Findings Of Fact Respondents Respondent, John A. Rowe, D.D.S., received his license to practice dentistry in the State of Florida on or about July 30, 1982 and has been so licensed continuing to the present under license #DN 009364. Since 1977, Dr. Rowe has been board-certified in oral and maxillofacial surgery and he practices in that specialty. Dr. Rowe's license to practice dentistry in the State of Tennessee was suspended on or about October 3, 1983, and was reinstated on or about September 28, 1984. He neglected to inform the State of Florida Board of Dentistry of that disciplinary action, although he did provide to the Board a copy of the civil complaint when he applied for licensure in Florida. In early 1985, Dr. Rowe moved his practice from Tennessee to central Florida and began working with Dr. Frank Murray. During the time that he treated the patients at issue in this proceeding, Dr. Rowe was a salaried employee and part owner of a clinic, Central Florida Dental Association, in Kissimmee, Florida. He now has his own practice in Kissimmee. Ralph E. Toombs, D.D.S., has at all times relevant to this proceeding been licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida under license #DN 007026. During the period in question, 1988, Dr. Toombs was an associate at Central Florida Dental Association. The Clinic and its Procedures During the relevant period, 1988-89, Central Florida Dental Association, P.A., was owned by a group of dentists who actively practiced at the clinic. Dr. Frank Murray was the majority shareholder and President. Dr. Rowe was a shareholder; Dr. Toombs owned no interest and was an associate. The dentist/owners were under employment contracts and received salaries. By all accounts, Dr. Murray made the operational decisions affecting the clinic and its patients. He admitted that shareholders' votes were based on percentage of ownership. (Tr.-p.114) Dr. Murray set the fees for billing and reviewed patients' files. The procedures for billing were computerized. Clerical staff in the insurance department filled out claim forms that were signed in blank by the dentists, or they signed the dentists' names to the forms. Around 1987 or 1988, Dr. Murray acquired computerized diagnostic equipment for the clinic. At first Dr. Toombs, who was trained and familiar with the equipment, performed the testing. Later, Dr. Murray hired Maggie Collins to operate the equipment. Maggie Collins administered the diagnostic tests to the patients at issue in this proceeding. By the time Dr. Rowe left Central Florida Dental Association in 1989, his relationship with Dr. Murray had deteriorated, giving rise to acrimonious litigation. Patient Records After Dr. Rowe left, he had no further access to, or control over the dental records for the eight patients at issue in this proceeding. These Central Florida Dental Association records were at all times maintained under the case, custody and control of Dr. Murray and his employees. When the records were subpoenaed by the Department of Professional Regulation, copies of the records were provided and the clinic employees certified that the records provided were complete. They were, in fact, not complete, as approximately 426 additional pages were included in the originals subpoenaed by counsel for Dr. Rowe, which pages had not been provided to DPR. Many of the documents not copied for DPR related to billings. In some instances Dr. Rowe's daily reports or consultations were missing from the original records and from the copies. And, in at least one case the original record contains an entirely different version of a specific radiology consultation conducted by Dr. Rowe on 5/3/89. (Compare Rowe Exhibit #2 with Pet. Exh. #5-1). No evidence was provided to conclusively explain the discrepancies, and the records themselves are an unreliable source of evidence with regard to the allegations that Dr. Toombs failed to maintain adequate records for patient J.T. Her file contains only one X-ray from Central Florida Dental Association, and no explanation of tests, diagnoses or the continuing contacts she remembers with Dr. Toombs. The patient specifically remembers more than one X-ray being done at the clinic. The Patients At various times during 1987, 1988 and 1989, Dr. Rowe was consulted by these patients: H.W., E.M., M.Z., R.P.V., H.D., R.M. and S.R. Each had been involved in an automobile accident or other traumatic injury and each complained of headaches, pain, dizziness, and other symptoms. After examination and throughout a course of testing and treatment, these various diagnoses of TMJ disorders by Dr. Rowe were commonly found in the above patients: trismus, closed lock, and mandibular atrophy. While other diagnoses were made in the individual cases, the evidence at hearing and Petitioner's proposed recommended order address only these. Patient J.T. first consulted Dr. Toombs in August 1988, after suffering headaches which she understood from her regular dentist and her physician might be caused by dental overbite. She had a friend who had some work done by Dr. Toombs, so she looked him up in the yellow pages under "orthodontics" and made an appointment. After testing and X-rays and a brief consultation with Dr. Rowe, J.T. understood that Drs. Toombs and Rowe were suggesting jaw joint replacement, removal of some teeth and braces. She was advised to get another opinion and she returned to a prior treating physician. She did not follow up with treatment from Dr. Toombs or Rowe. Testing In addition to being administered X-rays, the above patients were tested on myotronics equipment at Central Florida Dental Association by Maggie Collins, a trained diagnostic testing operator hired by Dr. Frank Murray. Myotronics is electronic equipment developed by a Seattle, Washington company over the last twenty years. The equipment is used in diagnosis and sometimes treatment of TMJ functions, and includes sonography, which records the vibration of sound; electromyography (EMG), which measures the electrical activities of the muscles of the face; and computerized mandibular scanning (CMS), which measures a range and velocity of mandibular movement, i.e., the opening and closing of the jaw. Myotronics can also include a device like a TENS unit used for pulsating. The machines produce printouts which are available for interpretation later by the appropriate professional. On each occasion of administering the myotronics tests to the patients at issue, Maggie Collins was alone, undirected by Dr. Toombs, Dr. Rowe or other clinic staff. She utilized testing procedures she had been taught and had used in her prior dental clinic experience and which she continues to use in the clinic where she now works. In some cases, Ms. Collins administered the same tests twice on a single visit. In those cases, after the first series, the patient was pulsated with a TENS before the series was administered again to measure the effectiveness of the pulsating. This is a standard practice. The full testing takes two and a half to three hours. Diagnoses The TMJ, or temporomandibular joint of the jaw, is between the temporo bone and the mandible. A disc is between the condyle (bone) and the fossa (socket). As the mouth is opened, the bone moves and the disc moves slightly at first, until the mouth is opened wider and the disc rotates around the axis of the condyle. According to Respondent Rowe's TMJ expert witness, John Biggs, D.D.S., and as evidenced by the testimony of all of the experts in this proceeding, terminology in TMJ is open to interpretation and there is not a complete union of agreement on every single thing in the field of TMJ. (tr.-p.790) "Closed lock" can legitimately mean that the disc is out of place and is not recaptured as the mouth is closed. The term, "closed lock", can also be applied to the mandible, meaning the jaw does not open normally because it meets resistance from muscle spasm or tissue impediment from the disc. An acute closed lock would impede the opening more than a chronic condition, as the mandible may, over time, stretch the ligaments. An acute closed lock could limit the mandibular opening to 21, 25 or even 27 mm; whereas a chronic closed lock might allow an opening of up to 40 mm, and sometimes more, according to Petitioner's expert, Dr. Abdel-Fattah (rebuttal deposition, 12/2/92, p.71). The patients' files in evidence reveal findings of limited mandibular openings from a variety of sources, including manual and electronic measurement. Those openings are well within the ranges described above for closed lock and most are within the "acute closed lock" range. Another term for "closed lock" is "anterior displacement of the disc without reduction". This means the disc is not recaptured on the condyle. When a sonogram reflects sounds or clicking in the joint, analysis of those sounds is helpful in diagnosing TMJ disorders. Literature appended by Petitioner to the rebuttal deposition of its expert supports Dr. Moretti's opinion that the presence of clicks can still mean that a closed lock exists. (Pet. #3 to deposition of Reba A.Abdel-Fattah, pp. 1 and 3, figure 5 Rowe Ex. #10, p.18) Trismus is more appropriately designated a symptom rather than a diagnosis. It means spasm of the muscles of mastication. The pain of the symptom often interferes with the opening of the mandible, and for that reason, trismus is sometimes used to also denote "limited opening". It is apparent from the patient records that Dr. Rowe used the term interchangeably, and for that reason, findings of trismus where a patient is able to open to 40 mm are not inconsistent. Moreover, trismus as a symptom may be more or less pronounced under a variety of circumstances on different occasions with the same patient. For example, the patient may experience severe trismus upon rising in the morning and find that it subsides later. Mandibular atrophy is indicated by bone loss. Reviewing the same X- rays for patient E.M., Petitioner's and Respondent Rowe's experts came to opposite conclusive opinions as to whether Dr. Rowe's diagnosis of this condition in E.M. was proper. Mandibular atrophy was also diagnosed in patient S.R., but Dr. Fattah did not find a problem with that diagnosis. Treatment Dr. Rowe's treatment of the patients in issue included closed manipulation and the insertion of orthodic splints. Both are noninvasive, conservative procedures. Petitioner alleges that closed manipulation was unnecessary in the absence of closed lock, and that the method of insertion of the splints by Dr. Rowe was improper. Closed manipulation of the mandible, sometimes called "closed reduction", is manual manipulation to attempt to recapture the disc. The procedure can be done several ways, one of which is to approach the patient from the back, place the hands on the mandible and relax the mandible to where it can be opened, moving the disc into place. The patient is in a supine, or reclined, position in the dental chair. Once the disc is manually repositioned, it is important to keep the patient from closing back on his posterior teeth and losing the disc again. To avoid this, an orthodic splint is inserted and fitted in the patient's mouth. Even when manipulation does not unlock the mandible, the practitioner might want to place the splint for support. The splint can be placed with the patient sitting erect or reclined. Dr. Rowe generally places the splint while the patient is reclined in the dental chair. Adjustments may be made after the splint is initially placed and the patient is sometimes seen twice on the same day or on a weekly basis. Because it is important for the patient to be relaxed, the supine or reclining position is preferred. Insurance Claims Insurance claims at Central Florida Dental Association were handled by clerical staff in a separate department. Claim forms were commonly signed by those staff for the treating dentist, but there is no evidence that the signatures were authorized for any specific claim. Another wholly inappropriate practice at the clinic was to have the dentists sign blank forms to be filled out later. Dr. Rowe testified that Dr. Murray required that they do this, and that he did sign blank forms. Those forms include this printed statement over the signature line: NOTICE: Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing, that the facts alleged are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that the treatment and services rendered were reasonable and necessary with respect to the bodily injury sustained. (Pet. Ex. 12) There is no evidence that Dr. Rowe or Dr. Toombs filled out the claim forms in issue, or were involved in the ultimate decisions as to how much and when to bill an insurance company. In several instances, the forms reflect that tests were billed twice on the same day. As found above, tests were commonly administered twice in one day, for valid reasons. Whether the billing for such was proper was simply not addressed by any competent testimony in this proceeding. Patients' insurance companies were also billed for TENS units. H.W. was given this equipment at the clinic and he testified that he still has it. There is no evidence that any billing for TENS units was fraudulent or improper. Advertising In 1988, the Osceola County telephone directory Yellow Pages listed Dr. Toombs under "Dentists-Orthodontics". There is no evidence that anyone other than Dr. Murray was involved with the placement of that listing. Dr. Toombs is a general dentist who practices orthodontics. He is a member of various orthodontic societies. Petitioner's expert witness, Dr. Lilly, confirmed that a general practitioner of dentistry may practice some orthodontics. There is no evidence that Dr. Toombs has held himself out or limited his practice to being an orthodontist. Weighing the Evidence and Summary of Findings Competent reasonable experts testified on behalf of both Petitioner and Respondent Rowe. It is clear that, as Dr. Biggs observed, terminology in the field of TMJ is not as precise and uniform as Dr. Fattah would suggest. Some of the differences in opinion are attributed to that imprecision, and perhaps to quirks in Dr. Rowe's narratives which portray a surgical setting for a nonsurgical procedure, for example, "draping the patient" or "surgical splint". Dr. Rowe, as an oral surgeon, nonetheless, proceeded reasonably in his sequence of diagnosis and treatment; that is, he attempted conservative, noninvasive modalities before going to more invasive procedures such as arthoscopy and surgery. Other differences in opinion and in the way the computerized test results are interpreted are more difficult to resolve. Dr. Rowe contends that Dr. Fattah misread the printed data, confusing vertical with horizontal readings. Dr. Fattah uses myotronic equipment, but not the older model that was used for the tests at issue. The greater weight of evidence supports Respondent Rowe's diagnoses of the patients at issue. Since the allegations of inappropriate and unnecessary treatment are based on allegations of misdiagnosis, Petitioner's proof fails here as well. The further testing, the closed manipulation and insertion of the splints were appropriate follow up for the findings of TMJ disorders by Dr. Rowe. With one exception, it was the insurance companies and not the patients who complained. The records from Central Florida Dental Association reflect substantial billings and insurance form submittals for Dr. Rowe's and Dr. Toombs' patients, but no evidence of these Respondents' responsibility or involvement in the process. The clinic functions were performed in discrete departments under the overall management and control of Dr. Murray. There was no evidence that either Dr. Rowe or Dr. Toombs exercised influence over any patient so as to exploit the patient for personal financial gain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent Rowe be found guilty of violating Section 466.028(1)(b), (1983), and a fine of $250.00 be imposed; and that the remaining charges as to Respondents Rowe and Toombs be dismissed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 2nd day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 91-3213, 91-6022 AND 91-5362 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Adopted in paragraph 1. 2.-3. Adopted in paragraph 2. 4. Rejected as unnecessary. The statute is addressed in the Conclusions of Law. 5.-6. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 9.-13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 14.-15. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 18.-23. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 24.-25. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. 26. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 27.-30. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 31. Adopted in paragraph 27. The referenced exhibit #33 is Dr. Lilly's resume and does not support the proposed finding. 32.-34. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 35.-36. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. 37. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 38.-42. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 43.-44. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. 45. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 46.-49. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 50.-51. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 54.-58. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The reference to exhibit #33 is incorrect. 59.-60. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 63.-67. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 68. Adopted in paragraph 4. 69.-70. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in part in paragraph 34, otherwise rejected as to Respondent's involvement in the advertisement. Adopted in paragraph 35. 73.-74. Rejected as unnecessary. 75.-77. Rejected as unnecessary or unsupported by competent evidence as the absence of these records does not support the finding of a violation under the circumstances. Findings Proposed by Respondent Rowe Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. 3.-4. Adopted in paragraph 9. 5.-7. Adopted in paragraph 10. 8.-9. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 10. Rejected. The testimony of J.T. is inconclusive in this regard. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as overbroad. The records received were reliable for a limited purpose. 15.-16. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as immaterial. Respondent admitted the violation. Adopted in part in paragraph 2, otherwise rejected as immaterial (see paragraph 17, above) Adopted in paragraph 32, in substance. Adopted in substance in paragraph 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in part as unsubstantiated by the record (as to whether Rowe received any benefit other than salary), otherwise adopted in paragraph 6. 23.-24. Adopted in paragraph 6. 25. Adopted in paragraph 41. 26.-27. Adopted in paragraph 37. Adopted in paragraph 41. Adopted in paragraph 29. Adopted in substance in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 23. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 24. 34.-37. Rejected as unsupported by conclusive evidence. The witness was at times confused in his haste. He does not know this particular equipment but it is not clear from the record that he was reading the data wrong. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 23. Adopted in paragraphs 37 and 38. Adopted in paragraph 33. Rejected in part, adopted in part (see conclusions of law). Finding of Fact Recommended by Respondent Toombs Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 14. 4.-5. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 36. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 35. 9.-11. Rejected as unnecessary. 12. Adopted in paragraph 5. 13.-18. Rejected as unnecessary. 19. Adopted in paragraph 12. 20.-26. Rejected as unnecessary. 27. Adopted in paragraph 41. COPIES FURNISHED: William Buckhalt, Executive Director Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Albert Peacock, Sr. Atty. Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth Brooten, Jr. 660 W. Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, FL 32789 Ronald Hand 241 E. Ruby Ave., Ste. A Kissimmee, FL 34741
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dr. John R. Parry, at all times pertinent to this hearing, was licensed by the State of Florida to practice dentistry under License No. DN- 0005282. His primary practice is at the Florence Denture Clinic, located at 255 Wymore Road, Winter Park, Florida, but he also operates several other clinics under the same name in Jacksonville and St. Petersburg, Florida. In late February, 1981, Nancy Bradley, a 28-year-old married woman living in Leesburg, Florida, was experiencing extreme pain due to an abscessed tooth. She had tried to get dental treatment in her hometown, but for some reason was unable to do so, so she requested that her sister, Leslie Wilson, who lives in Orlando, get an appointment for her with a dentist in that area. Ms. Wilson contacted Respondent's Winter Park clinic and made an appointment for Ms. Bradley for February 27, 1981. During the course of her conversation with the receptionist, she was quoted the price for various services provided by the clinic. She called this clinic because she had been treated there before and it was the only place she knew that was reasonable. On February 27, 1981, Ms. Bradley and Ms. Wilson went to Respondent's clinic early in the morning. Ms. Bradley told the receptionist she had a bad tooth, filled out some forms, paid $180 in advance, and was told to wait. At this time, even though early in the morning, the waiting room was crowded. After a wait of approximately 30 minutes, she was called in for X rays and afterwards, after a wait of an additional five minutes or so, was taken into the work area. She described this area as a large room broken up by partitions into separate work stations. After being put in the chair, she waited for a few minutes until a man she identified later as Wayne Giddens came in and took a molded impression of her mouth. She described the man in question and heard him referred to by others as Wayne. Her description fits that of the Wayne Giddens who testified at the hearing. After Giddens left, Respondent came in and examined her mouth, telling her she needed to have four teeth pulled. Ms. Bradley told Respondent to pull only those teeth which could not reasonably be saved. Respondent did not tell her which teeth would have to be pulled. At this point, Ms. Wilson, who was also present, started asking questions as to why the teeth could not be saved. Respondent became upset by these questions, told Ms. Wilson to leave, threw the X rays down on the tray and told Ms. Bradley that if he did not pull the teeth, he would not do anything. When she acquiesced, he told her to come back at 2:00 that afternoon. Because she had already paid for the treatment, because she was in much pain from her teeth, and because she thought the doctor knew what he was talking about, she came back as instructed and was taken into another room for treatment. This time her sister, Ms. Wilson, remained in the waiting room. When Ms. Bradley was seated, a different dentist from Respondent came in and, after quickly looking at her chart, gave her an injection of anesthetic. Almost immediately and before the injection had a chance to take effect, this dentist started to pull her teeth. It hurt badly, and she asked for more anesthetic, which the doctor administered, and again began to pull her tooth. Partly through the procedure, however, he stopped, called someone on the phone that was there, and asked why an oral surgeon had not been called in. Apparently satisfied with the answer he received, he returned to the patient and finished the extraction. After the first tooth was removed, the doctor started to pull a front tooth. Ms. Bradley asked why he was pulling there, when her pain was in the back. The attending dentist said it was because Respondent, Dr. Parry, bad said so. The attending dentist, however, indicated his opinion that the extraction of the front tooth was questionable. A total of four teeth were pulled from Ms. Bradley's mouth that day. These were teeth numbered 3, 9, 10, and 12. Aside from the initial comment to Respondent requesting that any teeth that could be saved not be pulled and her question to the attending dentist, Ms. Bradley did not raise any objection to the extraction of her teeth. She indicated that she trusted the doctor involved, and since she had come in to seek relief from an abscess, in light of her prefatory comments, she felt that if teeth were pulled, they had to be pulled. In fact, she signed a consent form numbered 1083, which refers to an attached Information Sheet. Ms. Bradley does not recall having seen the information sheet, but no doubt was furnished one. However, review of the information sheet shows the "procedures outlined" are not at all clearly defined. In fact, it is more in the form of a disclaimer and cannot in any reasonable way be considered as forming the basis for an informed consent. Consequently, it is clear that the procedures undertaken by Respondent and his staff were not based on a full and informed consent by the patient, Ms. Bradley. After the teeth in question were pulled, Ms. Bradley was taken into another room, where she was put in a chair. At this point, though her mouth was still bloody from the extractions, the same individual who took the impressions earlier in the day came in with the dentures and inserted them in her mouth. He told her to leave them there for 24 hours and not to eat for the period, and left. Ms. Bradley was then led out to the waiting room, where her sister met her. Ms. Wilson was quite upset by the condition of Ms. Bradley and, after taking her to the car, immediately went back into the clinic to talk with someone about the situation. When she asked for Respondent, she was told that he and all other dentists were gone for the day. A few days later, Ms. Bradley went to another dentist, Dr. Rucher, who treated her for four dry sockets, where the teeth had been pulled, and a gum infection. He also made a new partial bridge for her to replace the one made at Respondent's clinic, which device did not fit properly. She did not return to Respondent's clinic. Mr. Giddens, the individual who took the impression of Ms. Bradley's mouth and who placed the completed bridgework in, is not a licensed dentist, but is a dental technician and has been for approximately 14 years. He has had no formal schooling for his work and has secured all his knowledge through on-the- job training. With the exception of a three-month hiatus in the summer of 1982, he has worked for Respondent since 1980. He primarily works in quality control, inspecting dentures when they come from the laboratory. His duties do not include taking impressions of patients' mouths or the fitting of dentures. These are functions performed by others in the office. He denies having put any dentures in Ms. Bradley's mouth. If he were to do so, he states, Respondent would fire him. The dental chart on each patient contains the initials of the individual who actually accomplished the work. For example, the chart on Ms. Bradley shows that on February 27, 1981, the examination and the X rays were performed by "P," which stands for "Parry." The delivery of the dentures is noted by the initials "WG." Mr. Giddens' first name is Wayne. Therefore, since Ms. Bradley positively identified Mr. Giddens as the individual who took the impression of her mouth and later inserted the denture, since she called him by name from overhearing his name mentioned by others in the clinic while the work was being done, and since the witness alone initialed the records denoting delivery of the dentures, it is found that Mr. Giddens did, in fact, do both, as alleged. As was previously found, four teeth were pulled from Ms. Bradley's mouth at Respondent's clinic on February 27, 1981. These teeth were identified on her dental chart as Nos. 3, 9, 10, and 12. Several experts in the field of dental surgery examined the X rays that were taken of Ms. Bradley's mouth at Respondent's clinic on the day of her visit, but before the extraction. This X- ray picture shows clearly the condition of teeth numbered 9, 10, and 12. It was the consensus of all experts that teeth numbered 9 and 10 were not in such deteriorated condition that they needed to be pulled. A reasonable amount of restoration work by a competent dentist could have saved these two teeth. It was also the consensus that tooth numbered 12 was not reasonably salvageable and was properly extracted. Because of the location of tooth numbered 3 and the quality of the X ray, no firm opinion was reached by the experts with regard to this tooth. Therefore, it is found that of the four teeth pulled, two, Nos. 9 and 10, could have been saved by the use of root canal and crown work, a reasonably simple procedure which was available, but considerably more costly than the extraction and bridgework. Ms. Bradley indicated that while she has paid little attention to her mouth and tooth condition prior to this episode, and that while her mouth, at the time in question, was not in good shape and did not reflect good dental hygiene practices, she would have paid what was necessary to save her teeth. There are numerous factors for a patient to consider before making a decision to have teeth extracted. Among these are: The willingness to have it done with the knowledge that once the tooth is gone, it is forever. The patient's dental I.Q.--the willingness of the patient to practice good dental hygiene afterwards. The cost of restoration versus extraction. The pain and inconvenience to the patient, recognizing that restorative treatment may require several visits while extraction is done in one visit. Generally speaking and based on these considerations, most dentists believe it is better to save a tooth than to extract it. With that in mind, it is generally considered to be practice below minimum community standards not to advise a potential extraction patient of available alternative treatments. It is up to the patient, then, to make the decision whether to extract or not, after being provided with all reasonable available information. If there is a proper informed consent given by the patient, then an extraction of even salvageable teeth would not be practice below minimum standards. However, if a dentist pulls a restorable tooth without informing the patient of alternative treatments, since any taking of patient tissue is serious, this action would fall below community standards. The standards stated above are no different for a high-volume clinic practice than for a routine practice. All elections of the patient, including the fact that the patient was advised and declined alternate treatment, should be made a part of the patient records. Here, the records kept by Respondent reflect no advice as to alternatives nor an election as to treatment. The "consent" form utilized by Respondent is totally insufficient to establish informed consent. Respondent did not authorize Mr. Giddens to either take the impression of Ms. Bradley's mouth or insert the appliance. To do either would be the unauthorized practice of dentistry. It is his policy that technicians do not get into a patient's mouth, particularly in the case of partial bridgework, where the fit is critical. He does not recall Ms. Bradley nor is she listed in his appointment book for the date in question. This latter factor, he states, indicates she came in either as a walk-in, or was fit in as a favor to her sister, already a patient at the clinic. As to the payment, she could not have had a fee set until it was determined what action would be taken. Also, Ms. Bradley was patient number 17 for the day. Respondent states this shows she did not come in early, but more like 8:30 or 9:00 a.m. All of these factors are claimed by Respondent to show that Ms. Bradley is not being truthful in her allegations. However, this has not been shown. Respondent, in one statement, says he does not recall this patient, nor does he recall throwing the X rays on the table and stalking out of the office. However, he contends she asked him to take out the four teeth in question. Based on the state of the evidence, Ms. Bradley is the more credible witness.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent pay an administrative fine of $2,000 and be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 6th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Gallagher, Esq. Department of professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas Infantino, Esq. Post Office Drawer 30 Winter Park, Florida 32790-0030 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Varn Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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)
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 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 =================================================================
