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 An accusation was filed against Respondent by the Petitioner complaining that Respondent had allowed unlicensed personnel to perform certain acts and duties which required a license to perform. Subsequently the parties stipulated that Respondent's license to practice dentistry shall be suspended for a period of six months effective July 25, 1977. The opera- tion of said suspension will be cancelled thirty days after said date and thereafter Respondent will remain on probation, subject to periodic review for the remaining five months. Respondent admits that the facts set forth therein do constitute a violation of Sections 466.02, 466.04 and 466.24, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner in its final order dated July 25, 1977 accepted the stipulation and entered an order essentially quoting the stipulation: Ordered and adjudged: Respondent's license to practice dentistry shall be suspended for a period of six months effective July 25, 1977. The operation and said suspension will be cancelled thirty days after said date and thereafter Respondent will remain on probation, subject to periodic review for the remaining five months. On or about November 14, 1977 a second administrative accusation was filed by the Petitioner against Respondent Davis. It charged Respondent in part as follows: That during the thirty day period in which the license of James R. Davis, III, D.D.S., was suspended pursuant to the final order, James R. Davis, III, D.D.S., continued to operate and maintain his dental practice by allowing his assistants, employees, and other licensed dentists to see and examine his patients, perform dental treatment and charge for dental services rendered. That, based upon the above allegations, James R. Davis, III, D.D.S., has violated the laws of Florida and the standards of his profes- sion because he has been guilty of misconduct in his business affairs in such a manner as to bring discredit upon the dental profession in violation of Florida Statutes Section 466.24(3)(a. Respondent requested subject administrative hearing. The Petitioner, Florida State Board of Dentistry, contends that the Respondent violated the suspension order by continuing to operate and maintain his dental practice by allowing his assistants, employees, and two dentists to see and examine his patients, perform dental treatment, and charge for dental services rendered. Respondent, James R. Davis, III, contends that he did not violate the suspension order and denies that he has violated the laws of Florida and the standards of his profession, or that he has been guilty of misconduct in his business affairs in such a manner as to bring discredit upon the dental profession. The depositions of Thomas Guilday, Esquire and Michael Huey, Esquire and Richard Langley, Esquire were admitted by stipulation into evidence. The testimony of Dr. William B. Kent III, Dr. Bruce Mitchell, Jr., Sally Dawson, Charlotte Mullins, and Dr. James R. Davis III were presented in person. Other documentation pertinent to this hearing was admitted into evidence. The proposed Orders and memorandums were considered. The Respondent, Dr. Davis, has practiced dentistry since 1971 as an employee of a Professional Association, James R. Davis, III, D.D.S., P.A. During the period beginning July 25, 1977 and continuing up to and including August 25, 1977, Dr. Davis did not personally practice dentistry in any manner. He was out of the city and on vacation the major part of that time. Richard Langley, an attorney for Dr. Davis, informed Dr. Davis that the suspension did not pertain to the Professional Association offices of Dr. Davis or to its employees. It was the understanding of Mr. Langley through conversation with two attorneys for the Petitioner, Mr. Guilday and Mr. Huey, that the suspension by the Board went to Dr. Davis personally, and not to the Professional Association owned by Dr. Davis. Neither the Stipulation nor the Final Order which preceded this hearing mentioned the Professional Association and both are styled "Florida State Board of Dentistry, Petitioner, versus James R. Davis, Respondent." The Articles of Incorporation of James R. Davis III, D.D.S., P.A. is a matter of record having been filed August 16, 1971. The Professional Association is also indicated by his professional signs. Dr. William B. Kent, III and Dr. W. Bruce Mitchell, Jr. were issued Board of Dentistry duplicate licenses to practice dentistry in the Respondent Davis' dental offices at 826 DeSoto Street, Clermont, Florida. Doctors Kent and Mitchell practiced dentistry as associates or employees of James R. Davis III, D.D.S, P.A. during the period of Dr. Davis' suspension and absence. There are no guidelines, rules or regulations promulgated by the Petitioner Board which would have given Respondent Davis notice that the suspension would include his Professional Association and its employees. He was not notified verbally. It cannot be assumed that Dr. Davis would close his office except as to a secretary informing those who called that Dr. Davis would not be in for a month, as Petitioner contends he should have. A dentist would not abandon his practice for such a period of time without making provisions for patients, particularly emergency situations absent a clear direction to do so. There is no evidence to show that he was to close the office.
Recommendation Enter an order finding that James R. Davis III is not guilty of violating the laws of Florida and the standards of his profession. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Office Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 2516 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 James B. Byrne, Jr., Esquire 1335 CNA Building 255 South Orange Ave. Orlando, Florida 32801 J. Michael Huey, Esquire Huey and Camper 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard H. Langley, Esquire Post Office Box 188 Clermont, Florida 32711
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of incompetence or negligence and failing to keep adequate dental records and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed dentist, holding license number DN 0010415. He has been licensed continuously in Florida since 1985, and he practices in Naples. On February 13, 1992, M. D. presented to Respondent at Kings Lake Dental Services. M. D. complained of a loose three-unit fixed bridge, which had replaced tooth number 4, using teeth numbers 3 and 5 as abutments. Respondent performed a focused emergency examination. He found a decaying, loose bridge that was falling apart and coming out of M. D.'s mouth; tooth number 5 was decayed and had fractured off; and tooth number three was decayed around the abutment crown and post. Respondent took an x-ray and found root canals on teeth numbers 3 and 5. Based on these findings, Respondent recommended to M. D. that he have post and cores on teeth numbers 3 and 5 and a new bridge. Respondent noted in his dental records these findings during this initial visit and the limited nature of the examination. At the time of this initial examination, Respondent determined that teeth numbers 3 and 5 could serve as abutment teeth to support the bridge for tooth number 4. His determination was correct as tooth number 5, but the record suggests that his determination was questionable as to tooth number 3. However, Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the suitability determination for tooth number 3 was incompetent or negligent. On M. D.'s next visit, which took place on February 26, 1992, Respondent prepared teeth numbers 3 and 5 for the new bridge by removing the existing post and core in tooth number 3 and preparing tooth number 5 for a post and core. Respondent installed a temporary bridge during this visit. A post and core is an appliance that is cemented into a tooth that has undergone previous endodontic treatment. A post goes into the residual root, and the core replaces the natural crown of the tooth. The post and core can then be prepared for a crown or, as in this case, a fixed bridge. The final result resembles the placement of a peg into a tooth on which additional material is built up. On M. D.'s third visit, which took place on March 4, 1992, Respondent re-cemented the temporary bridge, which had come loose. On M. D.'s fourth and final visit, which took place on March 13, 1992, Respondent installed the permanent fixed bridge. At no time did any blood collect in M. D.'s post preparations. At no time during the post-and-core work, including during the unanaestheticized installation procedure, did M. D. experience pain. As material to this case, a perforation would result from excessive drilling in the process of preparing the tooth for the post, so as to create an extra opening into the bone. The absence of blood during the post preparation is generally inconsistent with a post perforation. The absence of pain during the ensuing installation procedure also militates against a finding that Respondent inadvertently perforated the tooth. The crucial findings on the issue whether Respondent perforated the tooth are thus the absence of blood during the drilling attendant to the post-and-core procedure and the absence of pain during the ensuing installation procedure. These findings are based in part on the self-serving testimony of Respondent, but also are supported by other evidence. At the time of the incident, Respondent had practiced dentistry in Florida for over six years. It is likely that he would have known that an untreated perforation would eventually cause the restorative work to fail. Respondent had treated numerous patients, presumably including seasonal Naples residents, without this issue previously arising, even though excessive-drilling perforations themselves are not that uncommon. When M. D. later contacted Respondent and complained of the dental work, he made no mention of the pain that typically would have accompanied the installation of a core over a perforated tooth. M. D. was a winter resident of Naples. Fourteen months after his final visit to Respondent, a dentist in Massachusetts discovered a perforation of the root on tooth number 5 and an acute periodontal abscess on tooth number 3. An acute periodontal abscess occurs at the end of the root and is secondary to infection involving the dental pulp in the soft tissue part of the tooth. Periodontal abscesses occur around the supporting structures of the teeth. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent perforated M. D.'s tooth. Although excessive drilling may cause a perforation, decay, a root fracture, and rampant periodontal disease may also cause perforations. Given the considerable period of time between Respondent's treatment of M. D. and the discovery of the perforation, the likelihood of decay, a root fracture, and rampant periodontal disease increases as the cause of the perforation. Given the other factors, such as lack of blood during the post procedure or pain during the core procedure, Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's treatment of M. D. was incompetent or negligent. The record provides even less basis to find by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's work caused the periodontal abscess 14 months later. Respondent's dental records are adequate in many respects. The records adequately describe the cast post and core technique; Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the failure to distinguish between the two types of cast post and core is material in this case. Petitioner has also failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the records fail to provide an adequate basis for another dentist to infer the removal of the old post and core. The x-ray is of extremely poor quality, but it is merely a duplicate. The original is not in the record, and the record provides insufficient basis for inferring the quality of the original. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the actual x-ray was of such poor quality as to preclude reliance upon it. Respondent's records indicate that tooth number 5 is decayed and fractured off, that tooth number 3 is decayed, and that the x-rays reveal root canals on both these teeth. While adequately documenting these findings, the records do not document Respondent's evaluation of the suitability of teeth numbers 3 and 5 to serve as abutment teeth. Nor do the records document the "moderate" periodontal disease that Respondent testified that he also observed. Respondent's restorative work eventually failed. The most likely cause of failure was the perforation of tooth number 5. However, fourteen months later, tooth number 3 was no longer capable of serving as an abutment tooth. By inference, its condition at the time of Respondent's decision to use it as an abutment tooth at least warranted documentation in the dental records. Similarly, the acute periodontal abscess also evidences the need to document Respondent's finding of moderate periodontal disease. These omissions from Respondent's dental records are material due to the questionable suitability of tooth number 3 as an abutment tooth and the subsequent development of periodontal disease. On these facts, Respondent's records fail to document a thorough evaluation of M. D.'s oral structures involved in the restorative work and his overall dental condition. In these respects, Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to keep adequate dental records in that they fail to justify the course of Respondent's treatment of M. D. On March 30, 1992, S. T. presented to the Fort Myers Dental Service for an abscessed tooth at tooth number 3. One of the dentists at the office, Dr. Rubin, saw S. T. He recommended full mouth x-rays and study models and prescribed pain medication and an antibiotic. The dental records contain no indication of periodontal disease at this time. The Fort Myers Dental Service maintained a system of patient referral in which Respondent or Dr. Johnson saw patients requiring endodontic treatment and other dentists saw patients requiring periodontic treatment. Following her visit, Dr. Rubin referred S. T. to Respondent for endodontic work on April 2, 1992. The x-rays had revealed lesions on teeth numbers 3 and 4, so the referral was for an evaluation for root canals. On April 3, Respondent examined S. T.'s mouth and noted buccal swelling around teeth numbers 3 and 4 and broken- down, decayed teeth at teeth numbers 3, 4, and 5. However, his examination did not reveal any periodontal disease. Respondent recommended root canals for teeth numbers 3 and 4 followed by casts, posts, and cores for teeth 3 and 4 and a porcelain fuse metal crown for tooth number 5. Respondent commenced this dental treatment on April 10, 1992. During this visit, Respondent began a root canal on tooth number 4. On April 17, Respondent completed the root canal on tooth number 4. On April 24, Respondent began a root canal on tooth number 3. On May 22, Respondent completed the root canal on tooth number 4. On September 24, 1992, Respondent prepared teeth numbers 3, 4, and 5 for crowns. On October 8, Respondent installed crowns on these teeth and posts and cores on teeth numbers 3 and 4. Fourteen months later, on December 7, 1993, S. T. was examined by Dr. William McKenzie, a periodontist who practiced 33 years, primarily in Fort Myers, until his retirement prior to the hearing in this case. A general dentist in Fort Myers had referred S. T. to him. At the time of his examination, Dr. McKenzie found poorly fitting crowns on teeth numbers 3, 4, and 5 and open contacts between teeth numbers 2 and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5, and 5 and 6. In general, S. T.'s dental health was good, except for the area in which Respondent had worked. In this area, S. T.'s gums bled profusely upon probing by Dr. McKenzie. In part, Petitioner tried to prove that Respondent improperly proceeded with endodontic treatment despite unresolved periodontic problems. However, the record fails to sustain this allegation. To the contrary, as Dr. McKenzie testified, the poor-fitting and gapped crowns caused the periodontal condition that Dr. McKenzie encountered. The open contacts, which allowed food to pack between the teeth, led to infection, which caused the inflammatory process in the gums and bone deterioration that Dr. McKenzie also discovered in this area of S. T.'s mouth. As to the fit of the crowns, Dr. McKenzie described it as "horrible" and work of which a "freshman dental student" was capable. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance in the treatment of S. T.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for six months and, following the expiration of the suspension, placing the license on probation for a period of 12 months. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ 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 29th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Wright Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 E. Raymond Shope, II 1404 Goodlette Road, North Naples, Florida 34102 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Bill Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 0004795. On April 30, 1981, Fay Ackret, an 84-year-old female with arthritis, consulted Respondent seeking both full upper and full lower dentures, since she had broken the set that she had been using for the last twenty years. Because Ackret's lower ridge was almost non-existent, Respondent recommended a lower cushion denture. Ackret advised Respondent she wanted porcelain teeth. On July 16, 1981, Ackret returned. Respondent examined her, and preliminary impressions were taken for the full upper and full lower dentures to be constructed with porcelain anterior teeth, and acrylic posterior teeth. Final impressions were taken on July 23, 1981; additional measurements and a bite block impression were taken on July 30, 1981; a try-in was done on August 5, 1981; and the dentures were delivered on August 12, 1981. Thereafter, Ackret returned for adjustments on August 18, 1981; August 31, 1981; November 12, 1981; November 18, 1981; December 15, 1981; January 6, 1982; January 11, 1982; January 19, 1982; February 2, 1982; February 15, 1982; February 24, 1982; March 2, 1982; March 8, 1982; and March 23, 1982. One of those visits involved, according to Respondent's records, a "major adjustment" and on one visit, her dentures were sent back to the lab for rearticulation. On June 3, 1982, Dr. Marshall A. Brothers examined Ackret on behalf of Petitioner. Ackret complained to him of pain and of not being able to function with her dentures or to retain them in her mouth during functioning. However, Ackret was wearing the dentures when she was seen by Brothers. Based upon his examination of Ackret and her dentures, Brothers concluded that the dentures Ackret got from Respondent failed to meet minimum acceptable standards due to numerous defects. The opinion of Brothers fails to take into account the numerous adjustments made to the dentures in an attempt to make Ackret comfortable with her new dentures. The number and kind of adjustments render the denture seen by Brothers to be substantially different than the denture originally fabricated by Respondent. Additionally, Ackret's lower denture had undergone a hard reline by the time she was seen by Brothers. Although Ackret had complained to Brothers that she could not eat with her new dentures and could not function with them, she in fact was wearing them for her visit to Brothers, and Brothers noted that food had collected on them, indicating that Ackret was in fact using her dentures for eating. On December 7, 1982, Ackret appeared at the dental office of Dr. Harry B. Gaulkin. She advised Gaulkin that her upper denture gave her no problems at all, but that her lower denture was not comfortable. She further advised that she could not chew well with the lower denture, and that it was loose. She then requested that Gaulkin make a new set of dentures for her, both full upper and full lower. Gaulkin initially suggested to Ackret that she simply consider a soft reline on the lower denture since the upper denture was not problematic. After Gaulkin discussed with her her various options and the prices thereof, Ackret left his office to think about what she wanted to have done. She has never returned. Gaulkin is not able to identify Ackret's exact complaints regarding her lower denture and did not note any defects in the set of dentures. A few months prior to the final hearing in this cause, Ackret appeared at Respondent's office complaining that she had broken a tooth off her denture.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing with prejudice the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent herein. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Gallagher Attorney at Law Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven I. Kern, Esquire 1143 East Jersey Street Elizabeth, NJ 07201
Findings Of Fact Frank A. Velez, Jr., D.D.S. has been registered with the Florida State Board of Dentistry since 1967. His latest address on file with the Board is 4640 Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando, Florida. The records of the Board show no licensed hygienist with the same address as Velez or that any licensed personnel are employed by Velez. In November, 1973 Mrs. Margaret B. Laursen went to Dr. Velez for professional services. Velez performed a root canal and took impressions for a partial plate. When the patient returned for the bridge work to be inserted in her mouth Velez removed a tooth before putting in the plate. When the plate was inserted it did not fit and despite several visits to Dr. Velez for adjustment, the plate could not be worn because of the pain and discomfort caused with the plate in place. Finally, in August, 1974, she went to Dr. Barnes. Upon examination Dr. Barnes observed a large root tip which had been left in the cavity from which the tooth was extracted. This root tip was visible without x- ray. The root tip that had been removed and the x-ray showing the root tip were admitted into evidence as Exhibits 5 and 6. After extracting the root tip and adjusting the partial plate Dr. Barnes could not make the partial plate fit, largely because an extension had been added to the plate to take care of the space caused by the extraction of the molar from which the root tip had been left. Dr. Barnes further found that the crown which had been placed on the tooth used to anchor the partial plate had been cracked and the plate could not be securely attached thereto. Since the partial was sitting on top of the root tip at the time it was being fitted by Dr. Velez, the pain would not allow the partial to fit comfortably. Mrs. Estella Livermore saw a brochure from Dr. Velez on a bulletin board in the trailer park where she resided. Therein it said that he would make a full set of upper and lower dentures for $98. Needing dentures she visited Velez in January, 1976. Upon arrival she talked to Velez and the secretary who showed her two sets of teeth; one the $98 set and the deluxe version at $150. As a result of the conversation she authorized Velez to make her a $150 set. At this time Mrs. Livermore had been wearing dentures for about 30 years. On her initial visit impressions were taken and about a week later she went back when the plates were ready. When the new dentures were placed in her mouth she couldn't eat, drink, or talk with them. At Velez's insistence she tried to wear them, but couldn't even drink water with the teeth in. After complaining to Velez he stated that he would make another set. When the other set was prepared they appeared to fit worse than the first set. They were impossible to wear. She called Velez and he stated he couldn't do anything about it. Telephone calls to his office were answered by a recording. Subsequently, she and her husband went by his office to wait him out. When he appeared he was angry because she had not called for an appointment and wanted to know if she wanted him to take some material off the plates. When Mrs. Livermore replied that she didn't know, he took the teeth into his lab for a short while and when he returned shoved them in her mouth and escorted her out. His nurse told her if she came back he would charge her $10 per visit. The teeth still could not be used by Mrs. Livermore and when she complained to the dental society she was referred to Dr. Waldheim, Assistant Secretary Treasurer of the State Board of Dentistry. In February, l976 Dr. Waldheim examined Mrs. Livermore and found the dentures to be oversized with a poor occlusion. The dentures were inadequate for the patient and could not be adjusted to fit. Mrs. Georgia McCampbell visited Dr. Velez in late November, 1975 to have teeth pulled and dentures made. He took impressions of her teeth and approximately one week later when she returned several teeth were extracted and both upper and lower dentures were inserted. The lowers fit badly and would not stay in place. Her next appointment was one week later. During this period of time the dentures were burning and hurting very badly and when she went back for her appointment she did not see Dr. Velez, but was seen only by an assistant. By this time her gums inflamed and abscessed. She told the assistant she had an appointment with Dr. Velez, but was advised that since she was late for her appointment with Velez she could not see him. One of the assistants attempted to fit the dentures by putting them in, but they were hurting too much for her to wear. A few days later she went to Dr. Ford. When Dr. Ford examined Mrs. McCampbell he found the incision extended from second molar to second molar across the lower front part of her jaw. The wound was open and the jawbone was exposed. A pus-like material was observed in the gum. Her temperature was slightly elevated at 99.2 F. He treated her with antibiotics. Mrs. McCampbell advised Dr. Ford that she had teeth removed ten days before and had been back on three occasions but was unable to see the dentist. She could only see a dental assistant. Dr. Ford expressed the opinion that where six or eight teeth in a row are removed sutures would normally be indicated. Three days later upon her return she was beginning to heal and he removed some bone fragments from the jaw. The incision made when the teeth were removed healed in about three weeks. His examination of the dentures that had been made for Mrs. McCampbell showed they were too large and the jaw would not properly close with the dentures in the mouth. Dr. George A. Woodruff, D.O.S., in Titusville knew Dr. Velez when he was practicing in Titusville some two and a half to three years ago and had patients in common with Velez. One of these patients, Sue Flenniken, visited his office in May, 1972 with gum abscess. She advised him that Velez had proposed to treat her with a root canal. In Dr. Woodruff's opinion a root canal would not have helped in her case, as the gum was abscessed. Some two months later the tooth flared up again and extraction was required. Another client shared with Dr. Velez was one Hazel Todd. She was experiencing problems with a Velez-constructed bridge held by three teeth on which root canals had been done by Dr. Velez. Upon examination Dr. Woodruff found the root canal treatment inadequate. One was underfilled just short of the tip of the root, the other two overfilled with the filling sticking out of the end of the root. This was clearly visible in the x-ray. Dr. Woodruff opined, that the three root canals done at the same time on three teeth in a row was contraindicated. Normally when a patient has sensitivity in an area proper treatment would be to narrow down the sensitivity and then do a root canal on the tooth most suspect to see if that cured the problem before proceeding to treat the other teeth. Mrs. Amelia Thomas visited Dr. Velez in June, l976 for replacement dentures. After she paid half of the quoted price a dental assistant took the impressions from which the new dentures were made. On this visit Dr. Velez did not take any impressions. When she returned a week or ten days later to pick up the teeth she was advised that she had to pay the balance of the amount owed on the teeth prior to having the teeth fitted. When she questioned paying for the teeth before trying them Dr. Velez told her abruptly that is the way that he did it. After she made the balance of the payment the teeth were tried in her mouth. They did not fit well and she could not bite comfortably. Velez took part of the material off the teeth and told her to try them out and come back a week or so later for an adjustment. Although she tried to wear the teeth she couldn't talk or eat with them. She considered they were too large and her jaws would not properly close. When she went back to Dr. Velez with her complaint he told her that he had made the teeth to fit and that she was going to have to wear them. She offered to pay him more if he would make another set that did fit but he declined. Velez then brought in another man who checked her teeth and took them out to the lab to work on. About an hour later Velez advised her that he would make her another set of plates and he took impressions to do so. He also asked for her old plate to be left there for a couple of days which she declined to do because she felt she could not get along without them. She did not return for the second set of teeth because she had become uneasy about the work Dr. Velez had done and stopped payment on her second check. Mrs. Thomas has worn dentures for approximately 40 years and this is the first time a dentist had asked her to leave her old dentures for a pattern. Alfred W. Langley saw Dr. Velez in January, 1976 to have a set of dentures made. Dr. Velez took the impressions and when Langley returned approximately one week later for fitting, the teeth fit so badly that Velez would not let Langley out of the office with them. Velez took a second set of impressions but when Langley returned those teeth fit no better and a third impression was taken. When the third set of teeth was made, Langley took those home with him but they did not fit. They wouldn't stay in place and he could not talk with them. Subsequently he visited the consumer protection agency and obtained a letter from the dental board and from the consumer protection agency. When he confronted Dr. Velez with these letters Velez returned the money he had paid for the teeth. These letters from Dr. Waldheim and from the State Attorney's office were received into evidence as Exhibits 7 and 8. Mrs. Louise Rodgers visited Dr. Velez in February, 1976 experiencing problems with her teeth. Another dentist had wanted to do root canals on some twenty-odd teeth but she didn't feel she could afford the approximately $4,000 she had been advised that treatment would cost. She visited Dr. Velez to see if extraction and dentures would be cheaper. Dr. Velez took x-rays and impressions prior to extracting the teeth. On March 4, 1976 Dr. Velez extracted 23 teeth and put in the plates that he had constructed from the earlier impressions. She immediately inquired if the upper plate was supposed to be as loose as the one in her mouth appeared to be. Under instructions she kept the plate in all afternoon but had to hold her finger on the plate for 3 or 4 hours until the swelling was sufficient to hold the plate in place. Later when she took them out to clean her mouth she couldn't get the plate back in because of the large bone in the way. The following Monday she called the office and was advised to come in on the 11th, some 7 days after the extractions. Dr. Velez was not there and one of the girls in the office tried to put the teeth in but couldn't. Mrs. Rodgers returned the following day and saw Dr. Velez who removed the bone fragment that was in the way. He tried to put the teeth back in but there was too much swelling and the upper part of the jaw was very irritated. When she returned on the 18th of March her gums were still tender but there was no longer any bleeding. On that visit Dr. Velez did some grinding on the teeth so they could be put in her mouth; however, they would not stay in place. Velez advised her to get something gummy and sticky to hold them in. She tried to wear the teeth but they felt too big and would not stay up. She went back on the 23rd of March complaining about her teeth not staying up. She was advised she had to get used to them but he would remake them if she would pay an additional fee of $78. When she called on April 22nd and asked to talk to Dr. Velez the girl said he was extremely busy and couldn't come to the phone. The receptionist advised that she would make her another appointment but she should wait for three weeks. During this time she was still trying to wear the dentures but couldn't eat with them, talk with them, and the uppers kept falling down. When she did return for her final appointment he advised she was just going to have to wear them until she could get used to them. After complaining to the Dental Board Mrs. Rodgers was advised to visit Dr. Waldheim. When Dr. Waldheim examined Mrs. Rodgers in June, 1976 he found that her gums had healed but the teeth did not fit. The occlusial relationship was badly off and the teeth could not be adjusted to fit. Dr. Waldheim further opined that extracting 23 teeth at one time and not seeing the patient until 10 days thereafter was very poor dental practice. In his opinion the patient should always be seen the following day if as many as 23 teeth were extracted. Mrs. Sarah Gier visited Dr. Velez in February, 1976 to have new dentures made. Velez advised her that she could have the $98 set or the $150 deluxe set, but that the $150 teeth were worth approximately $600. She selected the $150 set. At this visit Dr. Velez took impressions and when she returned on February 19 for the teeth the upper dentures appeared all right. Dr. Velez acknowledged that the bottom dentures were wrong and would have to be made over. He then took impressions for the lower plate but when she returned for them they didn't fit. Dr. Velez instructed her to try and wear them. She tried but couldn't wear them because they hurt too badly. When she returned on March 1, a boy in the office removed her teeth, took them back to the lab to work on them. When he returned they still did not fit and he made a second adjustment. When Dr. Velez appeared he advised her that she would probably have to use powder and that it may be several weeks before she would get used to the teeth. Inasmuch as each visit was now costing $10 she didn't feel that she could make more visits. On March 4th Mrs. Gier called and asked for her money back. Initially the receptionist said all right, but called back and advised that Dr. Velez had changed his mind and could not give her money back. Subsequently when she and her husband stopped by to see Velez he told her if she didn't leave he would call the police. Later she visited Dr. Waldheim, to whom she had been referred by the Dental Board. Dr. Waldheim found the dentures did not fit as they were too large and the jaws could not close to their natural position. Using the witness as a model Dr. Waldheim had her insert the teeth at the hearing. It was clearly evident that the jaws were extended by the teeth and the lips would not close. In Dr. Waldheim's opinion those teeth could never be made to fit. In February, 1976 Mr. Joseph Marrone visited Dr. Velez to have dentures made. He had heard that Dr. Velez was reasonable and the next door neighbor had recommended Dr. Velez. He had a partial plate held by three teeth on the, bottom that needed to be pulled. When Dr. Velez examined him Marrone was advised it would be better to pull the bottom and top teeth and make a full set of dentures. On the first visit Dr. Velez made impressions for the lower plate. On Mr. Marrone's second visit the lower plate was ready and was placed in his mouth. Although the receptionist told him not to take them out they hurt so badly that he had to. When he returned a few days later two girls in the office examined his teeth and made adjustments on them. However, the teeth never fit and were causing bruises and sores in the gums. He could not eat with them. Thereafter Dr. Velez made a second full set of teeth, but they too did not fit. After several adjustments were made Velez advised this would be the last time he could adjust them and if they didn't work he could do nothing more about it. Mr. Marrone then asked him to return his money `and he would go to a dentist who could prepare him a set of dentures he could wear. When Marrone subsequently complained to the dental board he was referred to Dr. Waldheim. Dr. Waldheim's examination of the dentures showed the lower plate extended and it could not be corrected to fit. Mr. Marrone was then referred to another dentist who was able to adjust the upper plate that had been made by Dr. Velez to fit but it was necessary to make a new lower plate for Mr. Marrone. With respect to the various patients of Dr. Velez that had been seen by Dr. Waldheim due to improperly fitting dentures, Dr. Waldheim expressed the opinion that the most probable cause of the ill-fitting dentures was in the manner in which the impressions were taken or in the material used in taking the impressions. If improper impression material was used it could have changed from the time the impression was taken until the time it was used for the mold for the dentures. None of the dentures made for the patients of Dr. Velez that were seen by Dr. Waldheim could have been adjusted so they would fit. Connie Bragdon and Marie Minzenberger worked in Dr. Velez's office in 1975 and 1976. Both had received training from Dr. Velez, both worked as Dr. Velez's assistants, both took impressions from which dentures were made, and both adjusted dentures. They were instructed to give a copy of the letter, admitted into evidence as Exhibit 9, to all patients. These letters contained a map showing the location of the office on the back and advised the prices that the doctor charged for various services. Letters similar to those in Exhibits 2, 4 and 9 were mailed to patients who called and requested information. Rebecca Velez, wife of Dr. Velez, testified over the objection of the attorney for Respondent, who objected on grounds of the husband and wife privilege. Mrs. Velez had worked in the office for approximately one and one half years in 1975 to early 1976. She too had received no previous training. She acknowledged that Exhibits 2 and 4 were very similar to those that were in the office and were given to all patients who visited the office. Dr. Henry Gagliardi, D.D.S. is a dental educator who established a dental hygiene school at the Florida Junior College in Jacksonville. Dr. Gagliardi defined a dental auxiliary as an individual working with or for a dentist. This person can be either a dental assistant or a hygienist; however, the latter requires a license and two years training. A dental assistant may be employed with no preparation or training. A hygienist can scale teeth, use instruments in the mouth, and take impressions. A person not licensed by the dental board may not legally take impressions from which a prosthetic device will be made, but they may take impressions for diagnostic purposes only. A dental assistant may not alter a prosthetic appliance (denture). If an extension on a prosthetic device causes problems to the patient the diagnosis and correction of this problem must be done by a dentist. Since the determination of the accuracy of the bite on a prosthetic device is very important, this is another task that must be done by the dentist and not by an auxiliarist. Dentures are often placed into the oral cavity immediately after extraction and when so done they act as a splint until the cavities heal. In the normal process gums will shrink following extraction of teeth and thereafter the dentures will require adjustment. Improperly fitting dentures can cause lack of equilibrium in the jaws, sore gums, and sores in the mouth. In December, 1973 Mrs. Norma Laursen, daughter-in-law of Margaret B. Laursen, visited Dr. Velez on an emergency basis to have a broken tooth repaired. Dr. Velez was unable to take her case at that time. Several months later she and her husband received an envelope in the mail containing a letter which was introduced into evidence as Exhibit 2. The introduction of Exhibit 2 was objected to on the grounds that there was no evidence that it was signed by Dr. Velez or sent by Dr. Velez. Ruling on this motion was deferred at that time. Since subsequent exhibits indicate that this letter was one of many of a similar kind that were distributed to various individuals, the objection is overruled and Exhibit 2 is admitted into evidence. Robert E. Laursen corroborated the testimony of his wife, Norma. James E. Stone, of Titusville visited Dr. Velez while Velez was practicing in Titusville some two and one half to three years ago. He had chipped a tooth over the week-end and went in to see Dr. Velez for emergency repairs on a following Monday. Dr. Velez took x-rays, filed the tooth down, and advised Mr. Stone that in the future he may need a root canal. Dr. Velez was never his family dentist. Some months later he received in the mail a letter which was offered into evidence as Exhibit 4. Mrs. Stone corroborated the testimony of Mr. Stone with respect to the receipt of Exhibit 4 in the mail. Exhibit 4 was objected to on the same grounds as Exhibit 2 and at the time the ruling on the objection was deferred. For the same reasons given above, Exhibit 4 is now admitted into evidence. Six witnesses, Susan Weiler, Daryl DeVevc, Gustav Jicha, Daisy Smith, Robert B. Smith, and Janice Sidley testified on behalf of Dr. Velez. All had received treatment from Dr. Velez and considered him to be an excellent dentist who did very fine work for each of them. Some had experienced difficulties with dentures made by other dentists, but those prepared by Dr. Velez were excellent. A series of commendatory letters addressed to Dr. Velez were admitted into evidence as Exhibit 13. Attached thereto is an affidavit signed by some 57 former patients to the effect that Dr. Velez had performed dental work on them and they were completely satisfied with his service, his professional conduct and competence as a dentist. Copies of various certificates held by Dr. Velez were admitted into evidence as Composite Exhibit 14.
The Issue The issue is whether the score that Respondent assigned to the Patient Amalgam Preparation and Periodontal sections of the clinical part of Petitioner's June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination taken 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 2.94, so he failed the clinical part of the examination. Petitioner has challenged the grades of 2.0 that he received on the Patient Amalgam Preparation and Periodontal sections of the clinical part of the examination. In both sections, 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. For both procedures, Petitioner challenges only the scores 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 two sections that are the subject of this case require 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 each 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. Communication between examiners and candidates is exclusively through monitor notes. For each 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 Periodontal section of the clinical part of the dental examination required Petitioner to debride five teeth. Removing calculus from teeth, especially below the gums, is an important procedure because the build-up of tartar and plaque may cause pockets to form between the tooth and gum. Eventually, the gum tissue may deteriorate, ultimately resulting in the loss of the tooth. Prior to the examination, written materials explain to the candidates and examiners that the debridement is to remove all supragingival and subgingival foreign deposits. For the Periodontal procedure, Examiners 207 and 296 each gave Petitioner a 3, and Examiner 394 gave him a 0. The scoring sheets provide a space for preprinted notes relevant to the procedure. All three examiners noted root roughness. However, Examiner 394 detected "heavy" subgingival calculus on four teeth and documented his findings, as required to do when scoring a 0. Petitioner contends that two examiners and he correctly detected no calculus, and Examiner 394 incorrectly detected calculus. As an explanation, Petitioner showed that Examiner 394 knows Petitioner in an employment setting, and their relationship may have been tense at times. However, Petitioner never proved that Examiner 394 associated Petitioner's candidate number with Petitioner. Thus, personal bias does not explain Examiner 394's score. On the other hand, Examiners 296 and 207 are extremely experienced dental examiners. Examiner 296 has served nine years in this capacity, and Examiner 207 has served ten years, conducting 15-20 dental examinations during this period of time. By contrast, Examiner 394 has been licensed in Florida only since 1995 and has been serving as a dental examiner for only three years. However, the most likely explanation for this scoring discrepancy is that Examiner 394 explored more deeply the subgingival area than did Examiners 207 and 296 or Petitioner. Examiner 394 testified with certainty that he found the calculus at 5-6 mm beneath the gums. This is likely deeper than the others penetrated, but not unreasonably deep. For the Periodontal procedure, an examiner who found calculus on four teeth would be entitled to award the candidate 0 points. Examiners may deduct two points per tooth that has been incompletely cleaned, although the lowest score is 0. Examiner 394's score of 0 is therefore legitimate and at least as reliable as the other scores of 3. The 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 Amalgam Preparation procedure, but this criterion is the only one of importance in this case. Examiners 207 and 417 each assigned Petitioner a 3 for this procedure, but Examiner 420 assigned him a 0. Examiners 207 and 417 noted some problems with the preparation of the tooth, but neither detected any caries. Examiner 420 detected caries and documented his finding, as required to do when scoring a 0. As noted above, Examiner 207 is a highly experienced evaluator, but the other two evaluators are experienced dentists. Examiner 417 graduated from dental school in 1979, and Examiner 420 has been licensed in Florida since 1981. 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. Examiner 420 testified definitively that he detected caries tactilely, not visually, in Petitioner's patient. This testimony is credited. It is difficult to reconcile Examiner 420's finding of caries with the contrary finding by the highly experienced Examiner 207. It does not seem especially likely that an experienced dentist would miss decay, especially in the artificial setting of a dental examination, in which everyone's attention is focused on one tooth. Examiner 207's finding of no caries is corroborated by the same finding of Examiner 417. However, Examiner 417's finding is given little weight. She readily suggested that she must have missed the caries. What at first appeared to be no more than a gracious gesture by a witness willing to aid Respondent's case took on different meaning when Examiner 417 testified, in DOAH Case No. 03-3955, first that she had detected visually and then retreated to testifying that she did not know if she had detected caries visually or tactilely--a significant concession because examiners were instructed explicitly not to rely on visual findings of caries. Returning, then, to the conflict between the findings of Examiner 420 and Examiner 207, substantially unaided by the corroborating findings of Examiner 417, either an experienced, credible dentist has found caries where none exists, or an experienced credible dentist has missed caries. The specificity of Examiner 420's testimony makes it more likely, as logic would suggest, that he did not imagine the existence of caries, and Examiner 207 somehow missed the caries. It is thus slightly more likely than not that Petitioner failed to remove the caries prior to presenting the patient. More importantly, though, for reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law, Examiner 420, in finding caries, adhered strictly to Respondent's rules and policies for evaluating candidates' work, and his finding was not arbitrary or capricious.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the scoring of the clinical part of the June 2003 Florida Dental License 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
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a dentist licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0001575. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the standards for licensure and for practice of dentists in the State of Florida and with enforcing compliance with those licensure and practice standards contained in Chapter 466, Florida Statutes (1981). Jewel Taub is an elderly dental patient who first saw Dr. Seth Rhodes on January 28, 1980. On February 14, 1980, the Respondent took impressions of Mrs. Taub's mouth to construct a partial denture for her. On February 26, 1980, the denture was tried in the patient's mouth by Dr. Tyrone Cheeping, an associate of the Respondent. On March 4, 1980, the denture was delivered to Mrs. Taub by the Respondent and an initial adjustment performed by him, Mrs. Taub complaining that the denture palate was too thick. On April 28, 1980, the Respondent again adjusted the denture in response to Mrs. Taub's complaint that the denture or its palatal portion, was still too thick. In approximately March of 1980, the patient had stopped putting the partial denture in a container of liquid as she had been instructed by the Respondent. She began at that time to keep the partial denture in a dry envelope in her medicine chest. The patient had worn lower dentures and had been advised many times that if she did not properly care for and maintain this upper denture it could be damaged. She stopped caring for and maintaining the partial denture because she had no intention of ever wearing it again because of her dissatisfaction with its fit. Dr. Marshall Brothers, a contract dentist for the Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Dentistry, was accepted as an expert witness. He examined Jewel Taub in his office on November 25, 1981, and examined the upper partial denture in question. The theory of the design of the upper partial denture was correct because the Respondent planned that appliance to have full palatal coverage because the patient needed the additional support from the roof of her mouth and that type of denture would aid her in making a transition eventually to a full upper denture. Dr. Brothers opined that the thickness of the plate, the impingement, the openness of the bite and a lateral rock rendered the execution of the partial denture to be below community standards for manufacture and fit of such dentures. Dr. Brothers did not, in formulating this opinion, consider the passage of time during which the denture was not used by the patient and not properly cared for and was not aware whether there had been any movement in the teeth, change in size of the gums or adjacent tissue, during more than one and one-half years since the attempted adjustments. It is quite unusual that a denture should fit the first time it is tried in a patient's mouth. Thickness alone, even if a denture is too thick, does not alone render the execution of that denture below the standard of care. If a substantial period of time elapses (here in excess of one and one-half years) between the time when the denture was made and the time expert opinions are rendered regarding the fit of the denture in this patient, there can be movement in the teeth and changes in the dimensions of gums or tissue which can alter the fit of the denture. This is particularly true in the case of an 80- year-old patient. The fit of the denture can be altered for the additional reason that the patient failed to maintain the denture properly during that intervening one and one-half years between the time she quit wearing it, in approximately April of 1980, and the time expert examination and opinions regarding its fit were rendered, shortly prior to this hearing. The manufacture of the denture with a palatal portion of a thickness in excess of one and a half millimeters is not necessarily too thick and the fact that that thickness exceeds one and a half millimeters does not render the manufacture and fit of that denture a departure from the proper standards of care of the dentist who manufactures and fits it. Indeed, proper palatal thickness varies considerably from one patient to another and the prescribing of a proper palatal thickness in such a denture is not an exact science since patients' mouths and their dimensions are all different. Indeed, the Respondent prescribed and fitted dentures for a substantial number of his patients who required a palatal thickness of between 3 and 6.2 millimeters and those patients all reported satisfaction with the fit of their dentures. The material used in the denture in question is an acrylic material containing a metal reinforcing mesh. That material is manufactured and supplied to dentists such as the Respondent with a thickness slightly in excess of one and a half millimeters. That then is the minimum dimension of the palatal material which then must be built-up by the dentist in constructing an accurate fit in the palatal portion of the denture to conform to a particular patient's mouth. The slightly more than one and a half millimeter palatal material is therefore a minimum or starting point for the dentist in constructing the denture and it is practically impossible for the material to be thinner than that dimension. Indeed most of the similar dentures satisfactorily fitted by the Respondent were of a palatal thickness of between 3 and 6.2 millimeters. Thus, a palatal thickness in excess of one and a half millimeters cannot be per se excessive. The Respondent's expert witness, Dr. Gary Golden, is also a contract dentist with the Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Dentistry. He conducts a limited clinical specialty practice in prosthodontics and in maxillofacial prosthetics. He is assistant professor of orthodontics and oral surgery at the University of Miami and has conducted extensive study in his specialty area. He is the author of numerous papers and articles on the subject. One article in particular, admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 3, deals specifically with the issue of palatal size in dental prosthetics. It is not possible to merely observe a denture and determine if one and a half millimeters, the so-called "old standard" is too thick or too thin for a given patient. The partial denture in this case was outside of the patient's mouth for over one and a half years and that fact alone makes it difficult for the patient to reinsert it comfortably. This is true because of shrinkage of areas of her mouth or gums not containing teeth and the resultant movement of her remaining teeth. In an 80-year-old lady such as the complaining witness, particularly, teeth tend to "drift" because of previous extraction of teeth which the denture was designed to replace. It is quite likely that with this patient movement of her teeth occurred during the one and a half years when she did not use the denture, causing the poor fit. A patient's cooperation is quite necessary in obtaining the proper fit for such a partial denture and it is not unusual for numerous adjustments to have to be made. Here the patient quit coming to the Respondent's office for adjustments after the fourth adjustment during a short period of time after the initial fitting. After that the patient ceased cooperating with the Respondent and did not care for the denture properly by not maintaining it in a liquid environment. The lack of care by the patient, coupled with the fact that only a one-half millimeter movement of the teeth in any direction can render the fit of such a denture improper was more likely the cause of the improper fit than the initial design and manufacture of the denture and the adjustments made during the four opportunities the Respondent had to adjust the denture. When the patient complained of excessive palate thickness, the Respondent made adjustments and trimmed the thickness and the coverage of the palatal portion of the denture. After that, the patient failed to appear in his office again (for any further adjustment). Finally, the Respondent established that the interior metal mesh in the material from which the palate was construction is itself one and a half millimeters thick and thus it was impossible for the palate, including the acrylic material surrounding the mesh, to be only one and a half millimeters thick and although one and a half millimeters could possibly be too thick for some patients, it was not the case with this patient. The patient's complaint was really a generalized one regarding "all that stuff in the roof of my mouth" and in reality it was not established that the denture in question could be made successfully in any other way. In summary, Dr. Brothers could not determine whether or not there had been any movement in the teeth or change in size of the gums or adjacent tissue in the patient's mouth. The patient had not maintained the denture properly during the substantial period of time when she did not wear the denture. It is not possible to accurately determine the appropriate original fit and function of the partial denture in question at the time Dr. Brothers examined it and the patient, since it was outside the mouth of the patient for a period of one and a half years and because of possible shrinkage of edentulous areas which do not contain teeth; the extrusion and drifting of the remaining teeth (since the denture is precisely cast to the teeth and gum tissue in a certain position at a certain time); and any movement or change in the teeth or gums would make it impossible to seat the denture satisfactorily. It is to be expected that in a patient 80 years of age who had not worn a partial denture for a period of one and a half years, that at least some movement of the teeth would have occurred, altering the fit of the partial denture. Thus, it was established that the fit of the denture to the patient's mouth more than one and a half years after the Respondent initially manufactured and fitted the denture was not the same. It is quite rare that a prosthetic dental device can be manufactured and simply inserted and not require a number of adjustments. It was not established that the denture was improperly made or that it should have been remanufactured.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found not guilty of a violation of Section 466.028(1)(y) and that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Gallagher, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Hamar, Esquire 155 South Miami Avenue Suite 111 Miami, Florida 33130 Fred Varn, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent, James P. Haas, was offering to practice dentistry, and indeed practicing dentistry at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center, in violation of Sections 466.24(3)(n) and 466.36, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent, James P. Haas, maintained a telephone listing whereby he offered to practice dentistry as D.A.D. Denture Center at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, and whether or not he continues to maintain said listing, in violation of Sections 466.24(3)(g) and 466.27(5), Florida Statutes. Whether or not since January 1, 1978, or prior to that date, one Bernie Morlock has been employed by the Respondent, James P. Haas, to perform dental services at a time when the said Bernie Morlock was not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene in the State of Florida. Further, whether or not Bernie Morlock, while employed by the Respondent, practiced dentistry as defined in Section 466.04, Florida Statutes, to the extent of: Taking impressions of the human teeth and jaws. Placing dentures and dental appliances in patients' mouths and adjusting or attempting to adjust same. Diagnosing or professing to diagnose the physical condition of the teeth and jaws of patients. Finally, whether or not the Respondent knowingly allowed the practice of dentistry by Bernie Morlock in violation of Section 466.02, Florida Statutes, and in further violation of Section 466.24(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes. Whether or not since January 1, 1978, or prior to that date, the Respondent, James P. Haas, has employed unlicensed personnel to perform dental services for patients, to-wit: orthodontic treatment, which services constitute the practice of dentistry under Section 466.04, Florida Statutes. Further, whether or not if these services were performed by unlicensed persons, were they performed with the full knowledge and consent of the Respondent, thereby constituting a violation on the part of the Respondent of Sections 466.24(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes. (The Amended Accusation which charges the Respondent contained a certain Count III; however, no testimony was offered in support of that allegation and at the conclusion of the formal hearing, the Petitioner, through its counsel, voluntarily withdrew that count from consideration. This voluntary dismissal was unopposed by the Respondent.)
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, Division of Professions, Board of Dentistry, is an agency of the state created for the purposes of protecting the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the State of Florida, to the extent that practice of dentistry in the state and dental hygiene are subject to the regulation and control of the Petitioner in the public interest. The authority for such regulation is set forth in Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and those rules of the Florida Administrative Code related thereto. The Respondent, James P. Haas, is licensed by the Florida State Board of Dentistry to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. The Petitioner, by an Amended Accusation, has charged the Respondent, James P. Haas, with various violations of provisions of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and the Respondent has requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, which request has been granted and a hearing held on February 15 and 16, 1979. The first of the allegations states that on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent was offering to practice dentistry and indeed practicing dentistry at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center. The facts reveal that Dr. Haas made an arrangement with an organization known as Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., of Harredsberg, Kentucky, wherein he agreed to coordinate the placement of advertisements for the benefit of that corporation and in turn the corporation agreed to refer patients to Dr. Haas for his treatment. The advertising spoken of consisted of an ad in the Winter Park, Florida, telephone directory yellow pages and certain newspaper advertising through the Orlando Sentinel of Orlando, Florida. The advertising in the telephone directory was placed in the fall of 1977 and a copy of that yellow page advertising may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence contains a copy of the format for the telephone yellow page advertising, as contemplated by Dr. Haas through his agreement with Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., of Harredsberg, Kentucky. The listing of the telephone number was of the number in Harredsberg, Kentucky, and those individuals at that number in turn made the referrals to Dr. Haas's office located at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida. An example of the newspaper advertising may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence at page 161-I, a copy of the Sentinal Star Progress Edition of December 18, 1977. In that advertising the same number is given as indicated in the aforementioned telephone telephone ad, with the difference being that Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., is given as the trade name as opposed to D.A.D. Denture Center, which was found in the telephone advertisement. Dr. Haas maintained a separate checking account for D.A.D. Denture Center, the name of his affiliation with Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc. The payments for services made by those patients referred through the D.A.D. Denture Center process, were placed into the D.A.D. Denture Center operating account of Dr. Haas. Those persons authorized to make withdrawals from that account were Dr. Haas and his employee, Bernie Morlock, and checks were drawn from that account under the authority of Dr. Haas. The overall income and expanses of D.A.D. Denture Center, operated by Dr. Haas, and of his general practice in the name of James P. Haas-sole proprietor, were combined and were under the control and authority of Dr. Haas. The dental office located in Longwood, Florida, was identified as the office of James P. Haas, D.D.S., and also by a placard indicating the office to be a D.A.D. Denture Center. Finally, those patients who called for service under D.A.D. Denture Center were charged by different fee structure and were listed in a separate appointment book, than that appointment hook for the Respondent through his general practice, James P. Haas, D.D.S. The Respondent was knowledgeable of the arrangement to treat patients under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center at the address in Longwood, Florida, and in fact practiced dentistry under that assumed name and at that location as alleged in Count I of the Amended Accusation. This constituted a violation of Section 466.36, Florida Statutes, which states: "Practicing dentistry under assumed name; penalties.-- On and after the passage of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to practice or offer to practice dentistry under any name except his or her own proper name, which shall be the name used in his or her license certificate granted to him or her as a dentist as provided in this chapter, and unlawful to use the name of any company, association, corporation, clinic, trade name, or business name in connection with the practice of dentistry as defined in this chapter, provided, nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent two or more licensed dentists from associating to- gether for the practice of dentistry, each in his or her own proper name. The violation of any of the provisions of this section by any dentist shall subject such dentist to suspen- sion or revocation of his or her license." The advertisement placed in the Winter Park, Florida, telephone directory, which is sham as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence, was placed with the knowledge of the Respondent and with the intention by the Respondent that the advertisement be made. This advertisement pertained to the 1978 telephone directory for Winter Park, Florida. Under these facts, the Petitioner has charged the Respondent with a violation of Section 466.27(5), Florida Statutes. That provision reads: "466.27(5) Telephone listings shall be con- fined to the local telephone directories. Such listings shall be limited to the den- tist's name, dental degree, 'D.D.S.' or 'D.M.D.,' using the abbreviation only, the word 'dentist,' 'dentistry,' or 'general dentistry,' any specialty as approved by the board to which the dentist confines his practice exclusively, office location, resi- dence and office telephone numbers, and residence address and may include his member- ship in a local dental society if in accord with local customs." A review of the language of this section, in view of the fact that the advertising in the telephone directory inured to the benefit of the Respondent by the process of the referral system spoken of above, demonstrates that the telephone listing was for the benefit of Dr. Haas and was not in keeping with the requirements of this subsection. This constituted advertising professional services and the practice of dentistry in a manner not expressly authorized by Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and was therefore in violation of Section 466.24(3)(g), Florida Statutes. One of the employees of the Respondent who worked in the office at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, was Bernie Morlock. Morlock was not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene in the State of Florida at any time relevant to the allegations in the Amended Accusation. Nonetheless, Morlock practiced dentistry as defined by Section 466.04, Florida Statutes, and did so in the office of the Respondent in Longwood, Florida, with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent. The arrangement which was condoned by the Respondent allowed for Morlock to have patients scheduled for him for the purpose of the preparation of dentures through the referral system, D.A.D. Denture Center, which was part of Dr. Haas's Longwood, Florida, office. (An example of the written schedules may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence.) Dr. Haas had instructed that these patients be scheduled to be seen by Bernie Morlock. Some of these patients were being seen by Dr. Haas's office for the first time and were attended by Bernie Morlock from this initial visit to the conclusion of the case, at which time the patients were given their dentures. Morlock's involvement with patients included diagnosis of the physical condition of the teeth and jaws of the patients; taking impressions of patients' teeth, both algenate and working model impressions; the placement of dentures and other dental appliances in the patients' mouths and the adjustment to those dentures and dental appliances, and the discussion of the case with the patient. Most of the work that Morlock did was done at a time when Dr. Haas was not in attendance in the aforementioned office and was done without supervision from any licensed dentist. This process undertaxen by Bernie Morlock happened on numerous occasions. The patients were considered to be Morlock's patients and the patients only saw licensed dentists for the purpose of extracting teeth or other dental procedures unconnected with the fabrication and try-in and adjustment to the dentures. These actions on the part of Bernie Morlock took place during the time period alleged in Count IV of the Amended Accusation. By allowing Bernie Morlock to attend patients in the fashion that Morlock did, the Respondent was willfully negligent in the practice of dentistry within the moaning of Section 466.24(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and in addition was guilty of a violation of Section 466.24(e), Florida Statutes, which states: "Employing or permitting any unlicensed per- son or persons to perform any work in his office which would constitute the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene, except a dental auxiliary pursuant to the provisions of this chapter." During the period of time alleged in Count V of the Amended Accusation, the Respondent employed dental hygienists Vic Simmons and Mary Simmons at his office in Longwood, Florida. Although they wore dental hygienists, these individuals were not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene within the State of Florida. Notwithstanding this absence of a license, the Simmonses practiced dentistry in the Longwood office within the meaning of Section 466.04, Florida Statutes. This included having certain schedules set for them as indicated by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. This is an example of the schedule for the Simmonses under the title, "Ortho". This scheduling was with the knowledge of Dr. Haas, who had arranged for the Simmonses to come and treat orthodontic patients in his office. The Simmonses came to the location of the Respondent's office two days a month, of which Dr. Haas was in the Longwood office one of those days. These orthodontic patients would be seen initially by Dr. Haas and then treated for their condition by the Simmonses. Some of the patients first seen by the Simmonses arrived at the office without any form of braces in the mouth of the patient. The procedures that the Simmonses then performed were done without supervision by a licensed dentist. By that it is meant that the Simmonses were performing the dental services without the licensed dentist being in the room. The Simmonses, in the pursuit of orthodontic dental practice, placed bands and changed beads, cemented hands and placed arch wires; all with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent. Under the circumstances involved in the employment of the Simmonses, it has been demonstrated that the Respondent is guilty of willful negligence in the practice of dentistry as prescribed in Section 466.24(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is also guilty of a violation of Section 466.24(3)(e), Florida Statutes, in that he employed and permitted unlicensed persons to perform work in his office which would constitute the practice of dentistry. The proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation offered by the parties have been revied prior to the rendition of this Recommended Order. To the extent that the proposals conform to the findings herein, they have been utilized in developing the Recommended Order. To the extent that the proposals are inconsistent with the findings herein, they are rejected.
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
