The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should have received a passing score on the June 2001 Florida Dental Licensure Examination, notwithstanding Respondent’s determination that he failed the test.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Siegel, who graduated from dental school in 1999, took the June 2001 Florida Dental Licensure Examination (the “Exam”), which was administered by the Department on June 2 through June 5, 2001. The Exam had two parts, a Clinical Part and a Laws and Rules Part. The Clinical Part was further divided into ten sections, each of which consisted of a separate clinical procedure. The minimum passing score on the Laws and Rules Part was 75.00; on the Clinical Part, a minimum score of 3.00 was required to pass. As calculated by The Department, Siegel scored 70.00 and 1.49, respectively, on the two parts. Thus, according to The Department, Siegel failed both parts of the Exam. Each candidate’s performance on the Clinical Part of the Exam was scored independently by three examiners chosen by the Department.1 These examiners were not informed of any candidate’s identity, nor were the candidates told the examiners’ names; they were not permitted to speak directly to one another while the Exam was being administered. The examiners who graded Siegel’s clinical performance had successfully completed standardization training.2 Additionally, the Department determined, as part of a routine post-Exam statistical review of examiner performance, that these particular examiners were reliable in terms of their consistency in applying the proper grading criteria.3 To determine a candidate’s overall score on the Clinical Part of the Exam, the Department first computed the average of the three examiners’ raw scores for each individual procedure. Each average score was then adjusted using the percentages prescribed in Rule 64B5-2.013, Florida Administrative Code, to arrive at a weighted mean score. A candidate’s overall score on the Clinical Part was equal to the sum of his or her weighted mean scores for each section. At hearing, Siegel challenged just one clinical procedure, the Patient Amalgam Restoration.4 An amalgam restoration is a dental procedure that involves filling a cavity so that the affected tooth is restored to proper form and function. After this procedure, the treated tooth should closely resemble its original size and shape. Siegel’s raw scores on this procedure were very low. One of the examiners who testified at the hearing, a dentist with some 40 years’ experience, had awarded Siegel no points for the Patient Amalgam Restoration procedure because, after completion of the work, the restoration was fractured and the patient’s gingival margin was open. Another examiner, a dentist with 35 years of experience, explained at hearing that Siegel's work on the amalgam restoration was a failure; in this examiner’s opinion, the patient's tooth was actually in worse condition after Siegel had finished the procedure. The testimony of these examiners was credible and is accepted as being truthful and accurate. Accordingly, it is found that Siegel failed to perform the amalgam restoration with the minimum degree of skill and competence required for licensure as a dentist in this state. For his part, Siegel contended that one of the examiners (presumably the one who did not testify at hearing) had caused the restoration to fracture. Siegel based this theory on the account of his patient, Scott Graham, who testified that one of the examiners had "picked" at his tooth with a sharp instrument.5 (Mr. Graham is not a dentist.) Mr. Graham, however, had not complained about any alleged examiner misconduct at the time of the examination. Likewise, no examiner ever reported any such irregularity. In the absence of contemporaneous corroborating evidence, created before it became known that Siegel had failed the Exam, Mr. Graham’s testimony is simply not persuasive evidence of examiner misconduct. To be sure, it is theoretically possible that an examiner might damage a candidate’s work and then attempt to cover up his error by blaming the candidate. The evidence in this case, however, is not nearly sufficient to support such a finding. To underscore the point: Siegel’s theory is speculative at best. As for the remaining clinical procedures, while Siegel complained that his scores were not a reliable or accurate measure of his performance, he failed to introduce any persuasive evidence in support of this allegation. At bottom, the trier is not persuaded that the scores Siegel received were arbitrary, capricious, unfair, inconsistent, or otherwise objectionable. To the contrary, the evidence in the record demonstrates convincingly that the scores Siegel received on this Exam were reliable, correct, impartially rendered, and consistent with the grading practices used in scoring other candidates’ work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department advise the Board Of Dentistry to enter a Final Order (a) holding that Siegel's administrative challenge to the scores he received on the June 2001 Florida Dental Licensure Examination is without factual and legal merit and (b) declaring that Siegel failed said examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 19th day of February, 2002.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner achieved a passing score on the June 1999 Florida dental licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed to practice dentistry in California and was also licensed in Georgia until he permitted his Georgia license to become inactive. He has been engaged in the active practice of dentistry for thirteen years. He has never been sued. Petitioner took the June 1999 clinical portion of the Florida dental licensure examination. He was subsequently advised that he had not achieved a passing score. Petitioner challenges the score he received on two portions of the clinical examination: his amalgam cavity preparation on the patient and his endodontic procedure on an extracted tooth. Petitioner's patient had a cavity between two teeth, although it was much lower than the contact point. The patient also had a large non-contiguous cavity in the front of the same tooth. Petitioner determined that he wished to save as much of the tooth as possible knowing that the large cavity in the front of the tooth would need to be filled. Because of the manner in which it was necessary to prepare the tooth to preserve the maximum amount of structure, he generated a monitor note explaining his approach. When he located the monitor to whom he would turn in his note, that monitor was busy viewing another patient and motioned for Petitioner to place the note at the monitor's station. Petitioner placed the note in the monitor's chair and returned to his patient. Petitioner completed the preparation procedure. While doing so, he noticed that his patient's tooth had a dead tract, a rare dental defect that would not interfere with the process. This was only the second time that Petitioner had seen a dead tract in a tooth despite his many years of practice. The first time had been while Petitioner was in dental school When his patient was graded, two of the three graders gave Petitioner a score of "0," noting that caries remained. The third grader saw no caries but noted debris remained. What the two examiners mistook for further decay was the dead tract. No debris remained. The other comments of the graders suggested that they had not seen the monitor note generated by Petitioner explaining the manner in which he was preparing the tooth and why. Despite the alleged presence of decay, Petitioner was instructed to proceed to fill the cavity. The extracted tooth on which Petitioner performed his endodontic procedure was an "easy" tooth with large canals. One grader gave Petitioner a "5," which is a perfect score. One grader gave him a "3," and the other gave him a "0." Only the grader who gave Petitioner the "0" noted that the tooth was perforated. The tooth Petitioner worked on had no perforation on the inside, and the x-rays taken during the process revealed no file or gutta percha filling off to the side of the canals. Petitioner did not perforate the tooth during his endodontic procedure. Petitioner properly performed both the amalgam cavity preparation on his patient and the endodontic procedure on the extracted tooth. He should be awarded full points on both procedures. The additional points are sufficient to give Petitioner a passing score.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner achieved a passing score on the June 1999 dental licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 26th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Buckhalt, Executive Director Department of Health Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Gregory K. Barfield 2555 Collins Road, Penthouse 114 Miami Beach, Florida 33140 Gregory K. Barfield Post Office Box 102 Rancho Sante Fe, California 92067 Adam Keith Ehrlich, Esquire Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Peter Kurachek, was a licensed dentist at all times relevant to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, having been issued license number 0005429, and was so licensed at the time of hearing. On January 19, 1981, Clarence Nicholson consulted the Respondent at the Sheppard Dental Center in Clearwater, Florida, regarding a dental problem. The Respondent performed a root canal treatment on Nicholson's tooth number six, a cuspid, and prepared the tooth to receive a crown. On January 31, 1981, the Respondent installed the permanent crown, which he had had prepared. In August 1981, the crown fell out, and Nicholson returned to the Sheppard Dental Center. Nicholson did not see the Respondent on this visit, and the crown was recemented by Dr. Christopher Clarke. In November 1981, the crown fell out a second time. Nicholson returned to the Sheppard Dental Center. On this occasion, Nicholson did not see Respondent, and the crown was recemented in place by Dr. Clarke. Dr. Clarke made no gross alterations to the crown on either of the appointments; however, he did clean the crown in preparation for recementing it on both occasions. Shortly after Dr. Clarke recemented the crown the second time, Nicholson saw Respondent and requested that he correct the crown. The Respondent advised Nicholson that he would be happy to replace the crown and redo the work if the crown became loose again. Respondent feared that forcefully removing the crown in order to prepare a new one might damage Nicholson's tooth. Because he would be responsible if the tooth were broken while removing the crown, the Respondent elected to deal with Nicholson's problem if the crown became loose again of its own accord. In April 1982, more than a year after Respondent did the work for Nicholson, and after the crown had been recemented twice by another dentist, Nicholson was examined by Dr. Paul Hounchell, a dental consultant for the Petitioner. As a result of his examination, Dr. Hounchell opined that the treatment provided by the Respondent did not meet the minimal accepted standards of practice in the community. (Tr. 81.) However, Dr. Hounchell indicated that his opinion was based upon the fact that Nicholson was unable to have the crown fixed to his satisfaction. Dr. Hounchell stated, "The only unprofessional thing is that we run this man around, you know, for a half a year, a year or something like that." (Tr. 121.) The record reflects that Nicholson only saw the Respondent one time after the Respondent installed the crown, and that on that occasion the Respondent told Nicholson that he would replace the crown to Nicholson's satisfaction if the crown became loose again. The record further reflects that Nicholson never tried to see the Respondent thereafter. The tooth in question was a nonvital tooth as a result of the root canal therapy. Such a tooth is more brittle and may fracture more easily. However, the tooth had a good-sized large root which was adequate to support a longer post. The various dentists disagree concerning whether it would have been appropriate for the Respondent to have removed the crown when he saw Nicholson after Dr. Clarke had recemented the crown in place. The treatment provided by the Respondent to Nicholson met minimum acceptable standards of practice in the community.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the charges against the Respondent, Peter Kurachek, D.D.S., be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 25th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Gallagher, Esquire Department of professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Peter Kurachek, DDS 703 Tropical Circle Sarasota, Florida 33581 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Fred Varn, Executive Director Board of Dentistry 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Should discipline be imposed against Respondent's license to practice dentistry for violation of Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2004)?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioner is the state department charged with the regulation of the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 456 and 466, Florida Statutes. Respondent is Jenny Davenport, D.D.S. Respondent is a licensed dentist in the state of Florida, having been issued license DN 13321. Respondent's mailing address of record is 7955 Dawsons Creek Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32222. On or about June 17, 2004, Patient L.E. presented to the Respondent complaining of pain associated with tooth number thirty-one. The Respondent performed a comprehensive examination, took an X-ray, removed existing intermediate restorative material, placed a cavit, prescribed an antibiotic and pain medication, and scheduled Patient L.E. for root canal treatment. The Respondent provided root canal treatment to Patient L.E. on or about June 28, 2004. Patient L.E. returned to the Respondent on or about July 6, 2004, for crown preparation of tooth number thirty-one, which the Respondent performed. On or about July 28, 2004, Patient L.E. presented to Respondent for seating of the final crown; however, the Respondent was dissatisfied with the permanent crown; therefore, she seated the crown with temporary cement and instructed the lab to fabricate a new permanent crown. On or about November 16, 2004, Patient L.E. presented to the Respondent for a prophylaxis and complained of pain in the lower right side of her mouth. Care and Treatment of Patient L.E.: The Patient's Recollection As established by the patient's testimony, when first seen by Respondent, Patient L.E. was not experiencing pain. When the patient returned for a visit it was determined that she needed to have a root canal performed on tooth number thirty- one. The procedure was performed. The patient was left with a temporary crown and an appointment made to have a permanent crown seated. Upon the next visit the permanent crown did not fit well. Respondent left the patient with a temporary solution. The patient returned in November 2004 for a cleaning, and she recalls, that at the time of the appointment, the crown on tooth number thirty-one had been set, as she refers to it, or seated. In November 2004 the patient was of the opinion that tooth number thirty-one had a permanent crown. At the November 2004 appointment the patient was experiencing sensitivity in tooth number thirty-one. However, before going to her November 16, 2004 appointment for cleaning, the patient had not complained of sensitivity in tooth number thirty-one. The nature of the sensitivity was a response to cold. She describes the nature of the discomfort as other than "really pain" [sic]. According to the patient, Respondent decided that tooth number thirty-one needed to be retreated. The patient was not certain why that was necessary. As the patient recounts the conversation, Respondent explained that she was going to retreat tooth number thirty-one because of the sensitivity, in particular that she was going to retreat the root canal. The patient returned on December 13, 2004, and the root canal on tooth number thirty-one was retreated. The patient has no recollection of an appointment being set for a later date. She realized that there was a necessity for a permanent crown to be "set again," referring to the need to seat a new permanent crown. The patient recalls Respondent's taking another permanent crown off before retreatment. When the patient left Respondent's office on that date, the area where treatment was performed felt numb. She left the office with the understanding that the treatment had been concluded, with the exception of the need to replace the crown. The patient assumed that the retreatment had been completed on December 13, 2004, but no one told her that specifically, to her recollection. Over time she began to experience pain that got worse with the passage of time. The pain that the patient was eventually experiencing was described by her as "absolutely unbearable." It was constant in nature, a "throbbing pain." The patient tried to contact Respondent's office several times. She explained to someone within the Respondent's office that the pain killer prescribed, Vicodin, was not working. The patient describes people answering the Respondent's office telephone but without providing an adequate response to her needs. The patient left messages with the front desk. She was advised to take Advil. Around the time that the patient was having problems with pain after the December 13, 2004 retreatment, she recalls having a conversation with Respondent on the telephone but not the specifics of their discussion. Patient L.E. contacted Dr. Reid Hines, a dentist in Pace, Florida, who had treated her before. That dentist saw her and addressed her problem by relieving the pain and redoing the root canal. When the patient saw Dr. Hines on December 16, 2004, he relieved her pain and then she returned to receive further treatment, as she recalls. Patient L.E. picked up a crown from Respondent's office, that she believed was necessary to be carried to her appointment with Dr. Hines. At the time she picked up the crown, she also obtained her patient records from Respondent's office. After that she did not return to Respondent's office. The patient remembers signing a form releasing the Respondent from providing future treatment and reminding the patient, that if the crown that she had picked up were to be destroyed, she would have to pay for another. The form referred to the fact that the treatment had not been completed. Respondent Explains the Treatment The Respondent attended the University of Puerto Rica for her undergraduate education. She attended dental school at Rutgers University and received her D.D.S. in 1992. Respondent is licensed to practice dentistry in New Jersey, as well as Florida. During her practice Respondent has performed as many as five-to-six root canals a week. Respondent recalls seeing Patient L.E. on April 29, 2004, for a consultation. The nature of the complaint was discomfort or sensitivity in the lower right side. The patient wanted a complete examination and X-rays. The patient was seen for prophylaxis (cleaning) on May 13, 2004. The patient returned on June 17, 2004. At that time preexisting intermediate restorative material was removed and temporary material was placed on tooth number thirty-one. The diagnosis was "hot tooth, hyper-sensitivity." This meant that the tooth, even under anesthesia had symptoms of either pain or temperature. The recommendation for future treatment was a root canal. On June 28, 2004, the root canal treatment was provided. The patient was anesthetized. A clamp and a rubber dam were placed prior to the provision of anesthesia. The tooth was opened up to allow access to the pulp. That section of the tooth was removed. Files were used to locate the root canals. An X-ray was taken to ascertain the extent to which the files had reached within the roots. The length(s) of the canal(s) was determined with the use of an apex locater. The tooth was irrigated. Using a series of files from the smallest, to wider files in width, the canals were flared from the top of the tooth to the apex of the tooth. A cone(s) was placed and another X- ray taken to confirm the measurements within the cone. Cones were placed at each canal with cement and laterally condensed by using heat. Then buildup material was used, a resin, to compensate for loss of tooth structure and enamel. In combination, the matter of determining the length of canals was associated with radiographic measurements with a file and by use of an apex locator. The starting point for this process is the coronal part of the tooth, the top portion. Each file has a rubber stopper on it to provide a guideline for measurement. The endpoint of the measurement is the apex. The calibration for measurement is in millimeters. These procedures were utilized by Respondent to treat Patient L.E. The measurements for Patient L.E. were the distal canal 15 millimeters; the mesial buccal canal 16 millimeters and the mesial lingual canal 16 millimeters. In looking at a postoperative X-ray to determine if the root canal treatment was adequate, Respondent looks at the length of the fill in proportion to the length of the root. She also looks at any radiolucency around the root. If found, this is an indication of infection around the tooth. Based upon what a textbook says, Respondent believes that fill material placed in a root canal that is 0.5 millimeters short of the apex would be considered acceptable. Looking at the X-ray depicting the postoperative condition after providing the endodonic treatment on June 28, 2004, Respondent expressed the opinion that the fill material in each root extended all the way to the radiographic apex. When referring to the apex of the root, she means by that the end of the root. In this context Respondent mentioned the overlap of two roots, in tooth number thirty-one. In reference to the June 28, 2004 postoperative X-ray, Respondent acknowledges that she can visualize where the roots end but the apex cannot be seen. The patient returned on July 6, 2004. Tooth number thirty-one was prepared for fabrication of a permanent crown. The impression was taken. A shade was selected and the impression then sent to the laboratory. The patient was left with a temporary crown. On July 28, 2004, the patient returned. Respondent was not satisfied with the fit of the permanent crown that had been fabricated. An impression was made to prepare a new permanent crown. In the interim this first permanent crown was used as a temporary. It was not permanently cemented. On November 16, 2004, Respondent saw the patient again. Prophylaxis, (cleaning) was done and two periapical X- rays were taken. Respondent reviewed the X-rays. The X-rays revealed the crown that was placed July 28, 2004 cemented with temporary cement and the root canal treatment that had been provided earlier on tooth number thirty-one were normal, according to Respondent. Based upon the patient's complaint Respondent had ordered the X-rays. Although the X-rays appeared normal, the patient was not satisfied, as Respondent recalls. Respondent gave the patient the option to retreat the root canal at no cost. This offer to retreat the root canal when the X-ray appeared normal was not a common practice by Respondent. On this date, explaining the patient's condition, the Respondent told her that the tooth was going to be sensitive for a time and she would have to await the outcome. The patient was not satisfied with that explanation and wanted something done about it, as Respondent contends. The only other choice was retreatment. The patient returned on December 13, 2004. At that time the crown was removed, one of the canals was opened and a retrieval of the material in the roots commenced. The work was not completed. What was left to be done, according to the patient record, was referred to as RCTIII, which Respondent explains means that the canals would be filled and sealed at another time. The reason for putting off the treatment was that Respondent was concerned with "the patient's state of mind, as far as she felt at the moment. She was not comfortable." This refers to the lack of comfort on the part of the patient. Respondent goes on to say "her body language indicated to me that she would not want me to proceed with what I was doing." There is no recollection by Respondent that the patient was asked if the patient preferred Respondent to proceed or not. Instead Respondent recalls "the anxiety" by appearance and lack of comfort by the patient. Respondent told the patient that she was not going to retrieve the root canal and that the next time (next visit), the goal would be to complete everything. Respondent is not clear on when the patient was to return for the balance of the treatment. Respondent did not anticipate that the patient would be relieved of symptoms following the December 13, 2004 appointment. More specifically, during the December 13, 2004 visit, after removing the crown, Respondent opened up the pulp area and started removing the gutta-percha from the mesial buccal and mesial lingual canals. After December 13, 2004, the intention was that at the next appointment, all the remaining gutta-percha would be retrieved and then the canals refilled. Respondent remembers speaking to the patient on the telephone at a time before the retrieval process began on December 13, 2004. What was said is not provided. Respondent prepared what she describes as a letter, to be signed by Patient L.E., that identified the status of care. That correspondence said: I L.E., have decided not to continue my current treatment with Dr. Jenny Davenport. I have declined to see Dr. Davenport regarding my treatment although she has advised me that my treatment has not been completed and she would like to complete the treatment. I hereby agree that any costs incurred in the completion of this treatment are my sole responsibility and I will not make Dr. Davenport responsible for these costs. I have agreed to complete the payment of the treatment with Dr. Davenport and take possession of my crown to complete treatment with the dentist of my choice. This disclaimer, which refers to the second permanent crown, was signed by Patient L.E. on January 20, 2005, when she retrieved the second crown and her patient records from Respondent's office. Office Staff Sonya Mikki Bates worked in Respondent's office while Patient L.E. was being treated. She remembers receiving a call from the patient saying that the patient was in excruciating pain. The witness does not recall what she did in response. Dr. Hines Dr. Hines, who took over Patient L.E.'s care, earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Mississippi in 1990. He later attended the University of Mississippi dental school earning a doctor's degree. He has been licensed to practice dentistry in Florida since 1994. He performs root canals on a daily basis. As mentioned, Dr. Hines had treated Patient L.E. prior to December 16, 2004. She had become his patient in June of 1998. For that reason, in his care and treatment of the patient, he was familiar with tooth number thirty-one before the patient was seen on December 16, 2004. When Dr. Hines saw Patient L.E. on December 16, 2004, it was on an emergency basis. The patient had pain and swelling and tooth number thirty-one was very mobile. The purpose of the care provided on that date was to try to address the patient's pain and allow the condition to heal to some extent. The patient had trismus in the jaw which prohibited her from being able to open her mouth completely. X-rays taken on that date revealed traces of gutta-percha or filling material inside tooth number thirty-one. There were limited areas that had been cleaned out in the tooth and others in which gutta-percha remained. Dr. Hines' impression was that retreatment of the tooth had been commenced. In the treatment provided that date, Dr. Hines removed a temporary crown that had been placed on the tooth. To address the pain, he gave the patient a dexamethasone injection, an anti-inflammatory steroid. He reduced the tooth out of occlusion. When Dr. Hines saw Patient L.E. on December 16, 2004, he did not observe anything in her condition related to tooth number thirty-one which he believed reflected a departure from the standard of care by Respondent in providing treatment before that date. In describing the patient's condition on December 16, 2004, Dr. Hines indicates that the patient more than likely had recurring infection in the tooth that would push the tooth out of the socket and make it occlude. Dr. Hines proceeded on the assumption that Respondent was trying to allow infection to be removed out of the tooth. But he did not have certain knowledge concerning Respondent's intensions. Dr. Hines had no discussion with Respondent concerning Patient L.E.'s care and treatment. Dr. Hines did not find it appropriate to fill tooth number thirty-one and replace the restoration on December 16, 2004. He did this later. In observing the X-rays he took on December 16, 2004, the remaining material in the root canals that he observed was found in the mesial buccal canal and possibly the mesial lingual canal. Dr. Hines proceeded with the patient on December 16, 2004, with the belief that the Respondent had begun the retreatment for tooth number thirty-one but did not finish because the patient was on Christmas break. By comparison to Respondent, when Dr. Hines does a root canal, to determine if the obturation is the right length, he looks for indications with a pulp tester, basically allowing him to establish the length of the canal internally. Verification is achieved by use of a radiograph. Once the root canal obturation is finished, the (postoperative) X-ray allows the determination of the length and density of the fill material. It would not be within the standard of care in Dr. Hines' opinion if the dentist failed to completely obturate and fill the canals of the tooth to the radiographic ends. Expert Opinion Harold John Haering, Jr., is licensed to practice dentistry in Florida, Kentucky and Tennessee. He received his training in dentistry at the University of Kentucky. He has practiced since 1982. He is a general dentist who provides endodontic treatment. He performs root canals. He has also had experience reviewing endodontic treatment performed by other dentists, by examining a patient's X-ray following a patient who has had a root canal. He was received as an expert in general dentistry with an emphasis, as a general dentist, on endodontics. In Dr. Haering's opinion the distinction between a tooth that can be treated without a root canal and one where a root canal is indicated, is a tooth that is exposed in the dentin where a filling will suffice, as contrasted with a tooth involving the pulp, as to the depth of decay or a fracture in apical tissues around the roots. In the latter circumstances a root canal is appropriate. In providing root canal treatment Dr. Haering places a rubber dam to isolate the tooth following the provision of anesthesia. Generally, a preoperative X-ray will be performed. That X-ray is to gain a measurement of the tooth as to its length. The coronal portion of the tooth is accessed with a burr down into the pulp to gain access to the canal. Patency with the apex of the tooth, the end of the root, must be established. This is done with a small file. A radiograph is used in that process or the dentist my use an apex locator or a combination of both. Once the apex has been identified, instrumentation proceeds to the apical foramen. This process involves the removal of pulp, bacteria, and decay while creating access to obturate the canal. To place the obturating material, a cone of material, gutta-percha is seated to a predetermined length. After this is accomplished a postoperative radiograph is used to evaluate the obturation. In trying to establish the correct length in the procedure, it is a matter of clinical judgment and for some clinicians the use of X-rays assists in determining the proper length. Observation of the obturation postoperatively reveals the density of fill. The standard that is acceptable, according to Dr. Haering, is to approximate 0.5 millimeters from the apex radiographically when considering the fill in the canal. Dr. Haering's opinion concerning the proper root canal obturation and the proximity to the apical foramen is one in which some U.S. schools accredited by the American Dental Association teach the measurement at approximately 1 millimeter as acceptable but most schools say that obturation should approximate 0.5 millimeters in relation to the apex. To confirm the outcome a postoperative X-ray is needed in Dr. Haering's opinion. The proper placement cannot be determined by tactile means, given the nature of the material that constitutes the fill and other material in the canal that are forms of constriction. In treating the tooth, separate and apart from the root canal work, is the need for restoration. The restoration is necessary but is a different procedure. According to Dr. Haering the proper standard for performing a root canal is that the fill is radiopaque, that is that it is without voids, that it follows the anatomy of the tooth and the root canal and that the obturation approximates the apical foramen, within 0.5 millimeters. A root canal that is poorly obturated can cause pain in the patient, in Dr. Haering's opinion. In the apex area there is no vascularization. If there is a void beneath the fill, above the apex, it is susceptible to a buildup in bacteria, pulp and debris. In this anaerobic condition, problems can occur. Depending on the patient's health status it can occur slowly or quickly, resulting in pain. In preparing himself to comment on Respondent's care and treatment provided Patient L.E., Dr. Haering looked at the patient's charts, Dr. Hines' records and other materials provided to the parties on the subject. Dr. Haering expressed the opinion that the Respondent violated the standard of care in the root canal performed on Patient L.E. on June 28, 2004, by not readdressing the root canal before proceeding with other work done on the patient that commenced July 6, 2004. Dr. Haering expressed the opinion that Respondent failed to completely obturate the canals on June 28, 2004. When a short fill occurs the obligation by the dentist is to take out that filling and refill it to the proper length, in Dr. Haering's opinion. In Dr. Haering's review of the X-ray taken by Respondent on June 28, 2004, when she performed the root canal on Patient L.E., he measured the fill with an instrument designed to address the length and by that process determined that it was 5 millimeters short of the apex. The calibration of the length of fill was done with use of a micro-ruler. This short fill created a void leading to necrotic breakdown byproducts in the canal that could affect the apical bone eventually. Based upon his review of the patient records, Dr. Haering was persuaded that a permanent crown was seated on the patient's tooth number thirty-one. In this belief he is wrong. When the patient returned on November 16, 2004, and the decision was made by Respondent to retreat tooth number thirty-one, that was not a decision criticized by Dr. Haering. In Dr. Haering's opinion, on December 13, 2004, when Respondent saw the patient, the treatment records and X-ray taken confirmed his expectation of an endodontic fill that was left short. When Dr. Hines saw the patient with a swollen condition and a mobile tooth on December 16, 2004, this indicated to Dr. Haering that the patient was getting infection from a canal that was not completely reinstrumented. Dr. Haering does not believe that Respondent met the standard of care on December 13, 2004. The patient had complained a month earlier about pain. To address the tooth, it must be taken out of occlusion. With a short fill in the root canal, the area will be susceptible to a buildup of bacteria and other noxious materials that needs to be reinstrumented. The reinstrumentation would be insufficient without reaching the apex and cleaning it out. It was not appropriate to obturate the canals on December 13, 2004, because they were not ready for that procedure. It would violate the standard of care to obturate the canals at that time, according to Dr. Haering. On December 13, 2004, Respondent failed to conclude reinstrumentation of the canals visible on the radiograph, leaving two of them with debris, according to Dr. Haering. In would be a violation of the standard of care in the treatment on December 13, 2004, if Respondent did not instrument the canals to the apex, to include areas where the canals had not been obturated, unless the patient was made aware that she might have a lot of problems and was provided Respondent's contact telephone number. If the canals were not fully reinstrumented that would not have gotten the patient out of pain in the treatment of December 13, 2004. In relation to the December 13, 2004 treatment, Respondent was obligated to remove the fill to offer any therapeutic value to the patient. In Dr. Haering's opinion the determination of the appropriateness of fill by length and density is the only proper method. Patient comfort at the moment, leaving the prospect of infection over time would not suffice. J. Geoffrey Weihe, D.D.S., has practiced general dentistry since 1968. He graduated from Emory University in that year. He is licensed in Florida. He was accepted as an expert in general dentistry, in the analysis of root canals and the performance of root canals. He performed root canals on a consistent basis between 1970 and 2002. At present he regularly reviews radiographs of endodontically treated teeth. He views the root canals and the radiographic evidence after the referral of the patients for endodontic treatment and their return for restorative work which he performs. In relation to the standard of care for providing root canal treatment, Dr. Weihe expressed the opinion that the tooth should be treated in a way that the organic material or the majority of the organic material down to the apical third of the tooth and including the proximity to the apex is removed. The canals are shaped and sterilized, an inert material is introduced that is not affordable to growth of bacteria. This process is to be done to the dentist's ability and to allow healing of the surrounding tissue, if necessary. The concept of "best of the dentist's ability" would vary from dentist to dentist, according to Dr. Weihe. Concerning the filling of the canals to the point of the apex, there would be variation in the judgment based upon the clinician. Dr. Weihe is aware of some literature suggesting fill to the apex, some within a half- millimeter of the apex, and some within two millimeters of the apex. In his opinion the fill could be several millimeters short of the apex and still be a successful fill. In determining the optimal apex fill and its attainment, Dr. Weihe stated that the optimal clinical success occurs with the lack of infection, lack of pain, and long-term use of the tooth, comfort to the patient over a long term, and the prospect of the availability of the tooth to use as an abutment for a crown, a bridge abutment or whatever is needed in restorative dentistry. Dr. Weihe believes that a radiograph is not the only available tool to evaluate the adequacy of a root canal. He indicated that the success of a root canal will tell with the passage of time. Circumstances that develop after the procedure, these considerations, in addition to the X-ray findings, enter into the determination of the adequacy of the root canal performed. Dr. Weihe agreed that the best way to determine where the optimal fill has been achieved in a root canal treatment is with a radiograph. Optimal length of the fill relates to the position of the apex of the canal that cannot be seen on an X- ray. An apex locator can be used as well. Files or reamers can be used to make these determinations on optimal fill while the patient is undergoing treatment. In his opinion an experienced operator, clinician, can sense the apex with his or her fingers with the file in hand. To arrive at his opinion concerning Respondent's care of Patient L.E., Dr. Weihe reviewed the charts and X-rays provided from Respondent, the charts and X-rays from Dr. Hines, the deposition of Dr. Haering, the deposition of Patient L.E., a deposition of Respondent and the in-hearing testimony of the Patient L.E. Based upon this information, Dr. Weihe believes that Respondent met the minimum standards of performance and diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. This opinion applies to the treatment and care rendered by Respondent on June 28, 2004, and December 13, 2004, and any records and radiographs maintained by Respondent in treating Patient L.E. Based upon the postoperative radiograph from June 28, 2004, and the radiograph obtained on November 16, 2004, Dr. Weihe believes that the canals were appropriately filled in compliance with minimum standards of performance and diagnosis and treatment, when measured against generally prevailing peer performance in the treatment Respondent provided Patient L.E. Dr. Weihe believes it was appropriate for Respondent to retreat tooth number thirty-one in Patient L.E. Dr. Weihe's examination of the X-ray taken on December 16, 2004, by Dr. Hines, does not lead him to the conclusion that Respondent failed to meet minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Dr. Weihe does not believe that it was inappropriate to begin the instrumentation of the canals in treatment of Patient L.E. on December 13, 2004, and continuing that instrumentation at a later time. To do so would not violate performance standards in diagnosis and treatment measured against generally prevailing peer performance. In Dr. Weihe's opinion a poorly obturated canal can eventually result in pain. Having considered the expert opinion testimony by Drs. Haering and Weihe, in relation to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Dr. Haering's opinion is more compelling. It is accepted to the extent that he expressed the belief that Respondent had not met the minimum standards in performance and diagnosis and treatment measured against generally prevailing peer performance. In particular, his opinion that Respondent failed to completely obturate the canals in tooth number thirty-one on June 28, 2004, is persuasive, as is his opinion concerning the failures in the treatment provided on December 13, 2004. In addition, Dr. Haering's opinion that Respondent proceeded with the treatment of tooth number thirty- one on July 6, 2004, without retreating the inadequately filled root canal(s) is accepted. This determination is made in deference to the opinion that the fill in the root canal in length compared to the apex in tooth number thirty-one missed the acceptable approximation by a significant margin. A range of 0.5 millimeters to 1 millimeter would have been acceptable. A difference of 5 millimeters is not acceptable in the view of any witness. By contrast, Dr. Weihe's equivocal description of what would be acceptable, awaiting the outcome where the patient experienced difficulties, is unpersuasive. Finally, the remarks by Dr. Hines that he found nothing about the treatment performed by the Respondent that concerned him when he treated Patient L.E. on December 16, 2004, was premised upon certain assumptions about the arrangements between the patient and Respondent concerning additional treatment by the Respondent that were not established in the facts. Moreover, the emphasis placed by Dr. Hines was the more immediate concern for relieving the patient's symptoms, something Respondent had not done. Dr. Haering's viewpoint was based upon a more detailed assessment of Respondent's performance before the patient was seen by Dr. Hines on December 16, 2004. Records Keeping The Administrative Complaint accuses Respondent of failing to record that she had cemented the final crown or the date that it was cemented pertaining to tooth number thirty-one after the June 28, 2004 root canal had been performed and/or that Respondent failed to record what instrumentation took place, how much longer the canals were instrumented or what was removed when therapy was provided on December 13, 2004. It has not been found that the crown was cemented on tooth number thirty-one after the June 28, 2004 procedure. Records on that subject and the use of instrumentation, and how much longer the canals were instrumented, taken to mean, in relation to the length of the canals and what was removed during the therapy on December 13, 2004, is not meaningful.1/
Recommendation Based upon the findings of facts and the conclusions, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2004), issuing a letter of reprimand, imposing an administrative fine of $5,000.00, and requiring Respondent to undergo additional training pertaining to endodontic treatment of patients, to be completed within one year and restricting Respondent from providing endodontic treatment until that training has been completed. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 22nd day of June, 2007.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Health (Petitioner) against Alexander Gaukhman, D.D.S. (Respondent), are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, holding license number DN 15657. The Respondent's mailing address of record was 400 Hanchey Drive, Nokomis, Florida 34275. Beginning on February 28, 2006, and continuing through January 10, 2007, the Respondent, or persons in his dental office, provided dental care and treatment to Patient S.K. (Patient), a female approximately 46 years of age. According to the Respondent's records, the woman presented to the Respondent as a new patient complaining of "severe pain" on February 28, 2006. On that date, the Respondent's records indicate that he performed a limited examination that included taking diagnostic x-rays. A limited oral examination is appropriate under emergent circumstances where the presenting complaint is severe pain. The Respondent's records contain no written documentation of the Respondent's findings based on his examination of the patient and no written diagnosis of oral pathology or disease. The Respondent performed root canal treatment on the Patient's teeth numbered 8 and 9 and placed crowns on the two teeth. The Respondent's records contain no written treatment plan related to root canal treatment provided to the patient. The Administrative Complaint alleged that the Respondent's treatment notes failed to identify the type or amount of anesthetic used during the root canal treatment. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent administered anesthetic to the Patient during the root canal treatment. In addition to the emergency root canal treatment performed on February 28, 2006, the Respondent also placed veneers on the Patient's teeth numbered 6, 7, 10, and 11. Placement of prosthetic dental veneers is a cosmetic, not an emergent, procedure. The Respondent's records contain no written record of an examination related to placement of the cosmetic prosthetic dental veneers, no diagnosis or other information establishing the rationale for placement of the veneers, and no written follow-up plan related to the veneers. The Patient presented for prophylaxis (cleaning) on March 16, 2006, and again on October 10, 2006. The cleaning was performed by a dental hygienist working for the Respondent. According to the Respondent's records, the Respondent examined the patient on those dates. Such an examination would have included periodontal probing to determine the Patient's dental health. The Respondent's records fail to contain any record of a periodontal probing on March 16, 2006, or on October 10, 2006. Other than notation of pockets related to the root canal procedure, the Respondent's records fail to contain any indication that the Respondent performed periodontal probing on the Patient. Such probing is a basic and routine part of an examination to determine dental health. Because the Respondent was providing dental health services to the Patient, it is reasonable to presume that the Respondent performed the probing, but failed to document the process in his records. The Respondent has been previously disciplined by the Petitioner in an unrelated matter that was resolved in 2003.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order finding the Respondent in violation of section 466.028(1)(m) and imposing the following penalty: Imposition of a fine of $2,500. Successful completion of an educational course related to dental record-keeping and passage of the Florida Board of Dentistry Laws and Rules Exam. The Board of Dentistry shall designate the educational course and shall establish the deadlines related to imposition of this penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921- 6847www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2011.
The Issue The issue to be determined concerns whether the Board of Dentistry was justified in cancelling the Petitioner'S dental hygienist license for failure to timely renew it. This necessitates resolution of the question of whether the Petitioner received the required notification of impending license expiration and whether such notification was actually sent to the last known address.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Alice Kay Wynne has been licensed as a dental hygienist by the Board of Dentistry of the State of Florida. She was licensed in Florida in 1974 and practiced in Georgia and in Montana since that time. In 1975 she moved to Montana to establish a rural, dental public health preventive program. She resided from that time until approximately 1985 in Glendive, Montana. Between December 1984 and January 1988, her license was in inactive status. Pursuant to Section 466.015(1), Florida Statutes, this inactive status can be of up to four years duration. When the Petitioner renewed her license with the Board she presumably thereby notified the Board of her Glendive, Montana address. This address was maintained in the Board's records, apparently until sometime in May of 1987. In the meantime, in 1985, the Petitioner moved from Montana to Albany, Georgia. She never actually submitted a change of address notification to the Board of Dentistry, however. No statutory provision nor rule of that agency requires that such be done (although it would seem a wise course of action). The Petitioner began working as a clinical hygienist in the Navy Branch Dental Clinic of the Marine Corps Logistics Base in Albany, Georgia. During her professional tenure in Albany, Georgia, in October 1986, a notice regarding the necessity for her to renew her license and place it on active status once again before the expiration of the four year period mentioned above was sent to her then-record address in Glendive, Montana. The Petitioner never received this notice. The above statutory subsection requires that the Department of Professional Regulation give notice to an inactive licensee one year prior to the expiration of that inactive license, that is, the notice must be sent at the end of three years of inactive status. This notice is required to be sent to the licensee's last address of record. One year prior to the expiration of Petitioner's license would have been on or about December 31 or January 1 of 1986-1987. Rule 21G- 10.009, Florida Administrative Code, regarding reactivation of inactive licenses took effect December 31, 1986, containing a requirement that the above-mentioned, one year advance notice of expiration of licensure be sent by Certified United States Mail. The notice that was apparently sent to the Petitioner, however, was sent more than one year prior to the impending expiration of her license and therefore prior to the enactment of this rule requiring that notice be sent by certified mail. The notice was not sent by certified mail. There is no direct proof that it was sent by the Department or received by Petitioner. The only proof that it was sent, which the Hearing Officer accepts, is the record notation, in evidence, that it was sent to the Glendive, Montana address. It was never received by the Petitioner, however. In any event, in early 1988, knowing that she had an employment position in the Orlando, Florida area as a dental hygienist, the Petitioner inquired of the Board regarding the manner in which she should restore her license to active status. By phone call to the Board on March 28, 1988, she learned that her license had been rendered "null and void" as of January 1, 1988. She was greatly distressed by this turn of events and the following day wrote the Executive Director of the Board of Dentistry, Mr. Buckhalt, to request that her license be renewed. She informed him that she had never received notice of the impending nullification of her license, although she had filed a change of address with the post office when she moved from Montana to Georgia. Thereafter, by letter of May 11, 1988, Mr. Buckhalt informed Ms. Wynne that, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Board, her licensure status had been considered and that the Board determined that the notice had been mailed to her last known address and that the Board concurred with the Department that Ms. Wynne's license was null and void. This letter also informed her of an opportunity to request a formal hearing concerning the issue pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. She, of course, availed herself of that right. The above-cited statutory provision also contains a requirement that a certain minimum number of hours of continuing education shall be imposed by the Board as a condition for re- activating a license. The Petitioner received the appropriate number of continuing education credits for the years 1986, 1987 and 1988 and supplied that information to the Board. She did not formally provide the Board or the Department with a change of address notification, however. On May 6, 1987 there is an entry on the computer record of her licensure with the Board which shows that the address was then 810 Johnson Road, #6, Albany, Georgia 31705-3432. This record, Petitioner'S Exhibit 4 in evidence, appears to show that that change occurred on May 6, 1987, possibly as a result of the receipt by the Board of CLE credits mailed in, reflecting the Georgia address, although the record does not reflect this definitely. In any event, in its letter of May 11, 1988, the Board took the position that Petitioner's license was null and void and provided that notification to the Petitioner. That notification was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Dentistry, according the Petitioner, Alice Kay Wynne, the opportunity to reactivate her Florida Dental Hygienist license upon demonstration of compliance with pertinent continuing education requirements and payment of all appropriate fees. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4012 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Rejected as contrary to Hearing Officer's findings on this subject matter. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings. Rejected as irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Alice Kay Wynne Post Office Box 50921 Albany, Georgia 31705 Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0726 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Florida Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0726 Kenneth Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0726 =================================================================
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated the applicable standard of care in the practice of dentistry in violation of section 466.028(1), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed in each of the consolidated cases; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43, and chapters 456 and 466, Florida Statutes. Stipulated Facts Respondent is a licensed dentist in the state of Florida, having been issued license number DN14223 on or about December 1, 1995. Respondent’s address of record is 530 East Howard Street, Live Oak, Florida 32064. Respondent was licensed to practice dentistry in the state of Florida during all times relevant to the administrative complaints underlying this case. Patient T.C. was a patient of Respondent. Patient S.S. was a patient of Respondent. Patient G.H. was a patient of Respondent. Patient J.D. was a patient of Respondent. Patient J.A.D. was a patient of Respondent. Other Findings of Fact On July 23, 2004, Respondent entered into a Stipulation in Department Case No. 2002-25421 to resolve an Administrative Complaint which alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (z). The Stipulation was adopted by a Final Order, dated January 31, 2005, which constitutes a first offense in these cases as to each of the sections cited. On September 21, 2007, the Department issued a Uniform Non-disciplinary Citation for an alleged violation of section 466.028(1)(n), related to the release of patient dental records. The Department offered no evidence of its disposition and, in any event, since these cases do not involve alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(n), the citation is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B5-13.005(1). On January 19, 2017, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in Case No. 2015-10804 for alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (mm). The Department offered no evidence of its disposition of the Administrative Complaint and, as a result, the Administrative Complaint is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under rule 64B5-13.005(1). On January 19, 2017, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in Case No. 2015-23828 for alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (z). The Department offered no evidence of its disposition of the Administrative Complaint and, as a result, the Administrative Complaint is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under rule 64B5-13.005(1). Case No. 19-2898PL - The T.C. Administrative Complaint Patient T.C. was a patient of Respondent from June 14, 2011, to on or about August 12, 2013. During the period in question, Respondent owned Smile Designs, a dental practice with offices in Jacksonville, Lake City, and Live Oak, Florida. The Department, in the T.C. Administrative Complaint, recognized that “Respondent, along with an associate, [Dr. Morris], are . . . licensed dentists known to work at Respondent’s practice.” The Department’s expert witness, Dr. Brotman, was also aware that Dr. Morris practiced with Respondent. Patient T.C. suffered a stroke in 2009. During the period that she was seen by Respondent, she was in “decent health,” though she was on medication for her post-stroke symptoms, which included a slight problem with aphasia, though she was able to communicate. The stroke and the aphasia are neurological issues, not mental health issues. Patient T.C. was accompanied by her husband, L.C. during her visits to Respondent’s practice. He generally waited in the waiting area during Patient T.C.’s procedures though, as will be discussed herein, he was occasionally brought back to the treatment area. L.C. testified that he had never been advised that Patient T.C. experienced a seizure while under Respondent’s care, and had no recollection of having been told that Patient T.C. ever became unresponsive. Patient T.C. died in 2015. Count I Case No. 19-2898PL, Count I, charges Respondent with failing to immediately refer Patient T.C. to a medical professional or advise Patient T.C. to seek follow-up care for the management of what were believed to be seizures while Patient T.C. was in the dental chair. From Patient T.C.’s initial visit on June 14, 2011, through her visit on September 23, 2011, Patient T.C. was seen at Respondent’s practice on five occasions. Respondent testified that the office was aware of Patient T.C.’s history of seizures because the medical history taken at her first visit listed Diazapam, Levetiracetam, Diovan, and Lyrica as medications being taken by Patient T.C., all of which are seizure medications. Nonetheless, the dental records for the four visits prior to September 23, 2011, provide no indication that Patient T.C. suffered any seizure or period of non- responsiveness during those visits. On September 23, 2011, Patient T.C. presented at Smile Designs for final impressions for crowns on teeth 20, 21, 28, and 29. Respondent testified that she was not the treating dentist on that date. Patient T.C. was given topical anesthetics, and her pulse and blood pressure were checked. The treatment notes then provide, in pertinent part, the following: Patient had seizures on the dental chair - may be due to anxiety. Seizures last 2-3 minutes. No longer. After 30 minutes, patient was calm. Able to proceed with dental procedure . . . . During seizures pt. was responsive; she was able to respond to our commands. The medical records substantiate Respondent’s unrebutted testimony that she was not the treating dentist at the September 23, 2011, appointment. The June 14, July 19, and October 7, 2011, treatment notes made by Respondent all start with “Dr. Gerry,” and are in a notably different style and format from the September 23, 2011, treatment notes. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Dr. Morris, and not Respondent, was the treating dentist when Patient T.C. experienced seizures on September 23, 2011. Much of Dr. Brotman’s testimony as to Respondent’s violation of a standard of care was based on his interpretation that, since the September 23, 2011, notes did not specifically identify the treating dentist (as did the other treatment notes described above), the notes must be presumed to be those of the business owner. Neither Dr. Brotman nor the Department established a statutory or regulatory basis for such a presumption and, in any event, the evidence adduced at hearing clearly rebutted any such presumption. Dr. Brotman testified that if another dentist had been identified in the records as having performed the treatment on September 23, 2011, that may have changed his opinion. The evidence established that Dr. Morris performed the treatment on September 23, 2011. Thus, Dr. Brotman’s opinion that Respondent violated the applicable standard of care was effectively countered. The T.C. Administrative Complaint charged Respondent with failing to comply with the applicable standard of care on September 23, 2011. The Department failed to establish that Respondent was the treating dentist on September 23, 2011, and, in fact, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that she was not. Thus, the Department failed to establish that Respondent violated the standard of care for failing to refer Patient T.C. to an appropriate medical professional for her seizures as alleged in Count I of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. Count II Case No. 19-2898PL, Count II, charges Respondent with delegating the task of intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to a person not qualified by training, experience, or licensure to perform such intraoral repair. July 17, 2012 Repair On July 17, 2012, Patient T.C. presented to Respondent because her lower partial denture was broken and the O-ring was out. The device included a female end within Patient T.C.’s jaw, and a male end with a plastic “gasket” on the denture. Respondent testified that the repair of the partial denture was performed outside of Patient T.C.’s mouth. Then, at the next scheduled visit, the treatment plan was for Respondent to “eval/repair partial denture on lower arch.” Respondent offered unrebutted testimony that “Tia of precision attachments” performed no work in Patient T.C.’s mouth. Dr. Brotman testified that, in his opinion, any repair of a precision attachment must be done by placing the attachment in the patient’s mouth to align with the teeth. However, Dr. Brotman did not know what kind of repair was done on July 17, 2012. He indicated that if a gasket or housing is missing, it can be repaired with an acrylic. Dr. Brotman testified that if acrylic was placed in the denture outside of the patient’s mouth, it would not be a violation of Florida law. The Department failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent delegated the task of adjusting or performing an intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to “Tia” or any other unlicensed person on July 17, 2012, as alleged in Count II of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. June 11, 2013 Repair On June 11, 2013, Patient T.C. presented to Respondent for an evaluation of her lower precision partial denture. Patient T.C. complained that the partial denture did not have the metal housing to connect it with the bridges to its sides. Patient T.C. was a “bruxer,” i.e. she ground her teeth, and had worn out the denture’s metal attachment. Respondent evaluated the situation, and decided to attempt a chairside repair or replacement of the denture’s male attachments. If the chairside repair was unsuccessful, a complete new partial denture would have to be prepared by a dental laboratory. Respondent attempted the chairside repair. Respondent testified that she instructed her dental assistant to add acrylic into the slot where the male attachment was to be placed in the denture. There was no evidence of any kind to suggest that the dental assistant then placed the denture into Patient T.C’s mouth. Because too much acrylic was placed in the denture, it became stuck in Patient T.C.’s mouth. Patient T.C. became understandably upset. Her husband, L.C., was brought into the room, Patient T.C. was administered local anesthesia, and the precision partial denture was removed. Respondent’s testimony regarding the incident was generally consistent with her prior written statement offered in evidence. Dr. Brotman testified that making repairs to a precision denture must be performed by a licensed dentist, except for placing acrylic into the denture outside of the patient’s mouth, which may be done by a non-dentist. The evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent’s dental assistant did anything more than place acrylic into the denture outside of Patient T.C.’s mouth. The Department failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent delegated the task of adjusting or performing an intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to her dental assistant on June 11, 2013, as alleged in Count II of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. Case No. 19-2899PL - The S.S. Administrative Complaint Count I Case No. 19-2899PL, Count I, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(m) by: Failing to keep a written record of Patient S.S.’s medical history; and/or Failing to keep an accurate written record of any consent forms signed by Patient S.S. Count II Case No. 19-2899PL, Count II, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30; Failing to adequately diagnose the condition of the roots of tooth 30; Failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 30 during root canal treatment; Failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment; Failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following changes to the tooth’s margins; and/or Failing to adequately assess and correct the crown on tooth 31 when the fit was compromised. On May 15, 2014, Patient S.S. presented to Respondent for a root canal and crown on tooth 30. Upon examination, Respondent advised Patient S.S. that she also needed a root canal and a crown on tooth 31. Patient S.S. denied that she was required to provide her medical history at the May 15, 2014, office visit, or that she was provided with an informed consent form prior to the root canal on tooth 30. Respondent’s records do not include either a medical history or an informed consent form. However, the records, which were offered as a joint exhibit, were not accompanied by a Certificate of Completeness of Patient Records, including the number of pages provided pursuant to Respondent’s investigatory subpoena, as is routine in cases of this sort, and which was provided with the records of the subsequent dentists involved in Patient S.S.’s care. Many of the records offered in these consolidated cases, including Respondent’s licensure file, include the certification attesting to their completeness. The records for Patient S.S. do not. Petitioner elicited no testimony from Respondent establishing the completeness of the records. The records offered were, by appearance, not complete. Respondent indicated that medical history and consent forms were obtained. Entries in the records introduced in evidence indicate “[m]edical history reviewed with patient” or the like. Entries for May 16, 2014, provide that “[c]rown consent explained and signed by patient” and “root canal consent explained and signed by patient.” The record for June 4, 2014, indicates that “[r]oot canal consent form explained to and signed by patient.” Patient S.S. testified that she had no recollection of having filled out a medical history, or of having signed consent forms after having Respondent’s recommended course of treatment explained to her. However, Patient S.S.’s memory was not clear regarding various aspects of her experience with Respondent and with subsequent providers. Much of her testimony was taken from notes she brought to the hearing, and some was even based on what she read in the Administrative Complaint. Her testimony failed to clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent failed to collect her medical history or consent to treatment. Respondent testified that, at the time Patient S.S. was being seen, her office was in the midst of switching its recordkeeping software and converting records to digital format. The new company botched the transition, and by the time the issue was discovered, many of the records being converted to digital format were lost, in whole or in part. Respondent surmised that, to the extent the records were not in her files provided to the Department, that they were affected by the transition. The greater weight of the evidence suggests that medical history and signed consent forms were provided. Given the issues regarding the records as described by Respondent, and given the Department’s failure to produce a certification or other evidence that the records it was relying on to prove the violation were complete, the Department failed to meet its burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent failed to keep a written record of Patient S.S.’s medical history and signed consent forms. Respondent also testified that the office notes were supplemented with handwritten notations made when a patient returned for a subsequent appointment. Several of Patient S.S.’s printed records carried handwritten notes. Respondent testified that those notes were made at some time in 2014 after Patient S.S.’s first office visit up to the time of her last visit, and were based on further discussion with Patient S.S. However, those records, Joint Exhibit 2, pages 1 through 17, bear either a date or a “print” date of March 12, 2015. Dr. Brotman testified that he knew of no software on the market that would allow contemporaneous handwriting on electronic records. Thus, the evidence is compelling that the handwritten notes were made on or after the March 12, 2015, date on which the records were printed, well after Patient S.S.’s last office visit. A root canal involves removing a tooth’s pulp chamber and nerves from the root canals. The root canals are smoothed out and scraped with a file to help find and remove debris. The canals are widened using sequentially larger files to ensure that bacteria and debris is removed. Once the debris is removed, an inert material (such as gutta percha) is placed into the canals. A “core” is placed on top of the gutta percha, and a crown is placed on top of the core. The risk of reinfection from bacteria entering from the bottom of an underfilled tooth is significantly greater than if the tooth is filled to the apex of the root. Patient S.S. returned to Respondent’s office on May 16, 2014, for the root canal on tooth 30 and crown preparations for teeth 30 and 31, which included bite impressions. Temporary crowns were placed. Respondent’s printed clinical notes for May 16, 2014, gave no indication of any obstruction of the canals, providing only the lengths of the two mesial and two distal root canals. Respondent’s hand-written notes for May 16, 2014 (which, as previously explained, could have been made no earlier than March 12, 2015), stated that the canals were “[s]ealed to as far as the canal is open. The roots are calcification.” Dr. Brotman indicated that the x-rays taken on May 15, 2014, showed evidence of calcification of the roots. However, Dr. Brotman convincingly testified that the x-rays taken during the root canal show working-length files extending to near the apices of the roots. Thus, in his opinion, the canals were sufficiently open to allow for the use of liquid materials to soften the tooth, and larger files to create space to allow for the canals to be filled and sealed to their full lengths. His testimony in that regard is credited. Patient S.S. began having pain after the root canal on tooth 30 and communicated this to Respondent. On June 5, 2014, Patient S.S. presented to Respondent to have the crowns seated for teeth 30 and 31. Patient S.S. complained of sensitivity in tooth 31. The temporary crowns were removed, and tooth 31 was seen to have exhibited a change in color. The area was probed, which caused a reaction from Patient S.S. Respondent examined the tooth, and noted the presence of soft dentin. A root canal of tooth 31 was recommended and performed, which included removal of the decay in the tooth’s dentin at the exterior of the tooth. Respondent’s removal of decay changed the shape of tooth 31, and would have changed the fit of the crown, which was made based on the May 16, 2014, impressions. There were no new impressions for a permanent crown taken for tooth 31 after removal of the decayed dentin. Respondent testified that she could simply retrofill the affected area with a flowable composite, which she believed would be sufficient to allow for an acceptable fit without making new bite impressions and ordering a new crown. There was no persuasive evidence that such would meet the relevant standard of performance. Temporary crowns were placed on teeth 30 and 31, and placement of the permanent crowns was postponed until the next appointment. Upon completion of the tooth 31 root canal on June 5, 2014, x-rays were taken of the work completed on teeth 30 and 31. Dr. Brotman testified that the accepted standard of care for root canal therapy is to have the root canal fillings come as close to the apex of the tooth as possible without extending past the apex, generally to within one millimeter, and no more than two millimeters of the apex. His examination of the x-rays taken in conjunction with Respondent’s treatment of Patient S.S. revealed a void in the filling of the middle of the distal canal of tooth 31, an underfill of approximately five millimeters in the mesial canal of tooth 31, an underfill of approximately four millimeters in the distal canal of tooth 30, and an underfill of approximately six millimeters in the two mesial root canals of tooth 30. The x-ray images also revealed remaining decay along the mesiobuccal aspect of the temporary crown placed on tooth 31. His testimony that the x-ray images were sufficiently clear to provide support for his opinions was persuasive, and was supported by the images themselves. A day after the placement of the temporary crowns, they came off while Patient S.S. was having dinner in Gainesville. She was seen by Dr. Abolverdi, a dentist in Gainesville. Dr. Abolverdi cleaned the teeth, took an x-ray, and re-cemented the temporary crowns in place. Patient S.S. next presented to Respondent on June 10, 2014. Both of Patient S.S.’s permanent crowns were seated. The permanent crown for tooth 31 was seated without a new impression or new crown being made. Patient S.S. was subsequently referred by her dentist, Dr. James Powell, to be seen by an endodontist to address the issues she was having with her teeth. She was then seen and treated by Dr. John Sullivan on July 25, 2014, and by Dr. Thomas Currie on July 29, 2014, both of whom were endodontists practicing with St. Johns Endodontics. As to the pain being experienced by Patient S.S., Dr. Sullivan concluded that it was from her masseter muscle, which is consistent with Respondent’s testimony that Patient S.S. was a “bruxer,” meaning that she ground her teeth. Dr. Sullivan also identified an open margin with the tooth 31 crown. His clinical assessment was consistent with the testimony of Dr. Brotman. The evidence was clear and convincing that the defect in the tooth 31 permanent crown was an open margin, and not a “ledge” as stated by Respondent. The evidence was equally clear and convincing that the open margin was the result of performing a “retrofill” of the altered tooth, rather than taking new bite impressions to ensure a correct fit. As a result of the foregoing, Respondent violated the accepted standard of performance by failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following the removal of dentin on June 4, 2014, and by failing to assess and correct the open margin on the tooth 31 crown. Radiographs taken on July 25, 2014, confirmed that canals in teeth 30 and 31 were underfilled, as discussed above, and that there was a canal in tooth 31 that had been missed altogether. On July 29, 2014, Dr. Currie re-treated the root canal for tooth 31, refilled the two previously treated canals, and treated and filled the previously untreated canal in tooth 31. The evidence, though disputed, was nonetheless clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the standard of performance in the root canal procedures for Patient S.S.’s teeth 30 and 31, by failing to adequately diagnose and respond to the condition of the roots of tooth 30; failing to adequately fill the canals of tooth 30 despite being able to insert working-length files beyond the area of calcification to near the apices of the roots; and failing to adequately fill the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment. The Administrative Complaint also alleged that Respondent failed to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30. Case No. 19-2900PL - The G.H. Administrative Complaint Case No. 19-2900PL charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by failing to adequately diagnose issues with the crown on tooth 13 and provide appropriate corrective treatment. On May 15, 2014, Patient G.H. presented to Respondent with a complaint that she had been feeling discomfort on the upper left of her teeth that was increasingly noticeable. Respondent diagnosed the need for a root canal of tooth 13. Patient G.H. agreed to the treatment, and Respondent performed the root canal at this same visit. Patient G.H. also had work done on other teeth to address “minor areas of decay.” On July 7, 2014, Patient G.H.’s permanent crowns were seated onto teeth 8, 9, and 13, and onlay/inlays placed on teeth 12 and 14. On July 29, 2014, Patient G.H. presented to Respondent. Respondent’s records indicate that Patient G.H. complained that when she flossed around tooth 13, she was getting “a funny taste” in her mouth. Patient G.H.’s written complaint and her testimony indicate that she also advised Respondent that her floss was “tearing,” and that she continued to experience “pressure and discomfort” or “some pain.” Respondent denied having been advised of either of those complaints. Respondent flossed the area of concern, and smelled the floss to see if it had a bad smell. Respondent denied smelling anything more than typical mouth odor, with which Patient G.H. vigorously disagreed. Respondent took a radiograph of teeth 11 through 15, which included tooth 13 and the crown. The evidence is persuasive that the radiograph image revealed that the margin between tooth 13 and the crown was open. An open margin can act as a trap for food particles, and significantly increases the risk for recurrent decay in the tooth. Respondent adjusted the crown on tooth 9, but advised Patient G.H. that there was nothing wrong with the crown on tooth 13. She offered to prescribe a rinse for the smell, but generally told Patient G.H. that there were no complications. Patient G.H. began to cry and, when Respondent left the room, got up from the chair and left the office. Respondent indicated in her testimony that she would have performed additional investigation had Patient G.H. not left. The contemporaneous records do not substantiate that testimony. Furthermore, Respondent did not contact Patient G.H. to discuss further treatment after having had a full opportunity to review the radiograph image. On March 10, 2015, after her newly-active dental insurance allowed her to see a different in-network provider, Patient G.H. sought a second opinion from Dr. Ada Y. Parra, a dentist at Premier Dental in Gainesville, Florida. Dr. Parra identified an open distal margin at tooth 13 with an overhang. Dr. Parra recommended that Patient G.H. return to Respondent’s practice before further work by Premier Dental. Patient G.H. called Respondent’s office for an appointment, and was scheduled to see Dr. Lindsay Kulczynski, who was practicing as a dentist in Respondent’s Lake City, Florida, office. Patient G.H. was seen by Dr. Kulczynski on March 19, 2015. Upon examination, Dr. Kulczynski agreed that the crown for tooth 13 “must be redone” due to, among other defects, “[d]istal lingual over hang [and] open margin.” The open margin was consistent with Patient G.H.’s earlier complaints of discomfort, floss tearing, and bad odor coming from that tooth. The evidence was persuasive that further treatment of Patient G.H. was not authorized by Respondent after the appointment with Dr. Kulczynski. Dr. Brotman credibly testified that the standard of care in crown placement allows for a space between the tooth and the crown of between 30 and 60 microns. Dr. Brotman was able to clearly identify the open margin on the radiograph taken during Patient G.H.’s July 29, 2014, appointment, and credibly testified that the space was closer to 3,000 microns than the 30 to 60 microns range acceptable under the standard of performance. His testimony is accepted. An open margin of this size is below the minimum standard of performance. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent fell below the applicable standard of performance in her treatment of Patient G.H., by seating a crown containing an open margin and by failing to perform appropriate corrective treatment after having sufficient evidence of the deficiencies. Case No. 19-2901PL - The J.D. Amended Administrative Complaint Case No. 19-2901PL charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations; Failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing an implant in the area of tooth 14; Failing to appropriately place the implant by attempting to place it into a curved root, which could not accommodate the implant; Failing to react appropriately to the sinking implant by trying to twist off the carrier instead of following the technique outlined in the implant’s manual; and/or Paying, or having paid on her behalf, an indemnity in the amount of $75,000 as a result of negligent conduct in her treatment of Patient J.D. Patient J.D. first presented to Respondent on June 28, 2014. At the time, Respondent was practicing with Dr. Jacobs, who owned the practice. Patient J.D. had been a patient of Dr. Jacobs for some time. Respondent examined Patient J.D. and discovered problems with tooth 14. Tooth 14 and tooth 15 appeared to have slid into the space occupied by a previously extracted tooth. As a result, tooth 14 was tipped and the root curved from moving into the space. Tooth 14 had been filled by Dr. Jacobs. However, by the time Respondent examined it, the tooth was not restorable, and exhibited 60 percent bone loss and class II (two millimeters of movement) mobility. Respondent discussed the issue with Patient J.D., and recommended extraction of the two teeth and replacement with a dental implant. Patient J.D. consented to the procedure and executed consent forms supplied and maintained by Dr. Jacobs. The teeth at issue were in the upper jaw. The upper jaw consists of softer bone than the lower jaw, is more vascular, and includes the floor of the nose and sinuses. The periapical radiographs taken of Patient J.D. showed that he had a “draped sinus,” described by Respondent as being where “the tooth is basically draped around the sinuses. It’s almost like they’re kind of one.” Prior to Patient J.D., Respondent had never placed an implant in a patient with a draped sinus. The x-rays also indicated that, as a result of the previous extraction of teeth and the subsequent movement of the remaining teeth, the roots of tooth 14 were tipped and curved. The evidence was persuasive that Respondent did not fail to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, the extent of available bone support, and the configuration of the roots. Dr. Kinzler testified credibly that the pneumatized/draped sinus, the 60 percent bone loss around tooth 14, and the tipped and curved roots each constituted pre- operative red flags. Respondent extracted teeth 14 and 15. When she extracted the teeth, she observed four walls. She was also able to directly observe the floor of the sinus. She estimated the depth of the socket to be 12 millimeters. Sinus penetration is a potential complication of implant placement. Being able to see the sinus floor was an additional complicating factor for implant placement. Dr. Kinzler credibly testified that if Respondent was going to place an implant of the size she chose (see below), then the standard of care required her to first do a sinus lift before placing the implant. A sinus lift involves physically lifting the floor of a patient’s sinus. Once the sinus has been lifted, material typically consisting of granulated cortical bone is placed into the space created. Eventually, the bone forms a platform for new bone to form, into which an implant can be inserted. The evidence established that the standard of care for bone replacement materials is to place the material into the space, close the incision, and allow natural bone to form and ultimately provide a stable structure to affix an implant. The implant may then be mechanically affixed to the bone, and then biologically osseointegrate with the bone. In order to seal off Patient J.D.’s sinus, Respondent used Bond Bone, which she described as a fast-setting putty-like material that is designed to protect the floor of the sinus and provide a scaffold for bone to grow into. She did not use cortical bone, described as “silly sand,” to fill the space and provide separation from the sinus because she indicated that it can displace and get lost. Respondent’s goal was to place the implant so that it would extend just short of the Bond Bone and Patient J.D.’s sinus. She also intended to angle the implant towards the palate, where there was more available bone. Bond Bone and similar materials are relatively recent innovations. Dr. Fish was encouraged by the possibilities of the use of such materials, though he was not familiar with the Bond Bone brand. The evidence was clear and convincing that, although Bond Bone can set in a short period, and shows promise as an effective medium, it does not currently meet minimum standards of performance for bone replacement necessary for placement and immediate support of an implant. Bond Bone only decreases the depth of the socket. It does not raise the floor of the sinus. As such, the standard practice would be to use a shorter implant, or perform a sinus lift. Respondent was provided with an implant supplied by Dr. Jacobs. She had not previously used the type of implant provided. The implant was a tapered screw vent, 4.7 millimeters in diameter, tapering to 4.1 millimeters at the tip with a length of 11.5 millimeters. Respondent met with and received information from the manufacturer’s representative. She used a 3.2 millimeter drill to shape the hole, as the socket was already large enough for the implant. The 3.2 millimeter drill was not evidence that the receiving socket was 3.2 millimeters in diameter. Respondent then inserted the implant and its carrier apparatus into the hole. The implant did not follow the root, and had little bone on which to affix. The initial post-placement periapical radiograph showed “placement was not correct.” Despite Respondent’s intent, the implant was not angled, but was nearly vertical, in contrast with the angulation of the socket which was tipped at least 30 degrees. Given the amount of bone loss, and the other risk factors described herein, the risk of a sinus perforation, either by having the implant extend through the root opening or by a lateral perforation through one of the sides of the socket, was substantial. After adjusting the implant, Respondent went to remove the carrier. The carrier would not release, and the pressure exerted caused the implant to loosen and begin to sink through the Bond Bone. Dr. Kinzler testified credibly that, because of the mechanics of the implant used, had it been surrounded by bone, it would not have been possible for the implant to become loose. In his opinion, which is credited, the loosening of the implant was the result of the lack of bone to hold it in place. Respondent was so intent on removing the carrier that she was not paying attention to the implant. As a result, she screwed the implant through the Bond Bone and into Patient J.D.’s sinus. By the time she realized her error, the implant had sunk in to the point it was not readily retrievable. She was hesitant to reaffix the carrier “because [she] knew [she] had no support from the bone, that it was just a matter of air.” Nonetheless, she “stuck the carrier back in, but it would not go back in.” She then turned to get forceps or a hemostat but, by that time, the implant was irretrievably into Patient J.D.’s sinus. At the hearing, Respondent testified that she could have retrieved the implant but for Patient J.D. doing a “negative pressure sneeze” when the implant was already into the sinus. At that point, she stated that the implant disappeared into Patient J.D.’s sinus, where it can be seen in Petitioner’s Exhibit 9, page 35. There is nothing in Respondent’s dental records about Patient J.D. having sneezed. Respondent further testified that Patient J.D. “was very jovial about it,” and that everyone in the office laughed about the situation, and joked about “the sneeze implant.” That the patient would be “jovial” about an implant having been screwed into his sinus, resulting in a referral to an oral surgeon, and that there was office-wide joking about the incident is simply not credible, particularly in light of the complete absence of any contemporaneous records of such a seemingly critical element of the incident. Respondent believed that the implant must have been defective for her to have experienced the problem with removing the carrier, though her testimony in that regard was entirely speculative. There is no competent, substantial, or persuasive evidence to support a finding that the implant was defective. After determining that the implant was in Patient J.D.’s sinus, Respondent informed Patient J.D. of the issue, gave him a referral to an oral surgeon, prescribed antibiotics, and gave Patient J.D. her cell phone number. Each of those acts was appropriate. On July 29, 2014, an oral surgeon surgically removed the implant from Patient J.D.’s sinus. Patient J.D. sued Respondent for medical malpractice. The suit was settled, with the outcome including a $75,000.00 indemnity paid by Respondent’s insurer on her behalf. The Office of Insurance Regulation’s Medical Malpractice Closed Claims Report provides that the suit’s allegations were based on “improper dental care and treatment.” The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance prior to the procedure at issue by failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations prior to the procedure. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance by failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing the implant in the area of tooth 14, and by placing the implant into a curved root which could not accommodate the implant. The placement of Bond Bone was not adequate to address these issues. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the standard of care by failing to pay attention while trying to twist off the carrier and by failing to appropriately react to the sinking implant. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent paid, or had paid on her behalf, an indemnity of $75,000 for negligent conduct during treatment of Patient J.D. The perforation of Patient J.D.’s sinus was not, in itself, a violation of the standard of care. In that regard, Dr. Kinzler indicated that he had perforated a sinus while placing an implant. It was, however, the totality of the circumstances regarding the process of placing Patient J.D.’s implant that constituted a failure to meet the minimum standards of performance as described herein. Case No. 19-2902PL - The J.A.D. Amended Administrative Complaint Count I Case No. 19-2902PL, Count I, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to take adequate diagnostic imaging prior to placing an implant in the area of Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8; Failing to pick an appropriately-sized implant and placing an implant that was too large; and/or Failing to diagnose and/or respond appropriately to the oral fistula that developed in the area of Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8. Count II Case No. 19-2902PL, Count II, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(m) by: Failing to document examination results showing Patient J.A.D. had an infection; Failing to document the model or serial number of the implant she placed; and/or Failing to document the results of Respondent’s bone examination. Patient J.A.D. first presented to Respondent on March 3, 2016. His first appointment included a health history, full x-rays, and an examination. Patient J.A.D.’s complaint on March 3, 2016, involved a front tooth, tooth 8, which had broken off. He was embarrassed by its appearance, and desired immediate care and attention. Respondent performed an examination of Patient J.A.D., which included exposing a series of radiographs. Based on her examination, Respondent made the following relevant diagnoses in the clinical portion of her records: caries (decay) affecting tooth 7, gross caries affecting fractured tooth 8, and caries affecting tooth 9. Patient J.A.D. was missing quite a few of his back teeth. The consent form noted periodontal disease. The evidence is of Patient J.A.D.’s grossly deficient oral hygiene extending over a prolonged period. A consent form signed by Patient J.A.D. indicates that Patient J.A.D. had an “infection.” Respondent indicated that the term indicated both the extensive decay of Patient J.A.D.’s teeth, and a sac of pus that was discovered when tooth 8 was extracted. “Infection” is a broad term in the context of dentistry, and means any bacterial invasion of a tooth or system. The consent form was executed prior to the extraction. Therefore, the term “infection,” which may have accurately described the general condition of Patient J.A.D.’s mouth, could not have included the sac of pus, which was not discovered until the extraction. The sac of pus was not otherwise described with specificity in Respondent’s dental records. A pre-operative radiograph exposed by Respondent showed that tooth 8 had a long, tapering root. Respondent proposed extraction of tooth 8, to be replaced by an immediate implant. The two adjacent teeth were to be treated and crowned, and a temporary bridge placed across the three. Patient J.A.D. consented to this treatment plan. The treatment plan of extracting tooth 8 and preparing the adjacent teeth for crowns was appropriate. Respondent cleanly extracted tooth 8 without fracturing any surrounding bone, and without bone adhering to the tooth. When the tooth came out, it had a small unruptured sac of pus at its tip. Respondent irrigated and curretted the socket, and prescribed antibiotics. Her records indicated that she cleaned to 5 millimeters, although a radiograph made it appear to be a 7 millimeter pocket. She explained that inflammation caused the pocket to appear larger than its actual 5 millimeter size, which she characterized as a “pseudo pocket.” She recorded her activities. The response to the sac of pus was appropriate. Respondent reviewed the earlier radiographs, and performed a physical examination of the dimensions of the extracted tooth 8 to determine the size of the implant to be placed into the socket. Dr. Kinsler and Dr. Fish disagreed as to whether the radiographic images were sufficient to provide adequate information as to the implant to be used. Both relied on their professional background, both applied a reasonable minimum standard of performance, and both were credible. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to take adequate diagnostic imaging prior to placing an implant to replace Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8. Respondent placed an implant into the socket left from tooth 8. The implant was in the buckle cortex, a “notoriously thin” bone feature at the anterior maxilla. The fact that it is thin does not make it pathological, and placement of an implant near a thin layer of bone is not a violation of the standard of performance as long as the implant is, in fact, in the bone. The implant used by Respondent was shorter than the length of tooth 8 and the tooth 8 socket, and did not have a full taper, being more truncated. The evidence of record, including the testimony of Dr. Kinzler, indicates that the length of the implant, though shorter than the tooth it was to replace, was not inappropriate. The evidence of record, including pre-extraction and post-implantation scaled radiographs offered as a demonstrative exhibit, was insufficient to support a finding that the implant diameter was too great for the available socket. Patient J.A.D. felt like the implant was too close to the front of his maxillary bone because it felt like a little bump on the front of his gums. That perception is insufficient to support a finding that the placement of the implant violated a standard of performance. Subsequent x-rays indicated that there was bone surrounding the implant. Clinical observations by Respondent after placement of the implant noted bone on all four walls of the implant. Her testimony is credited. The evidence that the tooth 8 implant was not placed in bone, i.e., that at the time the implant was placed, the implant penetrated the buccal plate and was not supported by bone on all four sides, was not clear and convincing. Respondent’s records document the dimensions and manufacturer of the implant. Implants are delivered with a sticker containing all of the relevant information, including model and serial number, that are routinely affixed to a patient’s dental records. It is important to document the model and serial number of implants. Every implant is different, and having that information can be vital in the case of a recall. Patient J.A.D.’s printed dental records received by the Department from Respondent have the implant size (5.1 x 13 mm) and manufacturer (Implant Direct) noted. The records introduced in evidence by the Department include a page with a sticker affixed, identified by a handwritten notation as being for a “5.1 x 13mm - Implant Direct.” (Pet. Ex. 11, pg. 43 of 83). The accompanying sticker includes information consistent with that required. Dr. Fish testified to seeing a sticker that appears to be the same sticker (“The implant label of 141, it just has the handwritten on there that it should be added.”), though it is described with a deposition exhibit number (page 141 of a CD) that is different from the hearing exhibit number. Dr. Fish indicated the sticker adequately documented the implant information. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the sticker was not in Patient J.A.D.’s records, or that Respondent failed to document the model or serial number of the implant she placed. Later in the day on March 3, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was fitted for a temporary crown, which was placed on the implant and the adjacent two teeth, and Patient J.A.D. was scheduled for a post-operative check. Patient J.A.D. appeared for his post-operative visit on March 10, 2016. He testified that he was having difficulty keeping the temporaries on, and was getting “cut up” because the two outer teeth were sharp and rubbed against his lip and tongue. Respondent noticed that Patient J.A.D. was already wearing a hole in the temporary. Since Patient J.A.D. was missing quite a few of his back teeth, much of his chewing was being done using his front teeth. His temporaries were adjusted and reseated. On March 17, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was seen by Respondent for a post-operative check of the tooth 8 extraction and implant placement. The notes indicated that Patient J.A.D. had broken his arm several days earlier, though the significance of that fact was not explained. He was charted as doing well, and using Fixodent to maintain the temporary in place. The records again noted that Patient J.A.D. had worn a hole in the back of the tooth 9 temporary crown. A follow up was scheduled for final impressions for the permanent crowns. On March 10 and March 17, 2016, Patient J.A.D. complained of a large blister or “zit” that formed over the area above the end of the implant. Patient J.A.D. had no recollection of whether Respondent told him he had an infection. He was prescribed antibiotics. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the “zit” was causally related to the placement of the implant. Patient J.A.D. also testified that the skin above tooth 9 was discolored, and he thought he could almost see metal through the skin above his front teeth. Patient J.A.D. next appeared at Respondent’s office on June 2, 2016, for final impressions. Respondent concluded that the site had not healed enough for the final impression. She made and cemented a new temporary, and set an appointment for the following month for the final impression. Patient J.A.D. did not return to Respondent. On September 28, 2016, Patient J.A.D. presented to the office of Dr. Harold R. Arthur for further treatment. The records for that date indicate that he appeared without his temporary restoration for teeth 7 through 9, stating that he had several at home, but they would not stay on. Dr. Arthur probed a “[s]mall (1.0 x 1.0 mm) red spot in facial keratinized gingiva communicating with implant.” After probing the opening in the gingiva and the “shadow” in the gingiva, he believed it was at the center of the implant body and healing screw. Dr. Arthur’s dental records for Patient J.A.D. over the course of the following year indicate that Dr. Arthur made, remade, and re-cemented temporary crowns for teeth 7, 8, and 9 on a number of occasions, noting at least once that Patient J.A.D. “broke temps” that had been prepared and seated by Dr. Arthur. On December 1, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was reevaluated by Dr. Arthur. He noted the facial soft tissue at the implant was red, with an apparent fistula. A periapical radiograph was “unremarkable.” The temporary crowns, which were loose, were removed, air abraded to remove the cement, and re-cemented in place. Patient J.A.D. was prescribed an antibiotic. He was again seen by Dr. Arthur on December 13, 2016. The temporary on tooth 9 was broken, which was then remade and re-cemented. The fistula was smaller but still present. Patient J.A.D. was seen by Dr. Arthur on February 2, 2017, with the tooth 9 temporary crown fractured again. The fistula was still present. Patient J.A.D. advised that “the bone feels like it’s caving in around where she put that implant.” That statement is accepted not for the truth of the matter asserted, but as evidence that the complaint was first voiced in February 2017. On April 4, 2017, more than a year after the placement of the implant, Patient J.A.D was seen by Dr. Arthur. Dr. Arthur determined that the implant for tooth 8 was “stable and restorable in current position.” The fistula was still present and, after anesthesia, a probe was placed in the fistula where it contacted the implant cover screw. Although Dr. Arthur replaced the implant abutment, he ultimately placed the final crown on the implant placed by Respondent, where it remained at the time of the final hearing. The fact that incidents of Patient J.A.D. breaking and loosening the temporary crowns that occurred with Respondent continued with Dr. Arthur supports a finding that the problems were, more likely than not, the result of stress and overuse of Patient J.A.D.’s front teeth. On October 24, 2016, a series of CBCT radiographs was taken of the implant and its proximity to tooth 7. Dr. Kinzler testified that, in his opinion, the implant was of an appropriate length, but was too large for the socket. Much of his testimony was based on the October 24 radiograph and his examination of the resulting October 29, 2016, report. Although the report indicated that there was minimal bone between the implant and the root of tooth 7, and that the buccal cortex appeared thinned or eroded, those observations are of limited persuasive value as to whether the standard of performance was met almost eight months prior. Patient J.A.D. obviously worked, and overworked, his dental appliances. Without more, the evidence is not clear and convincing that his subsequent and repeated problems, including “thinned or eroded” bone in the buccal cortex, were the result of a violation of the standard of performance in the sizing and placement of the tooth 8 implant by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, enter a Final Order: Dismissing the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 19-2898PL and the Amended Administrative Complaint in Case No. 19-2902PL; With regard to Case No. 19-2899PL: 1) dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint; 2) determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient S.S. by: failing to adequately diagnose the condition of the roots of tooth 30; failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 30 during root canal treatment; failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment; failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following changes to the tooth’s margins; and failing to adequately assess and correct the crown on tooth 31 when the fit was compromised, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; and 3) determining that Respondent did not fail to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient S.S. by failing to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; With regard to Case No. 19-2900PL, determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient G.H. by seating a crown containing an open margin on tooth 13 and failing to adequately diagnose issues with the crown on tooth 13, and by failing to perform appropriate corrective treatment after having sufficient evidence of the deficiencies, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; With regard to Case No. 19-2901PL: 1) determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient J.D. by: failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing an implant in the area of tooth 14; failing to appropriately place the implant by attempting to place it into a curved root which could not accommodate the implant; failing to react appropriately to the sinking implant by trying to twist off the carrier instead of following the technique outlined in the implant’s manual; and paying, or having paid on her behalf, an indemnity in the amount of $75,000 as a result of negligent conduct in her treatment of Patient J.D., as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and 2) determining that Respondent did not fail to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient J.D. by failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations; Suspending Respondent’s license in accordance with rule 64B5-13.005(1)(x) and rule 64B5-13.005(3)(e), to be followed by a period of probation, with appropriate terms of probation to include remedial education in addition to such other terms that the Board believes necessary to ensure Respondent’s practical ability to perform dentistry as authorized by rule 64B5- 13.005(3)(d)2.; Imposing an administrative fine of $10,000; and Requiring reimbursement of costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: George Kellen Brew, Esquire Law Office of George K. Brew Suite 1804 6817 Southpoint Parkway Jacksonville, Florida 32216 (eServed) Kelly Fox, Esquire Department of Health 2585 Merchant’s Row Tallahassee, Florida 32311 (eServed) Octavio Simoes-Ponce, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Chad Wayne Dunn, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Jennifer Wenhold, Interim Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health Bin C-08 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3258 (eServed) Louise Wilhite-St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
