Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, the Board of Dentistry, (Board) was the state agency responsible for the licensing of dentists and the regulation of the dental profession in Florida. Respondent, Carl T. Panzarella, was licensed as a dentist in Florida holding license No. DN 0008948, and was in practice in Palm Beach County. Dr. Panzarella graduated from the University of Maryland Dental School in 1981 and practiced in Baltimore, Maryland for approximately 1 year after graduation. In the Spring of 1982 he moved to Florida and for several years, up through the Autumn of 1983, worked for other dentists. At that time, however, he decided to open his own office and, in the course of preparing to do this, met with a dental supplier who advised him as to the relative merits of the locations for dental offices he was considering in various areas within Palm Beach County. After consideration of several vacant offices, he ultimately opened his practice in an office building where he was the only dentist. Within a year, however, 5 or 6 other dentists had opened in competition, primarily in retail locations in the area, where they could advertise by large signs affixed to or adjacent to their buildings. Because Respondent's practice was located in a discrete office building, he was unable to do this and he found his practice was not growing as he had desired because of that inability to attract patients. As a result, he decided to advertise. In the Spring of 1989, some 5 years after he opened his practice, and being dissatisfied with the speed with which it was growing, he attended a practice-building seminar at which one of the presentations recommended starting a dental referral service after a check was first made with the Department to see what type of activity could be approved. Considering that a good idea, Dr. Panzarella contacted 2 other dentists who shared office space and who agreed to go in with him if the proposal could be approved by both the Department and their attorney. Dr. Panzarella then called the Department's office in Tallahassee at an information number listed in one of its brochures. He was advised by an unidentified individual that there were no laws in Florida which regulated dental referral services. His lawyer and the lawyer for the other 2 dentists with whom he was considering opening the service agreed. Based on what he believed was a clear path toward the opening of such a service, Dr. Panzarella then went back to the practice-building firm and retained it to design the advertisement which he then placed in the October, 1989 edition of the telephone yellow pages in his area. As soon as the advertisement came out, Dr. Panzarella began getting a number of phone calls from dentists practicing in the local area objecting to it. Some were reasonable and some were quite vituperative in nature. At his own request Dr. Panzarella subsequently went to a meeting of the North County Dental Society at which he described his service and answered all the questions put to him by the members about it. Dr. Peter A. Pullon, President of the Central County Dental Society but not a member of the North County Society, was also present at that meeting and was most aggressive in his questioning of Respondent about the advertisement. After asking numerous pointed questions and apparently not getting the answers he wanted, Dr. Pullon left the meeting before it was terminated. In substance, however, Dr. Panzarella was told, at or after the meeting, that in the opinion of the members of the North County Society, he was in violation of the Board's advertising rules and he would either have to cancel the advertisement or let all dentists practicing in the area join his referral service. After Dr. Pullon left the meeting, the members agreed to query the Department for guidance on the issue and be bound by the Board's response, but before that could be done, Dr. Pullon, on behalf of the Central County Society, filed the Complaint which culminated in this hearing. In the interim period between the North County Society's meeting and the filing of the Administrative Complaint, Dr. Panzarella and his associates attempted to get additional dentists to sign up with their service. No one wanted to do so, however, especially in light of the complaints about it that had been raised. Once the Complaint was filed, Respondent called the Department and spoke with Mr. Audie Wilson, asking him about the propriety of a dental referral service, and again was informed there were no rules of the Board of Dentistry governing dental referral services. The advertisement in issue here was placed by Dr. Panzarella and 2 other dentists who were practicing together. The telephone number listed in the advertisement rang in one of the two offices; in Respondent's office several days a week and in his associates' office several days a week. That procedure was followed for a period of time until they were able to determine the volume of the business, at which time the referrals were turned over to a commercial answering service to handle. The referral service was not organized as a separate legal entity. The 3 dentists in question got together as a group to do it, and all calls which came in were referred either to Respondent's office or to the office of the other two dentists. All three were general dentists, and if anyone called with a specialized problem beyond their degree of competence, they did not refer that person to another dentist but, instead, directed that person to call another referral service. Respondent and his associates had written procedures under which the referrals to their practices were regulated, such as: how the calls were to be answered; who was to get the referral; and how questions asked were to be answered. Nonetheless, no one was hired by Respondent or his associates to operate the service. Any calls were answered by the regular receptionist in the office which was receiving the calls on that day. They did, however, keep records as to from whom and when the calls were received and to which office of the participants they were referred. From this, it becomes clear that the service organized by Respondent and his associates was no more than an avenue to funnel patients to their respective dental practices and was not, in fact, a bona fide referral service such as is operated by the Palm Beach County Dental Association and by others who also advertise in the phone book. The advertisement complained of here indicates that all members of the referral service had been checked on through the American Dental Association, insurance carriers, dental schools, and had a number of years in practice. In reality, these checks were done by the Respondent's wife who merely verified that the participants had the credentials claimed. The inspections of offices and equipment referred to were done by Respondent visiting his associates' office and their visiting his, and references were provided to each other. Dr. Pullon attended the North County Society's meeting where Respondent explained his service and spoke with him and his associates. Dr. Pullon has been in practice in Florida for 11 years and is licensed in Florida and other states. He is a member of and accredited by numerous accrediting agencies and organizations. In his 11 years of practice he has become familiar with referral services and it is his understanding there are only two bona fide referral organization types. One charges the client for referral to any one of several dentists in various specialties who are signed up with it. The other is operated by a dental society which refers on the basis of membership in the society. Those societies are, however, open to membership by all licensed dentists in the community. One must belong to the society to be eligible for the society's referral service. The instant situation, in Pullon's opinion, was not a bona fide referral service but more an advertisement for the participants' practices. It has been so found. Dr. Pullon filed his complaint with the Department in his capacity as President of the Central County Dental Society. On the complaint form he listed several witnesses to the operation of the service, none of whom are members of the Central County Society. After attending the pertinent meeting of the North County Society, Dr. Pullon advised Dr. Krauser, the president of that society, that he intended to advise the Respondent of the problem and would ask for an opinion from the Department before asking Respondents to pull their advertisement if it was determined to be inappropriate. He noted that if they were so advised and thereafter refused to pull the advertisement, he would then file a complaint with the Department. However, after briefing the executive committee of the Central County Society after the North County Society meeting, the committee voted to report the matter to the Department immediately. This is the second complaint Dr. Pullon has filed with the Department concerning another dentist. The former was not related to dental advertising or to this Respondent. It resulted in no action being taken.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case imposing on the Respondent, Carl T. Panzarella, a reprimand and an administrative fine of $1,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 12th day of October, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 George P. Bailey, Esquire The Raquet Club Plaza 5160 Sanderlin, Suite 5 Memphis, Tennessee 38117 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Section 466.24(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Albert Leo Vollmer is registered as a dentist with the Florida State Board of Dentistry, license no. 1437, and practices dentistry at Satellite Beach, Florida (Testimony of Mullins). On July 19, 1973, Allen M. Dingman made application to the Veterans Administration for medical benefits consisting of dental treatment (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Authorization was given by the Veterans Administration for the requested treatment and Mr. Dingman sought the services of the Respondent. Respondent submitted a treatment plan to the Veterans Administration which was approved. Respondent thereafter provided dental services to Mr. Dingman and, in October, 1973, billed the Veterans Administration for the completed treatment. On October 18, 1973, payment in the amount of $503.00 was approved and paid to the Respondent by the Veterans Administration. This included payment for providing a 3/4 crown on tooth 20 in the amount of $115.00, a full gold crown on tooth 19 for $110.00, and a gold pontic on tooth number 18 for $90.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). In April, 1974, Mr. Dingman visited Dr. Robert B. Downey, D.D.S., concerning a bridge which Respondent had provided him to replace the second molar (tooth number 18), which bridge Dingman had subsequently lost. He asked Dr. Downey what the cost would be to remedy his problem and informed him that the Veterans Administration had paid for the other work. Dr. Downey thereupon contacted the Veterans Administration concerning the prior treatment (Testimony of Dingman, Downey). Approximately a year later, Mr. Dingman was examined by Dr. Fred C. Nichols, D.D.S., of the Veterans Administration, who found that Dingman did not have gold crowns on teeth number 19 and 20, nor a gold pontic to replace tooth number 18. Mr. Dingman showed Dr. Nichols a cast metal frame work which had once been intended as a unilateral mandibular partial denture to replace tooth number 18 (Testimony of Nichols; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5). The Veterans Administration, by letter of May 19, 1975, advised the Respondent that he would be billed for $315.00 representing the work which had not been performed. Respondent advised the VA that Mr. Dingman had objected to crown preparations and that he had therefore prepared a cantilever bridge which had been too bulky and thereafter another bridge was made at his expense which was apparently acceptable. The Veterans Administration reasserted its claim for $315.00 and Respondent, by letter of July 14, 1975, sought a credit for the work which he had performed, and by a further letter of August 12, 1975 advised that, although all of his records concerning Mr. Dingman could not be found, he estimated the cost of his actual work to be $207.90, and sought credit therefor (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6). Respondent testified that although his original plan was to provide fixed bridge work for Mr. Dingman, upon reflection and after noting that the patient was a hypersensitive person who objected to having the necessary preparatory work that would be required for crowns, he decided to attempt to preserve the natural teeth if possible and not to "abort" them. He further testified that although he had requested his office assistant to prepare an amended VA form for the patient to reflect his decision to do a different type of work, he did not follow-up to see if it was sent in to the Veterans Administration. He further maintained that his office assistant had done poor work, that he did not pay much attention to the paper work in the office and, although he usually reviewed applications for treatment such as Exhibit 4 by "implicit faith", he would usually "skip-read" these forms and sign them without completely checking the details thereon. He stated that his accounts were in a mess during this period and that this was the reason the dental laboratory records concerning Mr. Dingman were unavailable and why he had since hired accountants to do his bookkeeping work. His present assistant supported the fact that when she was first employed about a year and a half ago, Respondent's records were sloppy and that it was her custom to prepare various forms for the Respondent's signature. Mr. Dingman denied that he had ever told the Respondent that he was afraid to have his teeth cut into, or that he was hypersensitive in nature (Testimony of Vollmer, Mander, Person, Dingman) Dr. Daniel Beirne, a physician of Indian Harbor Beach, testified that he had common patients with the Respondent, and that the Respondent had an excellent reputation for truth and veracity in the community. Dr. Downey testified to the Respondent's bad reputation as a dentist, as did Dr. Carroll D. House, a member of the Brevard Dental Society Grievance Committee (Testimony of Burre, Downey, House). Respondent's license to practice dentistry was suspended in 1958 for a period of three months for an advertising violation with the proviso that the suspension was suspended for a period of one year upon certain conditions. His license was again suspended for a period of six months in 1960 for advertising violations (Petitioner's Exhibits 7 & 8)
Findings Of Fact Dr. Roberts and His Background Dr. Steven Roberts is a dentist licensed to practice in the State of New York. He attended the United States Military Academy and received his undergraduate degree in 1970. He graduated from the New York University College of Dentistry in 1978, and practiced dentistry in New York, New York from 1978- 1987. To be licensed in New York, Dr. Roberts passed the national boards and the northeast regional board examination. During the course of his practice in New York, Dr. Roberts never received a complaint or had a claim for malpractice made or filed against him. Clinical Examinations Dr. Roberts took the Florida clinical dental examinations in June of 1986, January of 1987, and June of 1987. His grade on the June of 1987, examination is the subject of this proceeding. Dr. Roberts has successfully passed the written examination and the diagnostic examination required for licensure by Section 466.066(4)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes. Dr. Roberts' score for the June of 1987, clinical dental examination was 1.95; the minimum passing score is 3.00. The procedures tested during the June 1987, Clinical Dental Examination and Dr. Roberts' scores were as follows: The Procedure The Score The Revised Score Periodontal 1.67 Amalgam Cavity Preparation 1.67 Amalgam Cavity Restoration 3.00 Composite Preparation .67 Composite Restoration .33 Posterior Endodontics 2.00 3.66 Cast Preparation 2.67 3.00 Pin Amalgam Preparation 1.00 Pin Amalgam Restoration 1.67 Denture 3.63 Total Score 1.95 2.15 Dr. Roberts made a timely request to review his grade, and filed objections to his grades; a regrading procedure resulted in the regrading of his scores for posterior endodontics and cast restoration as set forth above. Each of the procedures tested in the clinical dental examination is scored by three different examiners. For each procedure examiners record their scores on separate 8 1/2" X 11" sheets. Each sheet has a matrix of circles which are blackened with a pencil so that they can be machine scored. On each sheet the candidate's identification number and the examiner's identification number are recorded along with the number for the procedure involved and the candidate's grade. On the sheet for each procedure the criteria for successful performance of the procedure are printed, along with preprinted comments which the examiners may use to explain the reason for the grade assigned. These comments relate to the criteria being examined. The following grades may be assigned by examiners: Complete failure Unacceptable dental procedure Below minimum acceptable dental procedure 3- Minimum acceptable dental procedure 4- Better than minimal acceptable dental procedure 5- Outstanding dental procedure An examiner is not required to mark a comment if the grade assigned is 5, a comment is marked for any grade below 5. Each procedure is graded in a holistic manner. Grades assigned by each of the three examiners for a procedure are averaged; the averaged scores for each procedure are then weighted and the weighted scores are summed to provide the overall clinical grade. By averaging the scores of three examiners for each procedure, variation from examiner to examiner is minimized. The examiners are experienced Florida dentists selected by the Board of Dentistry. An examiner must have at least five years of experience as a dentist and be an active practitioner. Potential examiners attend a standardization training exercise. This training is required by Section 466.006(4)(d), Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to instruct examiners in examination procedures and the criteria to be applied in grading. Through the training the examiner group as a whole arrives at a consensus opinion about the level of grading, so that candidates' scores on the examination will be valid and reliable. The training attempts to focus on each examiner's subjective, internalized evaluation criteria, so that they can be modified, as necessary, to reflect the consensus of all graders. A standardizer explains grading criteria to the potential examiners, and discusses various divisions among schools of thought and training on the procedures which will be the subject of the examination. The standardizer uses dental exhibits from prior dental exams as examples, and identifies grades and errors on the exhibits so that the graders learn and can adhere to uniform grading standards. The training focuses on three problems which professional literature has identified in evaluation: errors of central tendency, proximity errors, and bias a priori. Errors of central tendency result when graders are uncertain of criteria, hesitate to give extreme judgments, even in appropriate cases, and thus tend to improperly grade near the average. Proximity error is a type of halo effect which is applicable in grading of mannequin exhibits. The examiner grades all of the mannequin exhibits for each candidate at one time. If the first example of the candidate's work is especially good, and deserves a grade of 5, the grader may tend to transfer a generally positive attitude towards the next example of the candidate's work and assign a grade which may not be based solely upon the merits of that second piece of work. The same process can improperly depress the grades on subsequent mannequins if the first example of a candidate's work is poor. Bias a priori is the tendency to grade harshly or leniently based upon the examiner's knowledge of the use that will be made of the grade, rather than only on the quality of the work graded. After an 8 to 12 hour standardization training session, the Department administers an examination to those who have been trained. Those with the highest scores become the examiners, i.e., dentists who will grade candidates' work, while those with the lower scores in the training session become monitors, who supervise the candidates in their work on mannequins or on patients, but who do not actually grade student work. There is, however, no minimum score which a dentist who attends the standardization session must obtain in order to be an examiner rather than a monitor. This results, in part, from the limited pool of dentists who participate in the examination processes as monitors or examiners. For the 1987 clinical dental examination 31 dentists accepted selection by the Board and attended the standardization session, 20 were then selected as examiners and 11 became monitors for the examination. None of the dentists who attended the standardization session were dismissed by Department of Professional Regulation from further service at the examination session. The process by which the Department selected the examiners for the 1987 clinical dental exam was neither arbitrary nor capricious, but comports with Rule 21G- 2.020(4), Florida Administrative Code. The standardization training and examination of dentists to determine who will serve as examiners and monitors does not provide any bright line for distinguishing among potential examiners those who will make the most assiduous effort to apply the grading criteria explained in the training session versus those who retain an innate sense of a passing work based on what the examiner considers acceptable work in his own practice. The effort to convey to examiners the standard of "minimum competency" has imperfect success, but the Department's training is appropriate. Out-of-State Candidates' Scores 11. There is a substantial difference in the failure rates for out-of- state candidates and for in-state candidates on the clinical dental examinations. In the June of 1987, exam 82.5% of the candidates who graduated from the only in-state dental school, the University of Florida, passed the entire examination, while 54.2% of the out-of-state graduates passed, and only 37.8% of candidates from foreign schools were successful. Overall, 86.5% of the candidates passed the written portion of the examination, 93.5% the portion on oral diagnosis, but only 63.3% the clinical portion of the examination. Dr. Roberts has failed to prove that the lower pass rate for out-of- state candidates is the result of any sort of conscious effort on the part of examiners to be more stringent in grading out-of- state candidates. Dr. Kennedy's testimony indicated only that the data bear more analysis, not that they prove improper grading. Procedures Performed on Mannequins The Board of Dentistry tests between 600 and 700 dental candidates per year. It is extremely difficult for the candidates to find patients who have exactly the problem which is to be tested and bring them to the examination to work on. Some portions of the clinical dental examination, therefore, are not performed on patients, but on cast models of human teeth which resemble dentures, and which are known as mannequins. This is expressly authorized by Section 466.006(4)(a), Florida Statutes. The notice to appear which candidates receive approximately 30 days before the examination informs them of the types of mannequins which will be used in the examination. Before that time, however, dental supply companies obtain lists of those eligible to take the examination, and contact the candidates in an attempt to sell them the mannequins. Candidates must bring mannequins with them to the examination and can purchase additional mannequins for practice. Testing with mannequins is also more efficient because with live patients, the student must be graded at the time of the examination, while a model can be retained and graded a day or two later. The decision of the Board to have certain procedures performed on mannequins, so that each candidate would be graded on exactly the same procedure, is reasonable. The Board had also considered having students perform all test procedures on extracted human teeth, but there are not a sufficient number of all natural teeth available, given the number of students who are tested, both for the examination itself and for practice. The Board determined that it would be better to use mannequins for some of the procedures tested in the examination because they are readily available and students can purchase extra copies for practice. For certain procedures, such as endodontics, specific natural teeth (such as first bicuspids) are often extracted and so are generally available; for procedures performed on those teeth, it is possible to have candidates work on human teeth. By contrast, testing procedures performed on teeth such as incisors is not practicable. It is impossible to obtain enough incisors in good condition, without restorations and chips, for use during an examination. The statute governing the dental examination does require that one restoration performed by candidates must be done on a live patient, and for the June 1987, clinical dental examination that procedure was a class 2 amalgam restoration. The Board directed by rule that mannequins be utilized for five test procedures: the pin amalgam preparation and restoration, Rule 21G-2.013(3)(d), Florida Administrative Code; the endodontic procedure, Rule 21G-2.013(3)(e) Florida Administrative Code; the posterior tooth preparation for a cast restoration, Rule 21G-013(3)(f), Florida Administrative Code, the class III acid etch composite preparation and class IV acid etch composite restoration, Rule 21G-2.013(3)(g), Florida Administrative Code. Performing these procedures on mannequins is not exactly the same as performing procedures on human teeth in a patient. In view of the difficulty involved in finding patients whose teeth present virgin lesions, so that each candidate would be tested on exactly the same problem, the difficulty in grading a large number of procedures performed on live patients, and the difficulty in obtaining a large number of human teeth necessary for testing and for practice, the Board's decision to use the mannequins for these procedures is reasonable. The Legislature recognized this in Section 466.006(4)(b), Florida Statutes, which prescribes that the clinical dental examination shall include restorations "performed on mannequins, live patients, or both. At least one restoration shall be on a live patient." The Board was within its authority when it determined the procedures to be performed on mannequins. Violation of Blind Grading The dental examiners who grade the work of candidates grade blindly, i.e., they do not know which candidate's work they are grading. The Clinical Monitor and Examiner Instruction Manual for the June of 1987, examination makes this clear. At page 24 paragraph 3 the Manual states Examiners are requested to disqualify themselves at anytime they are presented with models or patients treated by a dentist who they know personally or with whom they have had professional contact. All examiners are requested to give department staff the name of any examination candidate who is personally known to them to be taking the exam. The department staff will assist the examiners in avoiding any work performed by the candidates they know. Rationale: Allegations have been made about examiners who knew candidates taking the exam even though the examiners only see candidate numbers. Monitors and Examiners are strongly urged to avoid discussion with candidates about the examination. Even conversation about non-examination related matters can be misinterpreted by other candidates as an unfair privileged communication. Despite this admonition, one of the examiners, Dr. Cohen, who knew Dr. Roberts, graded the work of Dr. Roberts. Dr. Cohen met Dr. Roberts the first time Dr. Roberts took the Florida Clinical Dental Examination in June of 1986. Dr. Roberts had with him a bag which would have identified him as a student from New York University, where Dr. Cohen had taught. Dr. Cohen came over to Dr. Roberts, introduced himself, gave Dr. Roberts his card, (exhibit 44) and invited Dr. Cohen to his hotel room where they discussed practicing dentistry in Florida. In 1986 Dr. Cohen was associated with another dentist, Gerald P. Gultz, who had recently moved to Florida from New York. Dr. Gultz had also been a part-time clinical assistant professor of dentistry at New York University College of Dentistry. After Dr. Cohen returned from the June 1986, administration of the clinical dental examination, he had a conversation with Dr. Gultz in which Dr. Cohen asked Gultz if he knew Dr. Roberts, and commented on Dr. Roberts performance on the clinical examination. Dr. Cohen said Dr. Roberts had done terribly, and Dr. Cohen believed that Dr. Roberts would never get his license to practice in Florida. (Tr. 5/26/88 at 73). Dr. Roberts saw Dr. Cohen at the January of 1987, clinical dental examination, but they did not speak. In June of 1987, Dr. Cohen also spoke briefly to the wife of Dr. Gerald Gultz, Lauren Gultz, saying that he would be seeing Dr. Roberts at the June of 1987, clinical dental examination, which was coming up. He told Mrs. Gultz that Dr. Roberts was a poor practitioner, and that he did not think he would pass the examination. At the June 1987, exam, Dr. Roberts' periodontal patient was his uncle, Mr. Finkelstein. Dr. Cohen was one of the examiners who reviewed Mr. Finkelstein to determine whether his condition was appropriate to serve as a patient for Dr. Roberts on the periodontal portion of the examination. Dr. Cohen had a conversation with Mr. Finkelstein in which he told him "tell your dentist to do a good job". Because Mr. Finkelstein had stated that his dentist was a graduate from N. Y. U. Dental School, Mr. Finkelstein was convinced that Dr. Cohen knew exactly who the dental candidate who would work on Dr. Finkelstein was -- Dr. Roberts. After accepting Mr. Finkelstein as an appropriate periodontal patient, Dr. Cohen also served as a grader on the periodontal procedure performed on Mr. Finkelstein. After grading the work which Dr. Roberts had done, Dr. Cohen told Mr. Finkelstein to tell his dentist that Dr. Cohen would see him later in the hotel where they were staying. At the hotel, Dr. Cohen talked to Dr. Roberts about the dental examination, that he himself had to take the examination three times, although he considered himself to be a superior dentist, and that Dr. Cohen could help Dr. Roberts with his grades but that he could never grade Dr. Roberts more that one grade higher than any of the other examiners. Dr. Cohen served as an examiner (i.e. grader) for Dr. Roberts on six of the nine procedures tested. There were: procedure number 1, the periodontal evaluation where he assigned a failing grade of 2; procedure number 4, the class III composite preparation, where he assigned a failing grade of 1; procedure number 5, the class IV composite restoration, where he assigned a failing grade of 1; procedure number 6, the endodontic evaluation, where he assigned a passing grade of 3; procedure number 7, the preparation for a cast restoration, where he assigned a passing grade of 3; and procedure number 8, the pin amalgam preparation, where he assigned a failing grade of 1. This failure of blind grading is a serious irregularity in the evaluation of Dr. Roberts' performance on the 1987 clinical dental examination, given his prior negative comments about Dr. Roberts before the examination. By ignoring those scores, Dr. Roberts would be evaluated only by two examiners, on all the procedures for which Dr. Cohen gave a grade. This would mean that his scores would not be comparable with those of any other candidate, for his grade on each procedure would not be the result of blind grading by three independent examiners. Dr. Roberts' Challenges to Grades Assigned by Other Examiners The full nine procedures evaluated in the 1987 dental clinical examination and Dr. Roberts' grades were: A periodontal exercise performed on a live patient, Mr. Finkelstein, which involved the scaling of five teeth both above and below the gum and stain removal. Dr. Roberts was assigned scores of 1, 2, and 2 by the examiners (one grade of 2 was assigned by Dr. Cohen) An amalgam cavity preparation, performed on a live patient, Elizabeth Cox, which is the preparation of a tooth for filling. When the preparation is completed a proctor escorts the patient to the three examiners who independently grade this part. After grading, the patient returns to the candidate who completes the filling of the tooth (the restoration) which is subsequently graded independently by three examiners. Dr. Roberts was assigned grades of 1, 1, and 3 for the preparation (none of these grades were assigned by Dr. Cohen). A final amalgam restoration, which is the filling of the tooth prepared in the prior procedure. Dr. Roberts received grades of 3, 3, and 3 on this procedure (none of the grades were assigned by Dr. Cohen). A class III composite preparation, which is preformed on a model, not a live patient. This involves removing decay and shaping a tooth to hold a class III filling, i.e., one located on the side surface of an incisor. Dr. Roberts received scores of 1, 0, and 1 (Dr. Cohen assigned one of the grades of 1) A class IV composite restoration, which is performed on a model, not a live patient. This involves restoring a fractured tooth with a composite restoration material. On this procedure Dr. Roberts received scores of 0, 0, and 1 (Dr. Cohen assigned the grade of 1). An endodontic evaluation performed on a posterior tooth, which is performed on a mannequin, and involves the opening of a molar, and identification of the canals in the tooth in preparation for a root canal procedure. Originally Dr. Roberts received grades of 3, 3, and 0 (one of the grades of 3 was assigned by Dr. Cohen). Dr. Roberts work was regraded by three new examiners and the grades of the original examiners were discarded. Dr. Roberts ultimately received a grade of 3.67 on the endodontic portion of the examination A preparation of a posterior tooth for a cast restoration, which is performed on a mannequin. It involves preparing a tooth to receive a crown. Dr. Roberts' original grades were 2, 3, and 3 (Dr. Cohen had assigned a grade of 3 on this procedure). On review, Dr. Roberts' was regraded by three new examiners, and the original grades were discarded. Dr. Roberts received a final grade of 3 on this portion of the examination. A pin amalgam preparation, which is performed on a model, not on a live patient. This involves the preparation of a tooth to hold an amalgam filling by inserting a pin into a portion of the tooth, which serves to anchor the filling. Dr. Roberts was assigned grades of 2, 0, and 1 on this procedure (Dr. Cohen assigned the grade of 1). Pin amalgam final restoration, which is performed on a model. It involves filling a tooth with amalgam filling material. Dr. Roberts was assigned grades of 2, 1, and 2 on this procedure (Dr. Cohen assigned one of the grades of 2). Due to the involvement of Dr. Cohen in so many of the procedures involved here, Dr. Roberts performance on the June of 1987, clinical dental examination was not fairly evaluated. A fair evaluation cannot be provided after the fact by merely dropping Dr. Cohen's grades, because Dr. Roberts' performance would not be subject to the independent evaluation of three examiners. Dr. Roberts relies, to a large extent, on the testimony of Dr. Gultz as the basis for regrading his procedures to a passing grade of 3, or better. The testimony of Dr. Gultz does not, however, show that he has ever participated in the standardization exercises for examiners at Florida clinical dental examinations. Dr. Gultz experience as a clinical professor of dentistry at New York University provides a substantial basis for his evaluation of dental procedures. The difficulty, however, is that as with any qualified examiner, his evaluations will be based on internalized standards which are personal to him. There is no way to know whether Dr. Gultz standards for adequate performance are equivalent to those which the standardization training produces among examiners at the standardization exercise before a clinical dental examination. The standardization process "attempts to bring all examiners to the same level of grading, so that each [examiner] is grading in a valid and reliable manner." Clinical Monitor and Examiner Instruction Manual, June of 1987, at page 42. The Florida dental clinical examination uses a holistic grading method. Each score sheet which an examiner fills out has on it the criteria to be applied in evaluating the candidates performance on that procedure. They all contain a statement which reads: It is the intent of the Board that each of the criteria are to be accorded equal importance in grading. Equal importance does not mean that each criteria has a numerical or point value, but means that any one of the criteria, if missed to a severe enough degree so as to render the completed procedure potentially useless or harmful to the patient in the judgment of the examiner, could result in a failing grade on the procedure. The criteria do not have any assigned numerical or point value, but are to be utilized in making a holistic evaluation of the procedure. Each grading sheet also points out to the examiner certain critical factors which, if present, require a grade of 0 for the procedure. The standardization in grading which the Board diligently attempts to achieve through the standardization training and the standardization testing of examiners done at the close of the training is elusive at best. Nonetheless, in the absence of showing that Dr. Gultz standards of evaluation are equivalent to those of an examiner trained at a standardization session, it is impossible to know whether his standards of evaluation are more rigorous or less rigorous than those reflected by the grades assigned to other candidates by the corps of examiners which evaluated the work of candidates at the June of 1987, clinical dental examination. The same is true with respect to the testimony of Dr. Simkins, the expert for the Board in this proceeding. No useful purpose would be served in attempting to choose between the testimony of Dr. Gultz, on the one hand, and the testimony of Dr. Simkins and of the other examiners who testified by deposition in this proceeding. If this were to be done, all the hearing officer would have determined is whose testimony about the appropriate grade to be assigned for each procedure is more believable. On this record it would be impossible to make a further finding about whether that more believable testimony reflects a scoring standard more stringent, less stringent or the same as that generally applied to all candidates by the corps of examiners in the June of 1987, clinical dental examination.
Recommendation It is recommended that the results of the clinical dental examination which Dr. Roberts took in June of 1987, be found invalid, and that he be permitted to take the next clinical dental examination offered by the Department of Professional Regulation at no cost to him. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of December, 1989. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 8th day of December, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of misconduct in the practice of dentistry and/or operating a dental office in such a manner that dental treatment provided is below minimum acceptable standards for the community.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Peter Kurachek, Respondent, was licensed as a dentist in Florida and was the owner of American Dental Center, a dental clinic located in Venice, Florida. Commencing in August 1987, Thomas A. Saitta D.D.S., licensed to practice dentistry in Florida, was employed at the American Dental Center as an independent contractor and was so employed at all times relevant hereto. On Friday, April 15, 1988, patient Kim Pierce a/k/a Kim Hendrick entered the American Dental Center complaining of a toothache and was seen by Dr. Saitta. Examination revealed an abscessed tooth for which Dr. Saitta believed root canal therapy was needed. The patient revealed she had no insurance and no money to pay. Nevertheless, Dr. Saitta commenced the root canal, prescribed penicillin for the inflammation, told the patient if the swelling did not subside quickly a serious medical problem would arise and she should then go to the emergency room at the Venice Hospital. The patient Kim Hendrick returned to the dental clinic Saturday, April 16, 1988 and was again seen by Dr. Saitta who gave her a prescription for Keflex for the infection, told her that if the swelling and pain did not subside by evening she should go to the hospital for medical intervention. He also gave her his professional card with his home telephone number she could call for emergency assistance. On the evening of April 16, 1988 at 11:10 p.m. Kim Pierce presented herself at the emergency room at Venice Hospital with a slight temperature, right eye swollen shot and a marked facial cellulitis. The duty emergency room dentist, Dr. John J. Yurosko, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon was called to treat the patient. Dr. Yurosko incised the gum, drained the infected area, advised the patient to continue the Keflex prescribed by Dr. Saitta and to present at his office Monday. After treating the patient Dr. Yurosko telephoned the number for the dental clinic and received no answer. He then, around midnight, from his home called the residence of Respondent whose wife was up and visiting with a neighbor and who answered the telephone. Yurosko asked to speak to Respondent and was told he was in bed asleep. Yurosko asked that Respondent be called to the telephone. When Respondent got on the line Yurosko complained about the patient (Kim) not being able to contact anyone by calling Respondent's office number, as well as Yurosko's failures to get an answer when he called that number. Following his inability to contact the Dental Center and his conversation with the Respondent, Dr. Yurosko, on April 29, 1988, submitted a complaint to the Department of Professional Regulation (Exhibit 4) in which he advised the Department of his involvement with patient Kim Pierce and his inability to contact her treating dentist. During the investigation which followed this complaint the investigator placed several long distance calls from Fort Myers to the number listed for the American Dental Center during the evening hours and received no answer from an answering service or machine. Respondent's witnesses testified that, except for the short period in April when telephone work was being done in the office clinic, the answering machine was operable. Respondent was able to offer no satisfactory explanation for the investigator's failure to receive an answer when the Dental Center's number was dialed during evening hours. During the period around April 15, 1988, work was being performed rerouting telephone lines at American Dental Center and the telephone answering machine was not working. This fact was known to Respondent and other staff members at the dental center. Respondent had directed the other dentists, including Saitta, to be sure they provided the patients treated during this period with the dentist's home telephone number in case emergency treatment was needed. Additional cards were provided the receptionist to give the telephone number of their treating dentist to the patients when they checked out of the dental center.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED: that all charges preferred against Peter Kurachek D.D.S. in the administrative complaint filed July 28, 1989 be dismissed. ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8 day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-0187 Petitioner proposed findings are accepted except the following: 15 Rejected as uncorroborated hearsay. 19-21 Dr. Yurosko was accepted as an expert in dentistry and oral surgery--not in dental office procedures or what constitutes adequate emergency services as that phrase is used in Rule 21G- 17.004 Florida Administrative Code. Accordingly, his interpretation of the rule constitutes a legal opinion rather than a dental opinion and, as much, is entitled to little weight. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Janine Bamping, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Peter Kurachek 3920 Bee Ridge Road Sarasota, FL 34233
Findings Of Fact William Cecil Graham is licensed by the Florida State Board of Dentistry and at all times herein involved was so licensed. Dr. Graham began treating Mrs. Dover Stokes in August 1977, and during the time Mrs. Stokes was a patient, Respondent performed oral surgery, extractions and prepared upper and lower partial plates. All this work was done in Respondent's office located at 16580 Northwest 10th Avenue, Miami. For this work Mrs. Stokes paid Respondent approximately $500. Mrs. Stokes suffers from glaucoma and is nearly blind. She began going to Respondent for treatment upon the recommendation of one of Mrs. Stokes' roomers who is a cousin of Respondent. This roomer generally provided Mrs. Stokes transportation to and from Respondent's office for treatment. After the impressions for the plates had been taken and close to the time these plates were delivered to Respondent, he suddenly had to leave the Northwest Miami office. He advised Mrs. Stokes, and presumably his other patients, of his imminent departure and that he would contact her when relocated. Since he had by then received the partial dentures, Mrs. Stokes asked him to bring them to her. Respondent had been to Mrs. Stokes home on previous occasions to collect payments and he agreed to bring the plates to her. When Respondent took these plates to Mrs. Stokes, he brought along a portable hand grinder to adjust the plates. During this visit, Respondent tried the plates in Mrs. Stokes' mouth and she found them tight. After making some adjustments, Respondent left with the plates for additional adjustment. No instrument was used in Mrs. Stokes' mouth while the plates were being fitted at her home. Respondent returned to Mrs. Stokes' home in early November 1977, inserted the plates and made additional adjustments. Mrs. Stokes was happy with the plates at this time. Upon leaving, Respondent advised Mrs. Stokes that he would contact her as soon as he was relocated in an office. After not hearing from Respondent and experiencing discomfort with her plates, Mrs. Stokes began searching for Respondent. Mrs. Stokes testified that she called Graham's home and his wife couldn't tell her how to contact Graham. Respondent testified that Mrs. Stokes called his home, spoke to his wife who relayed Mrs. Stokes message to him, and that he called Mrs. Stokes in early January 1978. At this time, Graham was still without an office. During this conversation, Mrs. Stokes expressed her dissatisfaction with Respondent. When he offered to send her to another dentist, Mrs. Stokes said she didn't want another black dentist. At this point Respondent realized further communication with Mrs. Stokes was impossible and he suggested that she select a dentist and he, Graham, would pay for the treatment she needed. Mrs. Stokes doesn't recall this conversation; however, Respondent's testimony in this regard is accepted as the true version of what happened. Mrs. Stokes next contacted the State Dental Board with her complaint about Respondent. The matter was referred to a Board member in Miami, Marshall A. Brothers, who telephoned the number of the office in Northwest Miami where Stokes had previously worked and was advised the whereabouts of Graham was unknown. Dr. Brothers did not speak directly to one of the dentists in the Northwest Miami office when the call was made to locate Graham. No correspondence was sent to the office previously used by Respondent. When Brothers was unable to contact Graham, he did nothing further to investigate the treatment that had been provided Mrs. Stokes by Respondent. In July 1978, Respondent opened an office on Northwest 54th Street in Miami. Mrs. Stokes telephoned the office and Respondent returned her call. He offered to examine her teeth, but Mrs. Stokes said she didn't want him to work on her. Respondent then renewed his offer to Mrs. Stokes to select a dentist of her choice, have him do the necessary work, and he, Graham, would pay for it. Mrs. Stokes then visited a dentist close to her home and advised him that Respondent would pay for the treatment. This dentist, Dr. Efrom, called Respondent who confirmed that he would pay for the treatment Mrs. Stokes required. Dr. Efrom found some rough places on the plates which he polished, corrected some sore spots in Mrs. Stokes' mouth, filled a cavity, and his technician cleaned Mrs. Stokes' teeth. Respondent paid for this treatment, although he had not contracted to fill a tooth for Mrs. Stokes or to do the cleaning.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be awarded a passing grade on the clinical portion of the dental licensing examination given on December 12 through 14, 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Dentistry was responsible for the licensing of dentists in this state and the regulation of the dental profession. Petitioner is a graduate of the University of Florida School of Dentistry and was eligible to sit for the examination for licensure as a dentist in Florida. Petitioner previously has taken and passed the written portion of the dental examination. He has taken the clinical portion of the examination twice and has received a failing grade each time. He is eligible to take the clinical portion alone for a third time, but must do so within a period of 13 months of taking it the second time or must take both the written and oral portions again. Dr. Scheutz first took the examination in June 1996. He received a passing grade in each of those examination portions which dealt with Florida laws and rules and with oral diagnosis. However, he received a grade of 2.31 on the clinical examination portion of the examination, and a passing grade was 3.0. Thereafter, in December 1996 he again took the clinical portion and this time received a grade of 2.71, still below the 3.0 passing grade. Dr. Theodor Simkin is a licensed dentist and consultant to the Board of Dentistry, who has been in the private practice of dentistry since 1950 and in Florida since 1975. He has been involved in the development, administration, and grading of the dental examination in Florida since 1979 and was a supervisor for the December 1996 examination. He is familiar with the standards applied in the clinical portion of the examination and how the examination is given and graded. Petitioner has challenged the grade he received on five separate procedures he performed during the December 1996 examination. The procedures chosen for accomplishment during the examination are not unusual procedures, but are common problems seen on a routine basis by a practicing dentist. Dr. Simkin reviewed the mannequin on which Petitioner did his work and which he presented to the examiners for grading. One of the grades challenged related to a "composite restoration" (Clinical D) for which Petitioner received a grade of 0. In this procedure the candidate is presented with a tooth on a mannequin. The candidate is instructed to cut off a corner of the tooth and then restore that corner with an amalgam restoration. The examiners are not present when the procedure is accomplished, but grade the procedure after completion. Instruction on the procedure is given to the candidate by a monitor who is present in the room but who does not grade the work done. The examination process is accomplished using the candidate number, not the candidate name, so that examiners do not know whose work at which they are looking. Once the procedure is done by the candidate, the mold is packed in the candidate's presence and is then held in the custody of the Board of Dentistry until examined independently by each of three examiners. Once graded, it is then shipped to Tallahassee and kept in a vault until needed, as here, for review by Dr. Simkin and others. Ordinarily, even if dropped, a model will not break. In the instant case, Petitioner performed the procedure on an upper right central incisor. The right corner of the tooth, approximately one-third of the tooth, was cut off and the candidate was instructed to rebuild it with a composite material. When the examiners evaluated Petitioner's work, they found that the filling was not bonded to the tooth and was loose. The loose restoration would be useless to the patient, whereas a properly done restoration should last for at least several years. On a human, the stresses applied to a tooth repair are significant, and the repair must be sufficient to withstand them. Notwithstanding Petitioner's claim that the tooth used was an artificial tooth to which the filling material does not easily bond, Dr. Simkin asserts that the bonding which occurs with a plastic tooth is different from that which occurs in a real tooth but the material can bond to the plastic tooth. He knows of no other complaints by other candidates at this examination of not being able to complete the restoration because the materials would not bond. Petitioner admits that when he did the procedure during the June 1996 examination, the tooth bonded correctly. In light of all the evidence regarding this point, it is found that Petitioner's claim is without merit. Petitioner also challenges his score of 2.0 received for his work on an "amalgam cavity preparation" (Clinical B). This composite score was based on a 2.0 awarded by each of the three examiners. An amalgam preparation is what is done to the tooth to get it ready for filling. In this case, an actual patient, supplied by the examines, had a cavity which was reviewed by the examiners. Once the patient was accepted by the examiners, the candidate then cleaned out the cavity and got it ready for filling. Dr. Simkin's review of the documentation prepared in regard to this candidate's performance of this procedure, in his opinion, supports the grades given by the examiners. Here, Petitioner sent the examiners a note as to what he proposed to do with his patient. Petitioner sought to deviate from a normal preparation due to the location of the caries, and the monitor agreed, as did the examiners. Thereafter, the candidate did the procedure. All three examiners graded his work against his proposal and gave him a failing grade. The examiners determined that his work on this patient merited only a grade of 2.0 because, according to two examiners, the margin of the filling was not separated from the next tooth as required. As to the "posterior endodonture procedure" (Clinical M), Petitioner received an overall score of 1.3. In this procedure, the candidate is required to bring in an extracted tooth which is mounted in an acrylic block. The candidate is to remove the nerve and diseased tissue, clean the cavity, file it, fill the canals, and seal the tooth. This is known as a root canal. In grading a candidate's work, the examiners look to see that the canal is properly cleaned out, is filled properly and sealed with a surface that is slightly shorter than the apex (highest point) of the tooth. On the x-ray taken of Petitioner's sample, it is obvious, according to Dr. Simkin, that one canal is at or short of the apex, but the other is long, and this is considered unacceptable treatment. Even Petitioner agrees. Petitioner received grades of 3.0, 2.0 and 1.0 for an overall failing grade of 2.0 on the "prep. cast restoration" (Clinical F). In this instance, the procedure called for the candidate to install a gold onlay. Normally the surface to which the onlay is to be placed is reduced slightly below the abutting face. Here, though one side was acceptable, Petitioner reduced too much on the other side without reason. Petitioner claims, however, that only one of the three examiners indicated excessive reduction. That determination calls for a very subjective opinion. He cannot understand how the propriety of reduction can be determined without looking into the mouth of a patient. However, Petitioner has presented no evidence in support of his opinion. The fifth challenge relates to the grade Petitioner received in the "pin amalgam pre. procedure" (Clinical G). This involves a situation where one cusp has been removed, and in order to hold a restoration, Repin must be placed in the solid portion of the tooth. The examiners determined that Petitioner's occlusal was too shallow at 1 mm, when it should have gone down 1~ to 2 mm. This, the examiners considered, would not give enough strength to hold the amalgam properly without risk of fracture. Dr. Simkins is of the opinion that Petitioner was subjected to a standardized test which was graded fairly. It would so appear and Petitioner introduced no evidence to the contrary. Ms. Carnes, a psychometrician and an expert in testing and test development who trains examiners to ensure they are consistent in their evaluations, agrees with Dr. Simkins' appraisal. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation tries to insure through its standardization efforts that the approach to grading of each examiner is consistent and that all examiners are grading with the same set of criteria. This was done in preparation for the December 1996 dental examination and a check done after the examination showed it was graded this way. Petitioner cites by way of explanation, if not excuse, that during his senior year in dental school, he was badly injured in an automobile accident and required stitches and several weeks of physical therapy for, among other injuries, a herniated disc. When he recovered sufficiently, he finished his course work and sat for the dental examination in June 1996, passing two of three sections, but not the clinical portion. Dr. Scheutz took the clinical portion of the examination again in December 1996 and again failed to earn a passing score. In his opinion, his knowledge has improved over time, but his procedural skills have diminished over the months due to his injuries. He contends he has work in dentistry he can do which will make accommodations for his physical condition, but does not believe he should have to wait another six months to take the examination again, especially since he would have to again take the entire examination, including those portions he has already passed since at that time more than 13 months from his last examination would have passed. Petitioner contends the clinical testing portion of the examination is too subjective to be valid. He wants to close this chapter in his life, but does not want to deal any more with the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge and sustaining the award of a failing grade on the clinical portion of the dental examination taken by the Petitioner on December 12 through 14, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Eric J. Scheutz, pro se 332 Whispering Oaks Court Sarasota, Florida 34232 Karel Baarelag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33906-0127 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceedings concern whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive a passing score on the December 1999 dental licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Carlo Coiana, was an unsuccessful candidate for the December 1999 dental licensure examination. He failed to pass several procedures of that licensure examination, according to the Department's graders and grading method. The December 1999 dental licensure examination consisted of two parts: (1) The clinical, and (2) The laws and rules section. The clinical portion consists of nine different procedures of which the Petitioner challenged six. The Department, in is scoring method, selects three examiners to grade each candidate's performance. The average of the three scores from each examiner, produces the overall grade for that procedure. Rather than having only one examiner score, the Department allows for three examiner scores because this provides a more fair, reliable indication of the candidate's competency and true score. Each examiner must be a licensed dentist for a minimum of five years and have no complaints or negative actions on his or her licensure record. Each examiner must also attend and successfully complete a standardization session which trains each examiner to use the same internal grading criteria. The examiners who graded the Petitioner's examination successfully completed the standardization session and training. During the administration of the dental examination the Department requires the use of monitors who are also licensed dentists. The monitor's role is to preserve and secure the integrity of the examination. The monitor also gives instructions to each candidate as to what to expect. The monitor has no part in the grading of the candidate's performance on the examination but acts as a messenger between the candidate and the examiner since there is a "double-blind" grading of the examination. The Petitioner contested the score he received on the Class II Composite Restoration on a model. The Class II Composite Restoration Portion of the examination is a procedure involving restoring a cavity (Class II) preparation with a tooth-colored filling. The procedure was done by the Petitioner with a comment by the examiners that there was a discrepancy in the resulting shape of the tooth and proper contact to the adjacent tooth. There was also a marginal discrepancy and a "gingival overhang." The margin is where the tooth and filling meet and there was a discrepancy felt there, a bump or a catch when the junction of the two surfaces should be smooth. A gingival overhang is in the area between the tooth where a non- smooth transition between the filling and the tooth is detected. This can be a damning area which will collect plaque and lead to re-current decay. The Respondent's expert, Dr. John Joffre, concurred with the overall findings of the examiners and felt that this procedure should not be accorded a passing score but rather the score accorded by the examiners. The Petitioner also contested the score for procedure number four of the examination, the Endodontic procedure. The Endodontic procedure of the examination is referred to as a "root canal." This procedure involves removal of the nerve and blood vessels inside a tooth in order to clean out that area. It then requires the shaping of the canal and, finally, filling it with an inert material to rid the body of the infected area in question. This procedure is performed on an extracted tooth. The minimum of the working length the Department required in order to receive a passing score for the filled material in the tooth in question was two millimeters. The Petitioner's expert had the working length of the filled area in the root canal or Endodontic procedure done by the Petitioner measured. It measured closer to three millimeters which is totally unacceptable according to Dr. Joffre. Even in accordance with the literature that the Petitioner relied upon in this case it is not provided that three millimeters short of the working length is an accepted working length, which is why the Petitioner received less than a passing score. All three examiners and the expert witness Dr. John Joffre were in agreement about this scoring. Three millimeters short of the required working length will cause the procedure to definitely fail sometime in the future and renders the procedure useless. An Endodontically treated tooth that is three millimeters short will fail clinically, and that justifies a failing grade on this procedure. The next procedure contested by the Petitioner as to score was the Amalgam Restoration done with a model. This procedure is similar to the Class II Composite Restoration. However, the difference between the two procedures is that the Amalgam is referred to as a silver filling containing mercury, silver, etc., as opposed to the Composite material in the above- referenced procedure which is a "tooth-colored" restoration. Although the Composite and the Amalgam serve the same function, they require different tasks and different procedures on how they are to be handled in their installation in the mouth. The major problem found with the Petitioner's performance on this procedure concerned an overhang. As referenced above, a gingival overhang at the margin of where the filling and the tooth meet results in a less than smooth transition and can be an area where food accumulates and decay can start anew. All three examiners also noted a problem with the proximal contour of the Amalgam restoration which has to do with the shape of the filling in terms of how it meets the tooth next to it. The testimony of Dr. Joffre, which is accepted, shows that the examiners comments and grades and Dr. Joffre's opinion itself justifies the scoring on this procedure. Dr. Joffre agrees with the examiners' scoring. The last procedures in question are called the "Patient Amalgam." These procedures, two and three, involve cutting of the tooth before the filling is actually placed into it ("cutting the box"). Procedure three is the actual filling, involving scoring what the filling is like after the filling procedure is completed. The criticism found by both examiner 304 and 346, as to the first part of the procedure, the cutting part, was ". . .did not break the gingival contact, subject to recurrent decay." The gingival contact down in the box cut for the filling must be cut deep enough to reach the point where there is a separation between the edge of the box and the adjacent tooth. Halfway down the tooth, towards the gum, the teeth are still touching. As one progresses further down toward the gum, the teeth separate because they naturally get narrower toward the gum line. A dentist needs to cut the box that the filling should be placed in down far enough toward the gum line so that he gets to the point where the teeth are no longer touching. Both dentists 306 and 346, examiners, found that he did not cut the box low enough so that he "didn't break gingival floor contact with the molar" (meaning the adjacent tooth). Thus, these examiners gave the Petitioner the lowest grade of "one" on that part of the procedure. The filling or restoration portion of the procedure failed. The filling was not adequately carved or shaped so that it was protruding too high above the adjacent tooth surfaces. This caused the patient to break the filling very shortly after it was finished and he was biting downward and putting pressure on it. Indeed it broke while the third examiner was examining the procedure. The reason why the fracture in the filling occurred was because it protruded too high. The Petitioner did not adequately reduce the size or height of the filling, so when the teeth came together the tooth below it or above it was hitting too hard against that one spot and caused the metal to break before the patient, on whom the procedure was done, ever left the building. The Respondent's expert, Dr. Joffre, who agreed with examiners comments and score, found that the Petitioner had failed to properly perform these procedures and that his score had been appropriately arrived at by the examiners. The Petitioner contested the score he received on the Fixed Partial Denture Procedure. The Department ultimately conceded that he should be awarded additional points on that procedure, however, even with the additional points awarded the Petitioner still failed to score adequately on the overall examination for passage, although he came close, with a score of 2.92 out of a minimal score of 3.00 required for passage of the examination.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition challenging to the grades assigned the Petitioner for the December 1999 Dental Licensure Examination and finding that the Petitioner failed to pass that examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlo Coiana N1 Via Delle Coccinelle Cagliari, Italy 09134 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health Office of the General Counsel 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Theodore M. Henderson, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue is whether the score that Respondent assigned to the Patient Amalgam Preparation and Periodontal sections of the clinical part of Petitioner's June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination taken was arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination. A passing score for the clinical part of the examination is 3.0. Petitioner received a score of 2.94, so he failed the clinical part of the examination. Petitioner has challenged the grades of 2.0 that he received on the Patient Amalgam Preparation and Periodontal sections of the clinical part of the examination. In both sections, the score of 2.0 is derived from averaging the 3s that Petitioner received from two evaluators and the 0 that he received from one evaluator. For both procedures, Petitioner challenges only the scores of 0, and he needs two additional points to pass the clinical part of the examination. The administration of the clinical part of the dental examination requires Respondent to recruit and train numerous examiners and monitors, all of whom are experienced, licensed dentists. The training process includes standardization exercises designed to ensure that all examiners are applying the same scoring criteria. The evaluation of specific procedures are double-blind, with scoring sheets that identify candidates by test numbers, so examiners do not know the identity of the candidate whose procedures they are scoring. The two sections that are the subject of this case require the candidate to demonstrate certain skills on a live patient. While working with the patient, the candidate is supervised by a monitor. When the candidate has completed the required dental work to his satisfaction, he so advises the monitor, who sends the patient to the dental examiners. For each section that is the subject of this case, three dental examiners examine the patient and score the procedure. These examiners do not communicate with each other, and each performs his or her examinations and scores the procedure in isolation from the other examiners. Communication between examiners and candidates is exclusively through monitor notes. For each section that is the subject of this case, the maximum possible score that a candidate may receive is a 5. Passing grades are 3, 4, or 5. Nonpassing grades are 0, 1, or A score of 3 indicates minimal competence. The Periodontal section of the clinical part of the dental examination required Petitioner to debride five teeth. Removing calculus from teeth, especially below the gums, is an important procedure because the build-up of tartar and plaque may cause pockets to form between the tooth and gum. Eventually, the gum tissue may deteriorate, ultimately resulting in the loss of the tooth. Prior to the examination, written materials explain to the candidates and examiners that the debridement is to remove all supragingival and subgingival foreign deposits. For the Periodontal procedure, Examiners 207 and 296 each gave Petitioner a 3, and Examiner 394 gave him a 0. The scoring sheets provide a space for preprinted notes relevant to the procedure. All three examiners noted root roughness. However, Examiner 394 detected "heavy" subgingival calculus on four teeth and documented his findings, as required to do when scoring a 0. Petitioner contends that two examiners and he correctly detected no calculus, and Examiner 394 incorrectly detected calculus. As an explanation, Petitioner showed that Examiner 394 knows Petitioner in an employment setting, and their relationship may have been tense at times. However, Petitioner never proved that Examiner 394 associated Petitioner's candidate number with Petitioner. Thus, personal bias does not explain Examiner 394's score. On the other hand, Examiners 296 and 207 are extremely experienced dental examiners. Examiner 296 has served nine years in this capacity, and Examiner 207 has served ten years, conducting 15-20 dental examinations during this period of time. By contrast, Examiner 394 has been licensed in Florida only since 1995 and has been serving as a dental examiner for only three years. However, the most likely explanation for this scoring discrepancy is that Examiner 394 explored more deeply the subgingival area than did Examiners 207 and 296 or Petitioner. Examiner 394 testified with certainty that he found the calculus at 5-6 mm beneath the gums. This is likely deeper than the others penetrated, but not unreasonably deep. For the Periodontal procedure, an examiner who found calculus on four teeth would be entitled to award the candidate 0 points. Examiners may deduct two points per tooth that has been incompletely cleaned, although the lowest score is 0. Examiner 394's score of 0 is therefore legitimate and at least as reliable as the other scores of 3. The Amalgam Preparation section of the clinical part of the examination required Petitioner to remove caries from one tooth and prepare the tooth for restoration. These procedures are of obvious importance to dental health. Poor preparation of the tooth surface will probably result in the premature failure of the restoration. A restoration following incomplete removal of caries will probably result in ongoing disease, possibly resulting in the loss of the tooth. Written materials, as well as Respondent's rules, which are discussed below, require a 0 if caries remain, after the candidate has presented the patient as ready for restoration. Other criteria apply to the Amalgam Preparation procedure, but this criterion is the only one of importance in this case. Examiners 207 and 417 each assigned Petitioner a 3 for this procedure, but Examiner 420 assigned him a 0. Examiners 207 and 417 noted some problems with the preparation of the tooth, but neither detected any caries. Examiner 420 detected caries and documented his finding, as required to do when scoring a 0. As noted above, Examiner 207 is a highly experienced evaluator, but the other two evaluators are experienced dentists. Examiner 417 graduated from dental school in 1979, and Examiner 420 has been licensed in Florida since 1981. The instructions to examiners emphasize that they are to detect caries "exclusively" tactilely, not visually. Tactile detection of the stickiness characteristic of caries is more reliable than visual detection. For example, caries assumes the color of dentin as the decay approaches the dentin. Examiner 420 testified definitively that he detected caries tactilely, not visually, in Petitioner's patient. This testimony is credited. It is difficult to reconcile Examiner 420's finding of caries with the contrary finding by the highly experienced Examiner 207. It does not seem especially likely that an experienced dentist would miss decay, especially in the artificial setting of a dental examination, in which everyone's attention is focused on one tooth. Examiner 207's finding of no caries is corroborated by the same finding of Examiner 417. However, Examiner 417's finding is given little weight. She readily suggested that she must have missed the caries. What at first appeared to be no more than a gracious gesture by a witness willing to aid Respondent's case took on different meaning when Examiner 417 testified, in DOAH Case No. 03-3955, first that she had detected visually and then retreated to testifying that she did not know if she had detected caries visually or tactilely--a significant concession because examiners were instructed explicitly not to rely on visual findings of caries. Returning, then, to the conflict between the findings of Examiner 420 and Examiner 207, substantially unaided by the corroborating findings of Examiner 417, either an experienced, credible dentist has found caries where none exists, or an experienced credible dentist has missed caries. The specificity of Examiner 420's testimony makes it more likely, as logic would suggest, that he did not imagine the existence of caries, and Examiner 207 somehow missed the caries. It is thus slightly more likely than not that Petitioner failed to remove the caries prior to presenting the patient. More importantly, though, for reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law, Examiner 420, in finding caries, adhered strictly to Respondent's rules and policies for evaluating candidates' work, and his finding was not arbitrary or capricious.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the scoring of the clinical part of the June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 James Randolph Quick Driftwood Plaza 2151 South U.S. Highway One Jupiter, Florida 33477 Cassandra Pasley Senior Attorney Department of Health Office of the General Counsel 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
