The Issue Whether the Petitioner should receive on the the clinical portion of the examination additional credit, which is sufficient to receive a passing grade on the December 1997 dental licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Neda Raeisian, was a candidate for the dental licensure examination administered by the State of Florida in December 1997. The dental examination administered in December 1997 consisted of three parts: a "Florida Laws & Rules" part, an "Oral Diagnosis" part, and a "Clinical" part. The Petitioner received passing scores on the "Florida Laws & Rules" and "Oral Diagnosis" parts of the examination. Petitioner received a score of 2.95 on the Clinical part of the examination. A score of 3.00 was required on the Clinical part of the examination. The Petitioner failed the Clinical portion by .05 of a point, and, therefore, she failed the overall dental examination. Three examiners grade each candidate's clinical portion of the dental examination. Three examiners are used because by averaging the scores of the three examiners, the Respondent is more likely to capture the candidate's true score than by using one or two examiners. Before an examiner may be used for an examination, he or she must be recommended by an existing examiner or by a member of the Board of Dentistry. The proposed examiner may not have any complaints against his or her license and he or she must have been actively practicing and licensed for at least five years in the State of Florida. The examiner must complete an application that is sent to the Board of Dentistry examination committee, where it is then reviewed by the committee, and if approved, the examiner is entered into the pool of examiners. Before every examination, the Respondent conducts a standardization session, which is a process by which examiners are trained to grade using the same internal criteria. The Respondent uses assistant examiner supervisors who are appointed by the Board to train examiners on the different criteria that are used during the examination. The assistant examination supervisors go through and describe what a score of five would be, all the way down to a zero, the different criteria for each of those particular grades, and under what circumstances those grades should be given. After the examiners go through a verbal training, they are shown slides of teeth and told what the score on that procedure should be. After the standardization, there is a post- standardization exercise where the examiners are required to grade five mannequin models to make sure they have been able to internalize the criteria. After the post-standardization exercise, the Respondent evaluates the examiners to determine whether they are acceptable to use during the examination. There are also post-examination checks on the examiner, whereby the Respondent decides whether or not to use the examiners again. The Respondent runs the post-examination statistical checks to make sure that the examiners grade with consistency and reliability. There is generally a very high agreement rate between the examiners. Typically if there is an inconsistency in grading, it is usually the examiner who gives the higher grade that is incorrect because he or she missed an error; any error found by an examiner must be documented. The examiners grade the examination independently of each other; that is, they do not confer with each other while scoring the examination. The examination is also double-blind graded. Double- blind grading is the process through which examiners have no contact with the candidates. The examination is conducted in such a way that there is one clinic that is monitored by a licensed dentist in which the candidates actually perform the procedures. When the candidates are finished a proctor walks the patient over to another clinic where the examiners are located, and the examiners grade the examination. The candidates perform the patient portion of the examination on human beings that they are responsible for bringing in. If the patient has the necessary characteristics, the patient could serve for two different candidates or on two different examinations. The examination is a minimum competency examination. The grading system used during the clinical portion of the examination is as follows: A zero is a complete failure, a one is unacceptable dental procedure; a two is below minimally acceptable dental procedure; a three is minimally acceptable procedure, which is the minimum required to pass the clinical portion; a four is better than minimally acceptable dental procedure; and a five is outstanding dental procedure. An overall score is determine by averaging the three examiners' scores on the eight clinical procedures, putting different weights into a formula, and calculating the final grade. It is required in Board rule that the scores of the examiners be averaged. The Petitioner challenges the score given to her for her performance on Procedure 03, "Amalgam Final Restoration," of the Clinical portion of the examination. The Petitioner performed Procedure 03, the "Amalgam Final Restoration," on a live patient, Ms. Desiree Peacock. The Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03 was graded by three examiners: examiner number 290, identified as Dr. Richard Tomlin, of Pinellas Park, Florida; examiner number 299, identified as Dr. Haychell Saraydar, of Pinellas Park, Florida; and examiner number 176, identified as Dr. Leonard Britten, of Lutz, Florida. The Petitioner received a grade of 4 on a scale of 0-5 for her performance on Procedure 03 by examiner number 290; and a grade of 3 on a scale of 0-5 for her performance on Procedure 3 by examiner number 299. However, she received a grade of 0 on a scale of 0-5 for her performance on Procedure 03 by examiner number 176. The reason the Petitioner was given a score of 0 on procedure 03 by examiner number 176 was that the examiner felt that there was a lack of contact at the amalgam restoration site. The Respondent's dental expert, Jorge H. Miyares, D.D.S., testified that a score of 4 is given on Procedure 3 when, in the judgment of the examiner, there are only minor errors present which will not jeopardize the procedure; that a score of 3 is given on Procedure 03 when, in the judgment of the examiner, the procedure is completed at entry level; and that a score of 0 on Procedure 03 is mandatory if there is a total lack of contact. The examiners are taught and trained to check for contact when grading a candidate's performance on Procedure 03, as a lack of contact is a very significant error that jeopardizes the integrity of the amalgam restoration. There are two different types of contact involved in a Class II Restoration. The type of contact that was referenced by Examiner 176 in his grade documentation sheet is proximal contact. Proximal contact is when a tooth is restored, the proximal tooth next to it must be touching the tooth that has been prepared. Contact is something that either does or does not exist between two teeth. Contact is checked visually and by running a piece of dental floss between the teeth to see if there is resistance. Examiners 290 and 299 would have been required to give the Petitioner a grade of 0 on Procedure 03 if they had found a lack of contact. The findings of examiners 290 and 299 during their review of the Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03 were inconsistent with the findings of examiner 176 (lack of contact) during his review of the Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03. The inconsistency between the findings of examiners 290 and 299 and the findings of examiner 176 during their review of the Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03 were statistically unusual. Respondent performed Procedure 03 on the patient Desiree Peacock. Following the exam, Peacock used dental floss on the affected area and she believed she felt resistance. Although the grading on Procedure 03 of the clinical portion of the examination is inconsistent, the Respondent followed its standard testing procedures for the December 1997 dental examination. The evidence is insufficient to prove that the Respondent's examiner acted arbitrarily or capriciously or with an abuse of discretion in refusing to give the Petitioner a passing grade on procedure 03 of the clinical examination.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grade assigned her for the clinical portion of the December 1997 dental licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Anne Williamson, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Neda Raeisian 2161 Lake Debra Drive Apartment 1726 Orlando, Florida 32835 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the grounds that the Respondent has violated several statutory provisions by repairing dentures in a licensed dental lab without having obtained the required work order from a licensed dentist.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, the following facts are found: At all times relevant and material to this case, the Respondent, Magnolia Iole, held license number DL 0002153 issued by the Department of Professional Regulation, which licensed her to operate as a dental laboratory in the State of Florida. At all times relevant and material to this case, the Respondent's dental laboratory was operated at 201 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, under the business name of All Emergency Denture Service. On April 11, 1990, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation took a broken denture to the Respondent's dental laboratory and asked to have it repaired. The broken denture was a woman's denture that had been obtained by one of the other Department investigators from a local dentist's office. The investigator who presented the broken denture for repair had not seen any dentist regarding the broken denture, nor did the investigator have any work order from a dentist for the repair. On April 11, 1990, an employee of the Respondent's dental laboratory agreed to repair the broken denture that was brought in by the Department investigator. The employee said that the repair would cost $50.00, and that the denture would be ready later than same day. Later that same day two Department investigators returned to the Respondent's dental laboratory, where they met the same employee who had agreed to repair the broken denture. The employee told the investigator who had brought the denture that it would be ready in a few minutes. A few minutes later the employee of Respondent's dental laboratory handed the repaired denture to the investigator who had brought it in earlier the same day. At that time the previously broken denture was completely repaired. Although the Respondent, Magnolia Iole, was not observed on the dental laboratory premises during the events of April 11, 1990, described above, she was aware that such events were taking place, because during a telephone conversation on April 12, 1990, Magnolia Iole admitted to a Department investigator that she had been taking repair work without work orders because she needed the money. A work order for denture repair is an order from a licensed dentist to a dental laboratory directing that certain repair services be performed. The work order is, essentially, a prescription for the performance of specific services. A dental laboratory is not permitted to perform a repair of an intra- oral dental appliance without a work order signed by a licensed dentist. A dental laboratory that repairs a denture without a work order issued by a licensed dentist is engaged in the unauthorized practice of dentistry. Denture repair under such circumstances also constitutes the acceptance and performance of professional responsibilities which the dental laboratory licensee is not competent to perform. Denture repair without a work order issued by a licensed dentist, even when the repairs are excellently accomplished, can prevent the discovery of emerging dental problems and cause them to go untreated to the harm of the patient.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent has violated Sections 466.028(1)(z) and 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative penalty consisting of a six month suspension of the Respondent's license, to be followed by a one year period of probation during which the Respondent shall be required to advise the Board quarterly of all work performed by the Respondent's dental laboratory and shall comply with all statutory and rule provisions governing the activities of dental laboratories. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon Coun~y, Florida, this 21st day of May, 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Ms. Magnolia T. Iole 531 Northwest 39th Street Oakland Park, Florida 33309 Mr. William Buckhalt, Executive Director Florida Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, respondent, Peter Kurachek, held a license to practice dentistry, No. DN005429, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Dentistry. In 1983, respondent employed Deborah Burr as a chairside dental assistant. Ms. Burr was not licensed by the State of Florida as a dentist or dental hygienist nor did she hold an expanded duties certificate. During the employment, respondent directed Ms. Burr to cement and remove temporary crowns, fabricate temporary crowns, fabricate temporary bridgework, make adjustments on permanent dentures, and pack retraction cord. All of the foregoing were done without respondent's direct supervision. From a period of 1983 into 1985, respondent employed Craig Marcum as a chairside dental assistant. Mr. Marcum was not licensed by the State of Florida as a dentist or dental hygienist nor did he hold an expanded duties certificate. During this employment, respondent directed Mr. Marcum to cement and remove temporary crowns, fabricate temporary crowns, make adjustments on temporary bridgework, make adjustments on permanent dentures, pack retraction cord, and take opposing impressions for dentures. All of the foregoing were done without respondent's direct supervision. Many patients confused Mr. Marcum as a dentist. But the evidence did not prove that the respondent was aware of this behavior. This behavior became a greater problem when the respondent was opening a Sarasota office between May and December, 1984, and Marcum was in the Venice office under the supervision of other dentists. When the respondent re-assigned a trusted assistant to Venice in September, 1984, she told the respondent that Marcum was referring to himself, and holding himself out, as a dentist. The respondent reprimanded Marcum and had him sign a written promise to cease that behavior. There was no evidence that Marcum continued this behavior after the reprimand. On at least one occasion, Eugena Whitehead, respondent's receptionist, observed Mr. Marcum using a low speed drill inside a patient's mouth. Ms. Whitehead immediately informed respondent of Mr. Marcum's conduct. Respondent took no immediate action but allowed Mr. Marcum to continue using the drill. While in respondent's employ, Mr. Marcum wrote dental prescriptions under respondent's name. But the evidence did not prove that the respondent did not dictate the prescription or, if he did not, that the respondent knew about forged prescriptions. In 1983, respondent employed Pam Anderson as a chairside dental assistant. Ms. Anderson was not licensed by the State of Florida as a dentist or dental hygienist nor did she hold an expanded duties certificate. During this employment, respondent directed Ms. Anderson to cement and remove temporary crowns, fabricate temporary crowns, do temporary fillings, make adjustments on permanent dentures, and pack retraction cord. All of the foregoing were done without respondent's direct supervision. In 1983, respondent employed Patricia M. Lacher as a chairside dental assistant. Ms. Lacher was not licensed by the State of Florida as a dentist or dental hygienist nor did she hold an expanded duties certificate. During this employment, respondent directed Ms. Lacher to cement and remove temporary crowns, fabricate temporary crowns, make adjustments on temporary bridgework, take opposing impressions for permanent dentures, make adjustments on permanent dentures, remove sutures, and pack retraction cord. All of the foregoing were done without respondent's direct supervision. In 1983, respondent employed Gwen Green as a chairside dental assistant. Ms. Green was not licensed by the State of Florida as a dentist or dental hygienist nor did she hold an expanded duties certificate. During this employment, respondent directed Ms. Green to cement and remove temporary crowns, fabricate temporary crowns, make adjustments on temporary bridgework, make adjustments on permanent dentures, and pack retraction cord. All of the foregoing were done without respondent's direct supervision. Through 1983 and 1984, Dr. Kurachek imposed an office policy that dental assistants, not dentists or dental hygienists, perform the duties of packing retraction cord, fabricating temporary crowns and bridges to a dentist's specifications, and adjusting permanent dentures to a dentist's specifications, all without direct supervision. Since some time in 1985, the respondent altered his practices to some extent. He no longer has dental assistants place or remove temporary restorations or cement temporary crowns and bridges or take study impressions unless the dental assistant has an expanded duties certificate and is under direct supervision. He does not allow dental assistants to place or remove or cement or recement permanent crowns or bridges, take final impressions for dentures, pack retraction cord, use a handpiece, or drill, in a patient's mouth or do temporary fillings regardless whether the dental assistant has an expanded duties certificate. He still has dental assistants, with or without the expanded duties certificate, make temporary crowns and bridges to his or another dentist's specifications outside of the mouth and adjust permanent dentures to his or another dentist's specifications, both outside the mouth either in a laboratory or in the operatory which serves as a laboratory and both under the direct supervision of the responsible dentist. The respondent understands that these procedures are legal based on his understanding of what DPR representatives have told dental assistants in his employ.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order: holding the respondent, Peter Kurachek, D.D.S.: (a) guilty as charged of five counts of violating Section 466.028(1)(g) and (aa) (1983), one for each of the dental assistants Burr, Marcum, Lacher, Anderson and Green; and (b) guilty of a sixth count, as charged, for violating Section 466.028(1)(bb) (1983); imposing a $5,000 fine payable within 30 days; suspending the respondent's license for a period of six months; and placing the respondent on probation for one year after reinstatement of his license. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1988.
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
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)
