Findings Of Fact The Respondent filed Exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Findings of Fact. These exceptions were numbered 6 through 30 with numerous subparts. The numbered exceptions do not deal with individual findings and for the most part merely assert that various recommended facts are inconsistent with other evidence and testimony in the record, but not cited by the Hearing Officer. Although the Board discussed and considered each exception, because of the format in which the exceptions were filed, it was impossible for the Board to vote on each numbered exception individually. However, the Board did find that the Hearing Officer's Recommended Findings of Fact are supported by competent substantial evidence and Respondent's assertions regarding internal inconsistency and conflict with other evidence and testimony in the record do not meet the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes, for rejecting the Hearing Officer's Recommended Findings of Fact. Therefore, Respondent's exceptions to the Recommended Findings of Fact are rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding respondent guilty of Counts II, III and VI of the Administrative Complaint and not guilty of Counts IV and V of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that such final order imposes an administrative fine of $6,000.00 against respondent, and suspend his license for a term of two (2) years, followed by a term of probation of eight (8) years, subject to such terms and conditions as the board may specify, including the requirement that respondent be personally attended by a third person at all times he is treating female patients. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of January 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 21st day of January 1992.
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 At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed as a dentist by Petitioner. During the period between September 1978 and March 1979 Marcia Girouard was a patient of Respondent. Following consultation on September 15, 1978, Respondent and Ms. Girouard agreed that she would have three crowns and upper and lower partial dentures installed. The dentures were priced at $300 for the lower, $500 for the upper precision partial and the crowns were $200 each. Respondent installed two crowns for Ms. Girouard and made her lower and upper partial dentures. The bill for these services was $1200. While the temporary crown was on tooth 11 it came off a few times and was recemented by Respondent. When the precision partial was installed the permanent crown was in place. Ms. Girouard had no posterior teeth aft of the two number 3 teeth on the lower jaw and teeth 6 and 11 and the upper jaw (Exhibit 5). Accordingly, the upper partial plate was anchored to tooth 11. In view of the lack of teeth to which to anchor the upper partial denture, Respondent, after discussing it with Ms. Girouard, made precision partial dentures for the upper jaw. Tooth 11 was ground down and fitted with a crown to which the female part of the precision partial was attached. When the precision partial was completed and the crown installed Respondent put the upper precision partial in place and adjusted it. Shortly after the upper precision partial gas installed Ms. Girouard complained of pain in tooth 11 and Respondent performed root canal therapy on this tooth. As is customary with root canal therapy a temporary closure was made of the cavity drilled and filled where the root had been removed. From the time this root canal work was done on February 1, 1979, until Ms. Girouard's last visit to Respondent's office on March 12, 1979, Ms. Girouard continued to complain about some sensitivity in tooth 11. When the lower and upper partials were seated on December 14 and 27, 1978, Ms. Girouard was instructed in removing and reinstalling these dentures. The lower partial was attached by clasps and never presented any problem to Ms. Girouard. How- ever, the upper precision partial did present serious problems in that while at home Ms. Girouard had great difficulty and little success in removing this upper precision partial. During the period between the initial seating of the upper precision partial on December 27, 1978, Exhibit 5 indicates Ms. Girouard was in Respondent's office on January 24, 1979,to have the crown on tooth 11 reseated; on February 1, 1979, for root canal; on February 8 for reseating partial; on February 9 for recementing crown; and on February 15 for an impression to convert the upper precision partial to conventional clasps. On March 12, 1979, Ms. Girouard made her last visit to Respondent's office and on this occasion she had her teeth cleaned. A subsequent appointment some two weeks later Was cancelled by Ms. Girouard as she was unsatisfied with the dentures she had received from Respondent. When the precision upper partial was converted to clasps Ms. Girouard was able to remove the denture but it did not fit as snugly as had the precision partial. Ms. Girouard's testimony that Respondent had difficulty installing and removing the upper precision partial from Ms. Girouard's mouth and that on several occasions he had to resort to the use of a dental tool to remove the denture was contradicted by Respondent and several assistants who worked in the office during the period Ms. Girouard was a patient. Respondent acknowledged that when the upper precision partial was first installed it did fit tight and he may have resorted to a dental tool to remove it the first time but that after making standard and routine adjustments he had no further difficulty removing this partial. Several witnesses observed Ms. Girouard insert and remove the precision partial in the dental office and confirmed her testimony that she complained about being unable to remove the precision partial at home. Because of her inability to remove this precision partial Respondent replaced the male connectors on the precision partial with clasps so the partial could be removed by Ms. Girouard. The female connection was left on the crown in case Ms. Girouard subsequently went back to the precision connection. At the time of Ms. Girouard's last visit to Respondent's office on March 12, 1979, she was complaining about the looseness of the upper partial and the root canal hole had not been permanently sealed. Respondent intended to permanently seal this tooth after the pain stopped and further treatment of this tooth would be unnecessary. Believing that she had been treated unfairly by Respondent Ms. Girouard in April 1979, contacted an attorney to institute a malpractice action against Respondent. This attorney sent her to Dr. Steve Hager for a dental examination. On April 25, 1979, when examined by Dr. Hager, Ms. Girouard had both upper and lower partials in her mouth. Hager's examination indicated no evidence that the work performed on Ms. Girouard by Respondent was below acceptable community standards or that anything was wrong with the work performed by Respondent (Exhibit 8). By letter of April 30, 1979, (Exhibit 9) Ms. Girouard was advised of Dr. Hager's findings. Nevertheless, by letter dated June 5, 1979, the attorney advised Respondent of Ms. Girouard's dissatisfaction with the work done and suggested a monetary settlement to Ms. Girouard of the money she paid for the partial dentures would deter her from filing a complaint with the Florida Board of Dentistry. In reply thereto Respondent, by letter dated June 8, 1979 (Exhibit 7), advised Ms. Girouard he did not feel the partials were improperly constructed or fitted but he would make further adjustments if it would help her. After Ms. Girouard was examined by Dr. Hager, Mr. Girouard returned the partials to Respondent's office. He does not recall with whom he left the dentures and none of Respondent's employees recall receiving these dentures. The fact that these dentures were returned was not disputed. On March 21, 1979, Mr. Girouard wrote a letter to Governor Graham complaining about the treatment his wife had received from Respondent and requested something be done about it. Girouard was referred to the Department of Professional Regulation and an investigation was initiated. In November 1981, Ms. Girouard was examined by a board-appointed dentist. She had received no dental treatment between her last visit to Respondent on March 12, 1979, and November 1981. At this time the permanent closure had not been placed on the root canal and Ms. Girouard did not have any of her partial dentures. This board-appointed witness testified that the work done by Respondent was below minimally acceptable standards because the root canal hole had not been closed with a permanent seal. Upon cross-examination he acknowledged that the six weeks from the time the root canal was done until Ms. Girouard's last visit to Respondent's office was not necessarily too long to wait for permanently closing the root canal opening and that if the patient refused to cooperate with the dentist the latter could not install the permanent seal. This witness also acknowledged under cross-examination that it was difficult to determine that dentures do not fit properly if the dentures are not seen in the patient's mouth. Expert witnesses called by Respondent testified that it was proper to leave the temporary filling on a root canal until the pain was gone or its cause ascertained and that this period could take upwards of six months. These witnesses further concurred that without seeing the dentures in the patient's mouth it is difficult to determine whether they fit properly. They also concurred that precision partial dentures should easily be removable by patients and that adjusting these precision partials is not a difficult process. The fact that the upper partial had to be attached to an anterior tooth and the lack of natural posterior teeth created greater pressure on the tooth to which this partial was attached. The increased leverage on this tooth due to the length of the partial would also create more torque and could lead to potential problems.
The Issue Whether Respondent Richard S. Bach, D.D.S., license #5512, has violated Section 466.38, Florida Statutes, by permitting a dental hygienist under his supervision and control to perform acts constituting the practice of dentistry and not permitted by law to be performed by a dental hygienist. Whether Respondent Carol Ann Bach, R.H.D., license #2371, has violated Section 466.38, Florida Statutes, by performing acts constituting the practice of dentistry and not permitted by law to be performed by a dental hygienist.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Dr. Richard S. Bach, is a dentist licensed to practice dentistry under the laws of the State of Florida, Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and engages in the practice of dentistry in his office, located at 999 North Krome Avenue in Homestead, Florida. Dr. Bach was practicing dentistry during the month of September, 1978. The Respondent, Carol Ann Bach, is a dental hygienist licensed to practice dental hygiene under the laws of the State of Florida, Chapter 466, Florida Statutes. She is employed by Dr. Richard S. Bach at his office, located at 999 North Krome Avenue in Homestead, Florida, and was so employed during the month of September, 1978. The Petitioner, State Board of Dentistry, filed an administrative accusation against Respondent Dr. Bach and Respondent Carol Bach which was sworn to and subscribed on October 24, 1978. The accusation alleged that Dr. Bach had permitted a dental hygienist under his supervision and control to perform acts constituting the practice of dentistry in violation of Section 466.38, Florida Statutes. The administrative accusation also alleged that Carol Bach had administered an anesthetic by oral injection into the gums of a patient, Dorothy Moore, and that such was an act constituting the practice of dentistry prohibited by Section 466.38, Florida Statutes. Both Respondents requested an administrative hearing. Ms. Dorothy Moore sought the dental services of Respondent Dr. Bach in September of 1977. After treating Ms. Moore, Dr. Bach told her that she was developing a severe pyorrhea gum infection and suggested that she make an appointment with his dental hygienist. An appointment was made and x-rays taken, and thereafter, on September 19, 1977, Respondent Carol Bach cleaned Ms. Moore's teeth. Respondent Carol Bach injected into the upper portion of Ms. Moore's mouth approximately fifteen (15) injections of a local anesthesia before performing a curettage procedure. Subsequently, on September 26, 1977, Carol Bach injected a local anesthesia into the lower portion of Ms. Moore's mouth prior to performing the curettage procedure. Respondents Richard S. Bach and Carol Ann Bach are husband and wife, and were married at the time of the incident involved in this hearing. Carol Bach was employed in the office of Richard Bach as the only dental hygienist employed in the office. During the time of the cleaning of Ms. Moore's teeth, and during the time in which anesthesia was injected into her gums, the door of the room in which these incidents occurred remained open, both on September 19, and on September 26, 1977. There is no evidence that Respondent Carol Bach hid or intended to hide the fact that she administered an anesthesia by way of injection to the patient. The door was open, and the activity therein was easily visible. Respondent Carol Bach had told Ms. Moore that she was going to anesthetize Ms. Moore's mouth in order that the work would be less painful. It was undisputed that Respondent Carol Bach gave injections of anesthesia to Ms. Moore. Respondent Dr. Bach did not deny or attempt to justify the acts of his hygienist, and there was no showing that her activities were unknown to Dr. Bach or that he had instructed her to not perform such operations. He knew, or should have known, of her acts. When Ms. Moore was informed that she needed additional fillings, she became concerned about costs and sought the services of another dentist. Thereafter, she wrote a letter to the Petitioner giving details of her appointments with the Respondents. Both parties submitted proposed findings of fact and memoranda of law, and both made response to the proposals submitted. These instruments were considered in the writing of this Order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted or are inconsistent with factual findings in this Order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Suspend the license of Respondent Carol Ann Bach for a period not exceeding one year. Suspend the license of Respondent Richard S. Bach for a period not exceeding one year. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 2516 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Baya Harrison, III, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed dentist holding license No. DN0003704. In 1980, Karen Hansen was a patient of Respondent. In August of 1980, Respondent furnished Ms. Hansen a four-unit fixed bridge encompassing the upper left cuspid, the left lateral incisor, the left central incisor, and the upper right central incisor. Despite pain and sensitivity to hot and cold, Ms. Hansen was satisfied initially with the work performed by Respondent. However, shortly after the bridge was installed, she began to experience pain and sensitivity to hot and cold, and became dissatisfied with the aesthetics of the bridge. She returned to Respondent for adjustments, but Respondent was unable to correct the problems or alleviate her pain and sensitivity. On June 8, 1981, Ms. Hansen was examined by Petitioner's dental consultant. Upon examination of Ms. Hansen, the following conditions were observed: The porcelain was badly chipped on the upper left cuspid; The facial margin of the crown on the upper left cuspid was short of the gingiva; The porcelain on the facial aspect of the upper left central incisor was chipped and a jagged edge was present; The facial margin of the crown on the right central incisor was short of the gingiva; and Occlusion was extremely heavy and traumatic in the bridge area. Ms. Hansen was examined by Petitioner's expert several months after the bridge was seated. As a result, he was unable to state with absolute certainty that the short margins existed at the time the work was completed. However, since less than a year had passed since the bridge was seated, it is likely that the short margins were present in August of 1980. The bridge provided by Respondent to Ms. Hansen is neither functionally nor aesthetically serviceable. There was nothing so unusual about Ms. Hansen's oral condition that would have made it difficult to fabricate a serviceable bridge for her. The roots of her teeth were not so large that it would have been impossible to crown the teeth to the gingiva, in accordance with acceptable dental practice. Furthermore, the patient's decision not to crown an additional tooth had no effect on the occlusion or the short margins found upon later examination of the bridge. For these reasons, the bridge furnished by Respondent to ?s. Hansen failed to meet the minimum acceptable standard of practice. Respondent first saw Eileen Murray as a patient on or about December 13, 1976. Ms. Murray at that time was a 23-year-old female who had approximately 11 teeth missing including her four wisdom teeth. At the time she was first seen by Respondent her mouth was in very poor condition. She needed bridgework involving 22 teeth, including the two upper right bicuspids which were missing. She also gave a history of having had severe bruxism for over ten years prior to seeing Respondent. The dental work performed by Respondent was completed on or about March 20, 1977. In September of 1977, Ms. Murray returned to Respondent because the porcelain on one of her bicuspids had fallen away from the gold backing. From that point until May of 1981, Ms. Murray experienced many problems with the crown and bridgework installed by Respondent and returned to his office numerous times for repairs and adjustments. In addition to the aforementioned problem, Ms. Murray again saw Respondent in March of 1978 when she experienced sensitivity to hot and cold and the short margin developed on an upper cuspid. In January of 1979, the last two teeth on the upper bridge broke away from the bridge itself. In July of 1979, the last two teeth on the lower bridge broke away. In June of 1980, the lower bridge broke into four pieces when it was removed by Respondent. Finally, in September of 1980, the porcelain chipped on the upper central incisor of the bridge. In July of 1981 Ms. Murray was examined by a consultant to Petitioner. She was also examined in September of 1981 by another consultant retained by Petitioner. Both consultants noted the following conditions present in Ms. Murray's mouth: The metal substructure of the ontics was fractured between the pontics which replaced the maxillary right, first and second bicuspids; There were open margins on the facial aspect of tooth Nos. 6, 8, 10, 11, 18, 22, and 27; There were short margins on the facial aspect of tooth Nos. 22, 23, and 26; There were short margins on the lingual aspect of tooth Nos. 3, 23, 26, and 30; Porcelain was chipped on the incisoral edge of the maxillary right cuspid and the maxillary right central; Metal was exposed on the occlusal or incisal surfaces of tooth Nos. 12, 26, 27, and 30; The porcelain in the bridge exhibited an overall contamination indicative of poor dentistry; There was generalized periodontal involvement of the soft tissues; and There was severe malocclusion. As a result of the foregoing problems, the record in this cause establishes that the work done by Respondent on Ms. Murray is not salvageable, but must be redone in its entirety. The breakage problems experienced by Ms. Murray would not have occurred had the porcelain not been of such poor quality. In addition, the metal utilized by Respondent was inadequate and could not withstand the stress of the prosthesis as designed by Respondent. When the metal substructure of Ms. Murray's bridge fractured, the bridge should have been remade, but Respondent chose not to do so. The margin on tooth No. 10 was never adequate. The incisal edges of several teeth are opaque and do not resemble natural teeth. On most teeth this is largely a cosmetic consideration, but on the molars, this thick, opaque, rounded "mothball" appearance severely effects the function of the teeth, in that the lack of a properly contoured incisal edge makes chewing extremely difficult. Apparently, little consideration was given by Respondent to the function of the bridgework. The upper bridge was apparently designed to be aesthetically pleasing, and the lower bridge was then shaped to fit around or under the upper prosthesis. This lack of consideration for function is further indicated, in part, by a flat spot on one lower tooth, and a generally poor occlusal table. The record in this cause also reflects that Ms. Murray had active periodontal disease when she first consulted Respondent. The inadequate restorative dentistry described above contributes to the progress of periodontal disease. In Ms. Murray's case, it is likely that her periodontal disease was exacerbated by the poor restorative dentistry performed by Respondent. It is clear from the record in this cause that Ms. Murray had a long history of bruxism when she was first seen by Respondent. She made this fact known to Respondent, and Respondent in fact furnished certain appliances to Ms. Murray because of her bruxing problem. In most cases, properly done crown and bridgework will eliminate bruxism. However, neither the mouth guards prescribed by Respondent nor the restorative dental work performed by him served to alleviate Ms. Murray's bruxism. However, the record in this cause establishes that the poor restorative dentistry practiced by Respondent in fact worsened Ms. Murray's bruxism. Both counsel for Petitioner and counsel for Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those findings of fact have not been included in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by evidence of record.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner successfully completed the December 1999 dental licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been given a temporary permit to practice dentistry due to his being a resident in training. In December 1999, Petitioner took the dental licensure Examination. He successfully completed the Laws and Rules part of the Examination having received a score of 78.00, where a minimum score of 75.00 was required to pass that part. Petitioner failed to successfully complete the Clinical part of the Examination having received a score of 2.89, where a minimum score of 3.00 was required to pass the Clinical part. As a result, Petitioner failed to successfully complete the overall Examination. On the Periodontal section of the Clinical part, Petitioner received a score of 1.66. He challenges this score. Each candidate is graded by three examiners. Each examiner is a dentist who is licensed in the State of Florida, with a minimum of five active years' experience, and who, among other things, has no complaints or negative actions against his/her license. Before every examination, each examiner is trained in evaluating a procedure to make sure that the procedure is properly performed. The Department of Health (Department) conducts training in which each examiner is trained to grade using the same internal criteria. Such training results in a standardization of grading criteria. In this training process, the examiners are trained by assistant examiner supervisors on the different criteria that are used during the examination. The assistant examiner supervisors are dentists licensed in the State of Florida. To further their training, the examiners after receiving verbal training are shown slides of teeth which do not meet the clinical criteria of the examination. Following the standardization, to make sure that the examiners have been able to internalize the criteria, the examiners, themselves, are given an examination. Included in the examination is a hands-on clinical, where models are used and the examiners check for errors on the models. The examiners are evaluated on how they perform when they grade the models, to make sure that the examiners are grading the candidates the same, using the same criteria, and with reliability. Each examiner grades the examination independently. The examiners do not confer with each other while scoring the examination. The examiners do not have contact with the candidates. As to grading, the average of the three grades from the examiners produces the overall grade for the exercise performed by the candidate. Having three examiners grading provides a more reliable indication of the candidate's competency and true grade. Furthermore, the examination is double-blind graded, which is a grading process in which the candidates have no contact with the examiners. The candidates are located in one clinic and perform the dental procedures on their human patient. The clinic is monitored. When the candidate completes the procedures, a proctor accompanies the human patient to another clinic where the examiners are located, and the examiners grade the procedures performed by the candidates. Monitors are used by the Department at the examination. The role of a monitor is to preserve and secure the integrity of the examination. The monitor, among other things, gives instructions to the candidates, answers questions of the candidates, and acts as a messenger between the candidate and the examiner. Monitors also ensure that candidates do not have contact with the examiners. For the Periodontal section, a candidate, as Petitioner, performs a periodontal exercise on a human patient who is chosen by the candidate. The human patient must also be approved by the Department in accordance with criteria specified by rule.2 The criteria includes a requirement that the human patient must have a minimum of five teeth, each of which must have pockets of a minimum of four mm in depth with sub-gingival calculus. Petitioner chose his human patient. The Department approved Petitioner's human patient. Petitioner's human patient was a periodontally involved patient. Petitioner performed the periodontal exercise on his human patient. Petitioner's exercise was graded by three examiners, i.e., Examiners 131, 346, and 264. All three examiners participated in and successfully completed the standardization training, and it is inferred that they were considered qualified to act as examiners for the Examination. Petitioner's examination was double-blind graded. Each examiner independently graded Petitioner's examination. Examiner 131 found no errors and awarded Petitioner a grade of five (5). Examiner 346 found gross mutilation of the human patient's soft tissue of areas 26, 27, and 28, and awarded Petitioner a grade of zero (0). Examiner 264 also found gross mutilation of the human patient's soft tissue of areas 26, 27, and 28, and awarded Petitioner a grade of zero (0). The criteria for the Periodontal exercise mandates a grade of zero (0) where there is gross mutilation of gingival tissue.3 Consequently, Examiners 346 and 264 had no choice but to award Petitioner a grade of zero (0). After the grading, both graders who found gross mutilation of gingival tissue made written comments, regarding the tissue mutilation, on the Examiner-To-Monitor Instructions form. Examiner 264's comment was "Please have candidate place perio pak, area 26, 27, 28" and was not intended to be instructions to Petitioner but was directed to follow-up work or to attention that the human patient may need afterwards. The Examiner-To-Monitor Instructions form, with the written comments, was provided to the monitor who related the comments to Petitioner. The monitor did not allow Petitioner to view the written comments. The monitor informed Petitioner that further work needed to be done as to the human patient. The monitor indicated on the Examiner-To-Monitor Instructions form that Examiner 264's comment was related to Petitioner by the monitor writing "Candidate complied with" and writing and circling his assigned monitor number. The monitor writing "Candidate complied with" meant only that the monitor informed Petitioner that further work needed to be done, not that the Petitioner correctly performed the procedure. No evidence was presented that Petitioner sutured the human patient or that he placed a perio pak on the affected tissue of areas 26, 27, and 28. The evidence shows that the monitor only related to Petitioner that further work needed to be done without the monitor specifying what needed to be done. Moreover, the evidence shows that the monitor did not indicate that Petitioner had done what was requested of him. A candidate is not informed of his/her performance by the examiner because there is no contact between the examiner and the candidate. Additionally, such notification at the Examination site is not done because it is believed to have the effect of alarming the candidate and raising the candidate's anxiety level. The human patient was not informed that there was mutilation of soft tissue as a result of the periodontal exercise. Before an individual is accepted by the Department as a patient, the individual must complete and sign a "Patient Disclosure Statement and Express Assumption of Risk" form. This form, among other things, relieves the Department of any responsibility for poor work done by a candidate or for notifying the human patient of any poor work done by the candidate and places the responsibility on the human patient to have a licensed dentist check the work done by the candidate. The grading of Petitioner's Periodontal exercise is not arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion. The grading process is not devoid of logic and reason.
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 Rami Ghurani's examination challenge to the periodontal section of the clinical part of the dental licensure examination administered in December 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 2000.
