a drill to prepare the cavities for filling, and Ms. Torres placed composite material. The Respondent then left the room, and Ms. Torres used a slow-speed handpiece, with a burr attached, to grind down the filling to correct the bite. The Respondent did not return to re-examine T.F. before she left the office that day. The Respondent seems to take the position that fillings done by dental assistants were temporary fillings, to be followed by permanent restorations at a later date. But sometimes they were intended to be permanent. Even if intended initially to be temporary, if the patient did not return to have the temporary filling replaced by a permanent restoration, the temporary filling became de facto permanent. In either case, once placed, the filling material could be removed only by being drilled out with a high-speed drill. At some point in 2013, the dental assistants at Smiles and Giggles were told not to place filling material or bring down high spots any more. The source of this directive was not clear from the evidence, but it can be inferred that it came from the Respondent. By mid-October 2013, those tasks were being performed by dental assistants only "every once in a while" and are not being performed by them any longer, according to Ms. Plumadore. Count I charges that the Respondent delegated to dental assistants the performance of full-mouth debridement. As the factual basis for that charge, the Administrative Complaint alleges generally that the Respondent delegated to dental assistants at Smiles and Giggles the task of performing full-mouth debridement. No specifics are alleged. A cavitron is a device that uses ultrasound and water to remove plaque. It is used in the subgingival area, i.e., on the parts of teeth at the gum line and under the gums, as part of a full-mouth debridement. At the hearing, the patient T.F. testified that Ms. Torres used a cavitron to clean plaque from her teeth, including in the subgingival area. Ms. Torres admitted using the cavitron, but denied using it in the subgingival area. The patient was numbed by a local anesthetic, which would have made it difficult for the patient to sense precisely where the cavitron was being used. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Ms. Torres used the cavitron in the subgingival area. Ms. Davila testified that she saw Ms. Torres and other dental assistants use the cavitron for deep cleaning, which would include in the subgingival area. However, it is not clear how she would have been in a position to ascertain where a cavitron was being used in a patient's mouth. During the relatively short time she worked at Smiles and Giggles, she usually was not in the part of the office where patients' teeth were being cleaned. Even if she was in that area of the office, the patient's chair would have been facing away from where Ms. Davila probably would have been standing, so that she would not have been able to observe exactly where the cavitron was being used in the patient's mouth. There was no evidence that the Respondent knew of, or condoned the use of, the cavitron by her dental assistants for full-mouth debridement, including in the subgingival area. Count I charges that the Respondent delegated to dental assistants the initiation of a nitrous oxide mask and the administration of nitrous oxide without direct supervision. As the factual basis for that charge, the Administrative Complaint alleges that Ms. Torres placed a nitrous oxide mask on a minor patient, O.S., and administered nitrous oxide to the patient in August 2010. At the hearing, DOH presented the testimony of the child's mother, who was in the examination room when Ms. Torres placed the mask on her child's face and left. Neither she nor any other staff returned for about 20 minutes, during which the child began to act very calm, relaxed, and groggy, slump in the chair, wave his arms up and down, and act silly. The child was autistic, but this was unusual behavior for him. The mother became concerned and called for help. Ms. Torres returned, took the mask off, and dental work was performed on the patient. Ms. Torres denies that she did anything but put the mask on the patient's face and claims that no nitrous oxide was initiated. This testimony is rejected. It is found that Ms. Torres initiated the flow of nitrous oxide on the child before she left the examination room. The dental records indicate that nitrous oxide was administered, which is consistent with the patient's behavior. There was no clear and convincing evidence that it was normal procedure for the dental assistants to initiate nitrous oxide without the Respondent being present. All the dental assistants who testified indicated that they only monitor the flow of nitrous oxide or, at most, adjust the flow at the Respondent's explicit direction during a procedure. Although there were no specific factual allegations about it in the Administrative Complaint, the patient L.C. testified that a dental assistant placed a gas mask on her face when her teeth were being extracted. There was no evidence as to how the flow of nitrous oxide was initiated or administered to L.C. Count III--Dental Office Standards Count III charges the Respondent with operating an inadequately staffed dental office for the number and types of treatments performed for her patients and scheduling too many patients, so that unrealistic time limitations had to be placed on her and her staff, resulting in the office being operated below minimum acceptable standards of performance for the community. At most, the evidence showed that the Respondent operated a dental office that was very busy at times; that full schedules sometimes were exacerbated by emergencies that had to be worked around; that this sometimes resulted in office hours having to be extended into the evening; that the office's function would have benefited from an additional dentist; and that dental assistants at times voiced that the patient load was too high. There also was evidence that the office would have benefited from an experienced office manager/appointment scheduler; that the office eventually did benefit when one was hired; and that the office suffered from the lack of dedication and hard work from some of the dental assistants on staff. Some of them not only slacked off, but also even tried to sabotage the office out of personal animosity towards the Respondent and some of her staff. One of these former dental assistant was fired after she stole drugs from the office. There was no clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent had so many patients that she placed unrealistic time limitations on herself and her staff, or that the result was an office being operated below minimum acceptable standards of performance for the community. Count VI--Sedation Count VI charges the Respondent with administering anesthesia in a manner that violated the rules of the Board. The factual basis for this charge included allegations that the Respondent did not have a sedation permit from the Board; that the Respondent provided nitrous oxide sedation; that the Respondent had an unsupervised assistant provide nitrous oxide; that the Respondent had dental assistants start nitrous oxide; that children would be placed on nitrous oxide before she was present; that the Respondent had a licensed anesthesiologist provide I.V. sedation with propofol; and that the Respondent's dental office was not equipped, and her staff was not properly trained, as required by statute and Board rules for the administration of I.V. sedation with propofol. The factual basis regarding nitrous oxide refers to the administration of nitrous oxide in the presence of a licensed anesthesiologist. For approximately one year, between 2010 and 2011, the Respondent contracted with Anesthesiology Associates to provide an anesthesiologist to administer anesthesiology to patients who would benefit from it, since the Respondent herself was not authorized to do so. Sometimes, before the Respondent's arrival in the room to perform dental work, the anesthesiologist would direct one of the Respondent's dental assistants to place a gas mask on the patient and initiate nitrous oxide to relax the patient prior to sedation. These allegations are distinct from the previously discussed allegations that the Respondent herself delegated this task to her dental assistants without her direct supervision. In addition to nitrous oxide, which typically was administered by the anesthesiologist to relax a patient before the administration of other sedatives, the anesthesiologist used propofol, versed, and ketamine. Ketamine is an analgesic and sedative that typically was administered by injection to an uncooperative patient, usually a child, prior to the initiation of other sedation. Versed and propofol were administered intravenously. Propofol provided conscious sedation. Patients would be sedated for as long as necessary to complete the procedure, according to the Respondent's estimate. If the procedure was long enough to require too much propofol, versed would be started to complete the procedure. Versed reduces anxiety and relaxes the patient, but does not provide conscious sedation. During this time period, the anesthesiologist typically would go to the Respondent's office two days a week and provide services for six to ten patients a day. He would bring the required drugs and I.V. and other equipment. Later, the equipment was left in a closet at the Respondent's office and any unused drugs sometimes were left in a locked storage closet in the Respondent's office for use the next time. The next time the anesthesiologist came to the Respondent's office, he would get a key from the Respondent or her staff to access the locked storage closet and would inventory and inspect the drugs and equipment to be sure he had what was needed before beginning the day's work. The Respondent or the anesthesiologist provided a crash cart with a heart monitor and oxygen, which was needed to support the breathing of a sedated patient. There was a defibrillator in the Respondent's office, and the anesthesiologist was certified to provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation, if needed. The anesthesiologist testified that he met all the requirements of his license to provide anesthesiology services at the Respondent's office and had everything he needed to provide those services safely. At some point, the Respondent became aware that the Board required her to have a sedation permit to do what she was doing through Anesthesiology Associates. She applied for the permit. For some time after applying, she continued to contract with Anesthesiology Associates to provide these services, but later terminated the contract because she became aware that her sedation permit had not been issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order: finding the Respondent guilty of violations under Counts I and VI of the Administrative Complaint; imposing a $10,000 fine; suspending her license for six months; placing her on probation with appropriate conditions for six months after the suspension is lifted. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2014.
