The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed dentist, committed the offenses alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 466, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to the authority of Section 20.43 (3)(g), Florida Statutes, Petitioner has contracted with the Agency for Health Care Administration to prosecute administrative complaints as required by the Board of Dentistry. Respondent is, and has been since 1966, a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 0004148. At the time of the final hearing, Respondent’s office address was 4512 Flagler Drive, #301, West Palm Beach, Florida 33407-3802. One prior disciplinary proceeding has been filed against Respondent's license. The record is silent as to the details of that prior disciplinary action. In addition to a traditional general dental practice, Respondent practices alternative dentistry (also referred to by Respondent as biological dentistry) on chronically ill patients. In his alternative dental practice, Respondent utilizes unconventional diagnostic methodologies and homeopathic remedies. In December 1995 and January 1996, Respondent treated C. C., a female born May 10, 1950. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, C. C. considered herself to be pre-cancerous and chronically ill. C. C. believed that she had suffered radiation poisoning in 1986 when a cloud from the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl 2/ passed over her home in Italy while she was outside in the garden. C. C., a chiropractor, became interested in alternative dentistry and attended various seminars presented by proponents of alternative medicine and dentistry. C. C. consulted with different health care professionals, including dentists, medical doctors, and nutritionists, and became familiar with alternative dentistry and homeopathic remedies. C. C. believed that the amalgams in her teeth had become toxic and were inhibiting her recovery to full health. At one of these seminars in 1995, C. C. submitted to a test that purportedly revealed she suffered from heavy metal poisoning. She also examined her blood through a powerful microscope and found her blood to be unusual, which reinforced her belief that she was pre-cancerous. C. C. met Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt at a seminar in 1995 on the topic of alternative dentistry. The seminar attended by Dr. Klinghardt and C. C. included a discussion on toxicity from the oral cavity causing systemic health problems. The seminar also included a discussion on the treatment of dental conditions using homeopathic remedies. C. C. asked Dr. Klinghardt whether he thought she should have her amalgams replaced with non-toxic materials. He recommended that she do so and he also recommended that she have extracted any tooth that had a root canal. C. C. asked Dr. Klinghardt to recommend a dentist to remove her amalgams. Dr. Klinghardt recommended Respondent for the amalgam replacement. Notakehl, Pefrakehl, and Arthrokehlan, the three homeopathic remedies Respondent used in his subsequent treatment of C. C., were discussed at the seminar. These homeopathic remedies are referred to as Sanum remedies, which is a reference to the German manufacturer. In March of 1995, C. C. visited a dentist named Ira Windroff in South Florida. Dr. Windroff took a panoramic X-ray and X-rays of C. C.'s individual teeth. After the X-rays, Dr. Windroff referred C. C. to another dentist, who performed a root canal on C. C.'s tooth #19, which is in the lower left quadrant. On December 12, 1995, C. C. presented to Respondent's office to discuss having her amalgams replaced. C. C. was experiencing pain in tooth #19 on December 12, 1995. C. C. filled out a standard medical history form that Respondent had used in his practice for several years. C. C. discussed her medical and dental history with Respondent. C. C. told Respondent that she had a root canal on tooth #3 when she was a teenager and that she recently had a root canal on tooth #19. C. C. informed Respondent that she considered herself to be chronically ill and pre-cancerous. She told him she had suffered radiation poisoning in 1986 and preferred to have no unnecessary X-rays. She also told him that she was very weak from a recent bout of the flu. Respondent's office notes reflect that C. C. presented with lower left tooth pain (without identifying a specific tooth) and that he "muscle tested for origin." Respondent purported to evaluate C. C.'s medical and dental status by evaluating whether her autonomic nervous system responded to various stimuli. This form of testing will be referred to as ART, which is an acronym for "Autonomic Response Testing". The autonomic nervous system and ART were explained by several of the experts who testified in this proceeding. The human body has an autonomic nervous system consisting of a sympathetic part and a parasympathetic part. Both parts are regulated by the hypothalamus, which is located deep inside the brain. The nerves constituting the autonomic nervous system pass thorough ganglions, which are groups of nerve cells located outside the brain at different locations of the body that act as relay stations. The sympathetic part of the autonomic nervous system is generally believed to deal with the mechanisms that prepare the body to counteract stresses that come from outside the body. For example, if someone cuts his or her finger, the sympathetic part of the autonomic nervous system will cause blood vessels to contract so the body does not lose all of its blood. It also will prepare the body to fight or flee in response to an outside threat. The parasympathetic part of the autonomic nervous system deals with the body's inner secretions, such as insulin and digestive acids. The reactions of the parasympathetic part of the autonomic nervous system calm the body down after a stress and usually promote healing. Respondent's examination of C. C. on December 12, 1995, lasted between one hour (Respondent's estimate) and three hours (C. C.'s estimate). During part of the ART examination, C. C. reclined in a dental chair. When she was not in the dental chair, she reclined on a massage table. During the ART examination, Respondent used his dental assistant to serve as an indirect tester, which required her to be positioned between the patient and the examiner. The dental assistant held one of C. C.'s hands with one hand while extending her (the dental assistant's) free arm. According to those subscribing to this methodology, the physical contact between the dental assistant and C. C. established an electrical current between them, which caused the responses from C. C.'s autonomic nervous system to be transferred to the dental assistant. Respondent used the dental assistant's deltoid muscle to determine whether a particular stimulus had caused a response from C. C.'s autonomic nervous system. Respondent pushed down on the dental assistant's extended arm after exposing C. C. to a stimulus and evaluated the resistance he encountered. He believed he could determine by that resistance whether the dental assistance's deltoid muscle became weak or remained strong. If the dental assistant's deltoid muscle became weak following C. C.'s exposure to a stimulus, Respondent concluded that the autonomic nervous system had responded and that the area of the body being tested was not healthy. If the dental assistant's deltoid muscle remained strong, Respondent concluded that the autonomic nervous system had not responded and that the area of the body being tested was healthy. Respondent used his dental assistant as an indirect tester because he considered C. C. to be too weak to be directly tested, which would have required her to extend her arm throughout the examination. 3/ After he had C. C. place her hand over her belly button while she was in a reclined position and holding the dental assistant's hand, Respondent pushed down on the dental assistant's extended arm. Based on his evaluation of the resistance in the dental assistant's arm, Respondent believed that C. C.'s autonomic nervous system was in a protective mode. Respondent then attempted to determine the reasons for that finding. Respondent placed vials of various substances, including heavy metals, bacteria from root canal teeth, and homeopathic remedies, on C. C.'s lap to determine whether the substances triggered a response from C. C.'s autonomic nervous system. He placed his fingers on her individual teeth to determine whether that prompted a response from C. C.'s autonomic nervous system. Respondent believed that by ART he could determine the condition of C. C.'s internal organs, evaluate her dental problems, and identify the homeopathic remedies that would best promote healing. In addition to using ART, Respondent visually inspected C. C.'s teeth with a dental mirror, used a dental explorer to examine the edge of fillings and cracks in the teeth, probed her gums, percussed tooth #19, and palpitated all of her teeth. Although his dental records for this patient do not reflect that he did so and he could not remember having done so prior to C. C.'s deposition, the evidence established that Respondent reviewed the X-rays taken by Dr. Windroff. Respondent did not take any X-ray of tooth #19 before he extracted that tooth. The only X-rays available to Respondent were taken before the root canal was performed on that tooth in March 1995. Respondent also did not order any laboratory tests. Based on his use of ART, Respondent concluded that the following areas of C. C.'s body were compromised: tonsils, heart, spleen, pancreas, liver, gall bladder, large intestines, and pubic. Using ART, Respondent concluded that C. C.'s tooth #3 and tooth #19 had become toxic. Respondent also concluded that the following homeopathic remedies should be used to treat C. C.: Notakehl, Pefrakehl, and Arthrokehlan. Notakehl is a fungal remedy derived from Penicillum chrysogenum. Arthrokehlan is a bacterial remedy derived from Propionibacterium acnes. Prefakehl is a fungal remedy derived from Candida parapsilosis. 4/ Respondent told C. C. that the root canals that had been performed on tooth #3 and tooth #19 contained toxins and were blocking her recovery. He also told her that the removal of her root canal teeth and any toxic area around the root canal teeth should be given higher priority than the replacement of her amalgams. Respondent told C. C. that he could not help her if she did not have her two root canal teeth extracted. Respondent did not offer C. C. any other options because he did not think any other option existed. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether C. C. consented to the extraction and treatment with the Sanum remedies. That conflict is resolved by finding that Respondent adequately explained to C. C. how he intended to extract the two teeth and what she could expect following the extractions. Although C. C. did not ask to have those two teeth extracted, she clearly agreed to have the extractions. It is further found that C. C. knowingly agreed to Respondent's proposed treatment with the Sanum remedies. C. C. knew about the Sanum remedies and how Respondent was going to use them to treat her. Much of the evidence presented by Respondent related to ART and the manner it was being used by practitioners in December 1995. The undersigned has carefully reviewed and considered that evidence. The undersigned has also reviewed and considered the evidence presented by Petitioner. The following findings are made as to the use of ART in 1995. The Florida Dental Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Dental Association did not recognize ART as a reliable methodology for testing toxic conditions of the teeth. ART was not being taught in any dental school in Florida. ART was not being used by a respected minority of dentists in the United States to the extent it was used by Respondent. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that the extent to which Respondent relied on that methodology in evaluating this patient exceeded any acceptable use of ART in 1995 and constituted practice below the standard of care as alleged in Count VI of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Because of his over-reliance on ART, Respondent's diagnosis was flawed, and there was insufficient justification for his subsequent treatment of the patient. 5/ On December 21, 1995, C. C. returned to Respondent for the extraction of tooth #3 and tooth #19. Respondent extracted the two teeth and removed bone in the vicinity of each tooth that he thought was necrotic, a procedure referred to as cavitation. Respondent testified that he encountered soft, mushy bone following the extractions. He removed hard bone in the extraction area with a small rotary bur. He removed soft tissue and bone with a curette. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Respondent was justified in removing bone surrounding the extraction sites. Based on Respondent's testimony and the depositions and dental records of C. C.'s dentists who treated her after Respondent, it is concluded that his decision to remove bone surrounding the extraction sites was within his clinical judgment. It should be noted, however, that Respondent's dental records provide no justification for this extensive removal of bone adjacent to the extraction sites. Following the extractions and cavitation procedures, Respondent injected the patient's mouth and face with Notakehl, Pefrakehl, and Arthrokelan. Prior to her visit to Respondent, C. C.'s teeth #5 and #17 had been extracted. Respondent injected the area where tooth #5 had been with the Sanum remedies using a stabident drill, a dental drill that is usually used to administer anesthesia. He also injected the Sanum remedies where tooth #17 had been. Following the extractions of teeth #3 and #19, Respondent irrigated the extraction wounds with the Sanum remedies. Respondent injected the right sphenopalatine ganglion area and the left and right otic ganglion areas, the superior origin and inferior origin pharyngeal constrictor muscles, and the submandibular ganglion with a one percent solution of Xylocaine that also contained drops of Notakehl. Respondent testified he used Xylocaine, an epidural grade anesthetic, as a carrier for Notakehl. Some of the injections were made into the oral cavity while others were made through the face. Consistent with homeopathic practice, Respondent believed that these injections would promote healing. Tooth #3 is located directly beneath the right maxillary sinus cavity. From the X-rays available to him, Respondent knew that the root canal material that had been used to fill that tooth was very close to the thin membrane that protects the sinus cavity. Following his extraction of tooth #3, Respondent did not determine whether the maxillary sinus membrane had been perforated during the extraction procedure. Petitioner established by clear and convincing testimony that this failure constituted practice below the standard of care as alleged in Count VI of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Following the extractions, Respondent placed some soft tissue back into the extraction sites, which covered a little bit of the socket, and he left a little bit of an opening for a clot to form to heal from the inside out. He sutured the area around the buccal bone, which he had reflected in order to remove the tooth. C. C. returned to Respondent on December 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 1995, and January 5 and 10, 1996. On December 22, 1995, Respondent checked the extraction sites and electrically stimulated the extraction sites using a process referred to as micro current. On December 23, 1995, Respondent checked the extraction sites, applied micro current to those sites, and injected a one percent solution of Xylocaine with drops of Notakehl into the right sphenopalatine ganglion, both otic ganglions, and the left submandibular ganglion. On December 24, 1995, Respondent applied micro current to the extraction sites and injected Sanum remedies into the area of the extraction sites. On December 27, 1995, C. C. telephoned Respondent to complain of pain in the area from which tooth #3 had been extracted. From what she told him, Respondent believed that C. C. had a perforated maxillary sinus. When he examined her on December 27, 1995, he confirmed that she had a sinus perforation. Respondent reopened the area he had sutured on December 21, 1995, cleaned out granulated tissue. 6/ He did a flap procedure, referred to as a plastic closure, where tissue was reflected from the cheek side of the gum and placed over the extraction site to the palate side. He thereafter injected the right otic ganglion and right sphenopalatine ganglion with a solution of one percent Xylocaine and Notakehl. Between December 28, 1995, and January 10, 1996, Respondent continued his homeopathic treatment of C. C. combined with the micro current procedure. Respondent did not treat C. C. after January 10, 1996. C. C. knew when she agreed to the extractions that she would have to have bridges for the areas of the extractions. Those two bridges were inserted after she left Respondent's care. Petitioner asserted that Respondent practiced below the standard of care by failing to appropriately close the sinus perforation on December 27, 1995. That assertion is rejected. On January 18, 1996, James Medlock, D.D.S. examined C. C. at his dental office in West Palm Beach, Florida. C. C. was not experiencing difficulty with the flap procedure Respondent had performed on December 27, 1995, when she was seen by Dr. Medlock. Gary Verigan, D.D.S., treated C. C. at his dental office in California between February 1996 and May 1997. Richard T. Hansen, D.D.S., treated C. C. at his dental office in California between May 1997 and November 1999. The dental records of Dr. Medlock, Dr. Verigan, and Dr. Hansen for C. C. are in evidence as Joint Exhibits 1, 3 and 4, respectively. The depositions of Dr. Medlock and Dr. Hansen are in evidence. Dr. Hansen re-opened the area of the maxillary sinus that Respondent had closed with the flap procedure and found that bone had not re-generated in that area. Dr. Hansen believed that Respondent was not the cause of the problems for which he treated C. C. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the subsequent dental problems encountered by C. C. were caused by the extraction, cavitation, or flap procedure performed by Respondent in December 1995. Petitioner did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's closure of the sinus perforation on December 27, 1995, constituted practice below the standard of care. Respondent did not have malpractice insurance or proof of financial security at the time that he treated C. C. He did not have proof of financial security until March 13, 1997, when he obtained an irrevocable letter of credit from Palm Beach National Bank and Trust to bring himself in compliance with Petitioner's Rule 64B5-17.011, Florida Administrative Code. 7/ This irrevocable letter of credit was current at the time of the final hearing. Respondent is a dentist who treats people who are chronically ill. Respondent's use of ART and homeopathic remedies are clearly unconventional and can, in Respondent's own words, cause a lot of harm if he is not careful. Under the facts of this case, his failure to have malpractice insurance or proof of financial responsibility while practicing alternative dentistry on high-risk patients is found to be an especially egregious violation of Rule 64B5-17.011, Florida Administrative Code. His subsequent compliance with that Rule is not viewed by the undersigned as being a mitigating factor. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to keep adequate dental records in violation of Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Respondent's medical history for the patient is incomplete. Although Respondent testified he did not take X-rays because of the patient's history of radiation poisoning, his medical history does not reflect that history. Respondent did not chart C. C.'s teeth, which is a routine practice. His description of his examination was vague, his findings were vague, and his proposed treatment plan was vague. His records did not reflect that he had viewed X-rays of the patient, did not reflect that Notakehl was injected with Xylocaine, and did not reflect the anesthetic that was used to numb the mouth during the extraction. The most serious deficiency is that his records provide no justification for the extraction of two teeth or for the cavitation procedures that followed, a basic requirement of Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Respondent's use of the Sanum remedies constituted practice below the standard of care or experimentation. Petitioner did not establish that the practice of homeopathy is per se below the standard of care or that the use of homeopathic remedies in this case constituted experimentation. Respondent established that the three Sanum remedies he administered to C. C. are recognized homeopathic remedies, and he also established that the manner in which he administered these remedies was consistent with homeopathic practice. The conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that Petitioner did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's use of the homeopathic remedies constituted practice below the standard of care or experimentation. 8/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, IV, and VI of the Amended Administrative Complaint. For the violation of Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes (Count I), Respondent's licensure should be placed on probation for a period of two years with the requirement that he take appropriate continuing education courses pertaining to record-keeping. For the violation of Rule 64B5-17.011, Florida Administrative Code (Count IV), Respondent's license should be suspended for a period of one year to be followed by a period of probation for a period of five years. For the violation of Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (Count VI), Respondent's license should be suspended for a period of one year to be followed by a period of probation for a period of five years. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be reprimanded for each violation and assessed an administrative fine in the amount of $3,000 for each violation, for a total of $9,000. It is further recommended that the suspension of licensure RECOMMENDED for Counts IV and VI and all periods of probation run concurrently. It is further RECOMMENDED that all other charges be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 2001.
The Issue Whether Respondent Tessler has violated Florida Statute Section 466.24(3)(a), (c) and (d) and is guilty of misconduct, malpractice, or willful negligence in the practice of dentistry. Whether Respondent is guilty of receiving compensation because of a false claim intentionally submitted. Whether Respondent has failed to treat a patient according to acceptable dental standards and procedures.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Stephen W. Tessler, the Respondent, is a dentist licensed to practice dentistry under the laws of the State of Florida, Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, engaged in the practice of dentistry in his office located at 1245 NW 190th Street, North Miami, Florida. The Petitioner, State Board of Dentistry, filed an administrative accusation against Respondent Tessler, which was sworn to and subscribed in July, 1978. The accusation contained two counts, and the Respondent requested an administrative hearing. The hearing was first scheduled for October 20, 1978, but was continued upon motion of the Petitioner to January 10, 1979, and rescheduled upon motion of the Respondent to March 8, 1979. During the months of January, 1977, through mid-June, 1977, Ms. Rachel Dixon was a dental patient of Respondent Tessler. Ms. Dixon is a 32-year-old woman with a history of severe tooth and gum problems. She had prosthetic appliances and six (6) anterior crowns placed in her mouth ten (10) to fifteen (15) years ago in Pennsylvania. She had engaged a dentist, a Dr. Snyder in Hollywood, Florida, but had not seen him for some two (2) years prior to making an appointment with the Respondent for relief from pain and gum irritation, and for cosmetic improvement. Ms. Dixon is an unhappy dental patient with an inordinate fear of dentists, and her home dental hygiene care is inadequate. At the time Ms. Dixon engaged Respondent Tessler, she was in need of dental treatment for full-mouth gross peridontal inflammation and infected root canals in tooth number 30. She employed the Respondent for the purpose of providing dental treatment for peridontal disease, endodonic care of tooth number 30, recapping to the anterior teeth, and restoration of an upper right bridge on teeth number 3, 4 and 5. Ms. Dixon was referred to Dr. Hirschfield, an orthodontist in Respondent's office, for x-rays. Costs were discussed, a payment made, and a schedule of appointments planned. Thereafter, Ms. Dixon kept numerous scheduled and unscheduled appointments with the Respondent. Respondent Tessler replaced existing crowns on six (6) anterior teeth (number 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11) with six (6) anterior foil porcelain jackets. In the presence of peridontal disease, Respondent attempted to replace an upper right bridge on teeth number 3, 4 and 5. Respondent was dissatisfied with the "final restoration" but used it instead of making a temporary one. He placed it in Ms. Dixon's mouth because it was better than a temporary restoration. Respondent had told Ms. Dixon that he would satisfy her and would redo the temporary restoration on her front teeth. He did the restoration a second time. Initially, Ms. Dixon was pleased, but later she was not satisfied because she felt pain upon contact with food, drink, or air that was either hot or cold. At the time of hearing no further work had been done in this area of her mouth, and she still complained of pain. On the second or third visit, within two (2) weeks of Ms. Dixon's initial visit, Respondent treated tooth number 30 by performing three (3) root canal treatments. After a number of weeks, Ms. Dixon continued to experience pain in this tooth. Respondent treated tooth number 30 again, reopening two (2) root canals to permit drainage and prescribing an antibiotic. During the course of the endodonic treatment on tooth number 30 an existing lower right bridge on teeth number 28, 29, 30 and 31 was damaged. Ms. Dixon did not return to Respondent for treatment, although she was in pain and attempted for two (2) or three (3) days to reach Respondent by telephone calls to his office. Thereafter, a week or ten (10) days later, Ms. Dixon sought the services of Dr. Marvin Levinson. She indicated to Dr. Levinson that she was not going to return to Respondent Tessler, that she suffered from pain, and that she was concerned about her appearance. Dr. Levinson examined her and referred her to Dr. Satovsky, an endodontist, for immediate relief of pain for a dental abscess, and to Dr. Garfinkle, a peridontist, for a complete peridontal work-up. It was Dr. Garfinkle's opinion that the caps placed by Respondent Tessler in the mouth of Ms. Dixon were placed in the presence of peridontal disease or that the caps caused the disease. He could not determine which came first. Dr. Garfinkle stated that Ms. Dixon was prone to peridontal disease and that she was an unhappy dental patient. Dr. Garfinkle could not comment on the condition of Ms. Dixon's mouth at the time of the treatment given by Respondent, inasmuch as he had not seen her until some eight (8) months had passed. Dr. Satovsky stated that on tooth number 30, which he treated subsequent to the root canal treatment done by Respondent Tessler, the canals were inadequately cleaned and enlarged. He stated that there were three (3) canals on the tooth, two (2) of which had the rods removed, and that he removed the third. He retreated the three (3) canals and alleviated the pain of Ms. Dixon. Dr. Satovsky could not state whether he thought the work of Respondent was negligent, inasmuch as he could not state what the tooth looked like when Respondent first saw it. Dr. Marshall Brothers, the Secretary/Treasurer of the State Board of Dentistry, found that the permanent type of restoration was adequate but not good for a temporary restoration. Upon his examination of Ms. Dixon's mouth, he found her general peridontal condition to be poor. Dr. Brothers could not determine whether her condition was a result of the restoration or existed prior to the restoration. He assumed the condition to be the one or the other because of the recency of the restoration. Respondent Tessler is a licensed dentist and a general practitioner, and is licensed to perform the dental work involved in this case. His charges for this work were substantial, but there was no evidence submitted that said charges were excessive or that Ms. Dixon misunderstood them. Alternative methods of treatment were discussed. The testimony and the evidence in this case show that Respondent worked within his ability as an average dentist. There was no showing of willful negligence, although Respondent's judgment may have been poor, and probably he should have referred Ms. Dixon to specialists. Affixing a bridge and crown work in the presence of gum disease is not the acceptable standard of care within the dental profession, and Respondent admits to that fact; however, he felt that it would improve the overall condition, and he had not released Ms. Dixon as a patient. Ms. Dixon was not pleased with Respondent's work or his charges ad, after attempting to make an appointment, left Respondent Tessler for another dentist. Ms. Dixon was insured through her husband's employer by a policy issued by Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. On January 31, 1977, Respondent Tessler submitted a pre-treatment estimate for work to be done consisting of porcelain-to-gold restorations on anterior teeth number 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, and for a fixed bridge on teeth number 28, 29, 30 and 31, plus additional treatment in the amount of $2,420.00. The insurance company refused to pay for all treatment except for the fixed bridge on teeth number 28 through 31. On April 27, 1977, Respondent submitted the customary insurance treatment form to Aetna certifying that the bridgework had been performed and completed on April 27, 1977. Based on Respondent's representation, Aetna paid Respondent $649.50. The bridgework had in fact not been done, nor were the anterior crowns porcelain-to-gold restorations. Approximately one year later, Respondent refunded the overage to Aetna upon the request of the insurance company. Both parties submitted proposed findings of fact and memoranda of law, and Respondent submitted a proposed order. These instruments were considered in the writing of this Order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this Order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having boon supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the violation as established, it is recommended that the license of Stephen W. Tessler, D.D.S., be suspended for a period of time not exceeding one year from the date of the Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 2516 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Stephen Mechanic, Esquire Suite 200 1125 NE 125th Street North Miami, Florida 33161
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 Whether or not on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent, James P. Haas, was offering to practice dentistry, and indeed practicing dentistry at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center, in violation of Sections 466.24(3)(n) and 466.36, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent, James P. Haas, maintained a telephone listing whereby he offered to practice dentistry as D.A.D. Denture Center at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, and whether or not he continues to maintain said listing, in violation of Sections 466.24(3)(g) and 466.27(5), Florida Statutes. Whether or not since January 1, 1978, or prior to that date, one Bernie Morlock has been employed by the Respondent, James P. Haas, to perform dental services at a time when the said Bernie Morlock was not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene in the State of Florida. Further, whether or not Bernie Morlock, while employed by the Respondent, practiced dentistry as defined in Section 466.04, Florida Statutes, to the extent of: Taking impressions of the human teeth and jaws. Placing dentures and dental appliances in patients' mouths and adjusting or attempting to adjust same. Diagnosing or professing to diagnose the physical condition of the teeth and jaws of patients. Finally, whether or not the Respondent knowingly allowed the practice of dentistry by Bernie Morlock in violation of Section 466.02, Florida Statutes, and in further violation of Section 466.24(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes. Whether or not since January 1, 1978, or prior to that date, the Respondent, James P. Haas, has employed unlicensed personnel to perform dental services for patients, to-wit: orthodontic treatment, which services constitute the practice of dentistry under Section 466.04, Florida Statutes. Further, whether or not if these services were performed by unlicensed persons, were they performed with the full knowledge and consent of the Respondent, thereby constituting a violation on the part of the Respondent of Sections 466.24(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes. (The Amended Accusation which charges the Respondent contained a certain Count III; however, no testimony was offered in support of that allegation and at the conclusion of the formal hearing, the Petitioner, through its counsel, voluntarily withdrew that count from consideration. This voluntary dismissal was unopposed by the Respondent.)
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, Division of Professions, Board of Dentistry, is an agency of the state created for the purposes of protecting the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the State of Florida, to the extent that practice of dentistry in the state and dental hygiene are subject to the regulation and control of the Petitioner in the public interest. The authority for such regulation is set forth in Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and those rules of the Florida Administrative Code related thereto. The Respondent, James P. Haas, is licensed by the Florida State Board of Dentistry to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. The Petitioner, by an Amended Accusation, has charged the Respondent, James P. Haas, with various violations of provisions of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and the Respondent has requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, which request has been granted and a hearing held on February 15 and 16, 1979. The first of the allegations states that on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent was offering to practice dentistry and indeed practicing dentistry at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center. The facts reveal that Dr. Haas made an arrangement with an organization known as Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., of Harredsberg, Kentucky, wherein he agreed to coordinate the placement of advertisements for the benefit of that corporation and in turn the corporation agreed to refer patients to Dr. Haas for his treatment. The advertising spoken of consisted of an ad in the Winter Park, Florida, telephone directory yellow pages and certain newspaper advertising through the Orlando Sentinel of Orlando, Florida. The advertising in the telephone directory was placed in the fall of 1977 and a copy of that yellow page advertising may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence contains a copy of the format for the telephone yellow page advertising, as contemplated by Dr. Haas through his agreement with Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., of Harredsberg, Kentucky. The listing of the telephone number was of the number in Harredsberg, Kentucky, and those individuals at that number in turn made the referrals to Dr. Haas's office located at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida. An example of the newspaper advertising may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence at page 161-I, a copy of the Sentinal Star Progress Edition of December 18, 1977. In that advertising the same number is given as indicated in the aforementioned telephone telephone ad, with the difference being that Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., is given as the trade name as opposed to D.A.D. Denture Center, which was found in the telephone advertisement. Dr. Haas maintained a separate checking account for D.A.D. Denture Center, the name of his affiliation with Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc. The payments for services made by those patients referred through the D.A.D. Denture Center process, were placed into the D.A.D. Denture Center operating account of Dr. Haas. Those persons authorized to make withdrawals from that account were Dr. Haas and his employee, Bernie Morlock, and checks were drawn from that account under the authority of Dr. Haas. The overall income and expanses of D.A.D. Denture Center, operated by Dr. Haas, and of his general practice in the name of James P. Haas-sole proprietor, were combined and were under the control and authority of Dr. Haas. The dental office located in Longwood, Florida, was identified as the office of James P. Haas, D.D.S., and also by a placard indicating the office to be a D.A.D. Denture Center. Finally, those patients who called for service under D.A.D. Denture Center were charged by different fee structure and were listed in a separate appointment book, than that appointment hook for the Respondent through his general practice, James P. Haas, D.D.S. The Respondent was knowledgeable of the arrangement to treat patients under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center at the address in Longwood, Florida, and in fact practiced dentistry under that assumed name and at that location as alleged in Count I of the Amended Accusation. This constituted a violation of Section 466.36, Florida Statutes, which states: "Practicing dentistry under assumed name; penalties.-- On and after the passage of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to practice or offer to practice dentistry under any name except his or her own proper name, which shall be the name used in his or her license certificate granted to him or her as a dentist as provided in this chapter, and unlawful to use the name of any company, association, corporation, clinic, trade name, or business name in connection with the practice of dentistry as defined in this chapter, provided, nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent two or more licensed dentists from associating to- gether for the practice of dentistry, each in his or her own proper name. The violation of any of the provisions of this section by any dentist shall subject such dentist to suspen- sion or revocation of his or her license." The advertisement placed in the Winter Park, Florida, telephone directory, which is sham as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence, was placed with the knowledge of the Respondent and with the intention by the Respondent that the advertisement be made. This advertisement pertained to the 1978 telephone directory for Winter Park, Florida. Under these facts, the Petitioner has charged the Respondent with a violation of Section 466.27(5), Florida Statutes. That provision reads: "466.27(5) Telephone listings shall be con- fined to the local telephone directories. Such listings shall be limited to the den- tist's name, dental degree, 'D.D.S.' or 'D.M.D.,' using the abbreviation only, the word 'dentist,' 'dentistry,' or 'general dentistry,' any specialty as approved by the board to which the dentist confines his practice exclusively, office location, resi- dence and office telephone numbers, and residence address and may include his member- ship in a local dental society if in accord with local customs." A review of the language of this section, in view of the fact that the advertising in the telephone directory inured to the benefit of the Respondent by the process of the referral system spoken of above, demonstrates that the telephone listing was for the benefit of Dr. Haas and was not in keeping with the requirements of this subsection. This constituted advertising professional services and the practice of dentistry in a manner not expressly authorized by Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and was therefore in violation of Section 466.24(3)(g), Florida Statutes. One of the employees of the Respondent who worked in the office at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, was Bernie Morlock. Morlock was not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene in the State of Florida at any time relevant to the allegations in the Amended Accusation. Nonetheless, Morlock practiced dentistry as defined by Section 466.04, Florida Statutes, and did so in the office of the Respondent in Longwood, Florida, with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent. The arrangement which was condoned by the Respondent allowed for Morlock to have patients scheduled for him for the purpose of the preparation of dentures through the referral system, D.A.D. Denture Center, which was part of Dr. Haas's Longwood, Florida, office. (An example of the written schedules may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence.) Dr. Haas had instructed that these patients be scheduled to be seen by Bernie Morlock. Some of these patients were being seen by Dr. Haas's office for the first time and were attended by Bernie Morlock from this initial visit to the conclusion of the case, at which time the patients were given their dentures. Morlock's involvement with patients included diagnosis of the physical condition of the teeth and jaws of the patients; taking impressions of patients' teeth, both algenate and working model impressions; the placement of dentures and other dental appliances in the patients' mouths and the adjustment to those dentures and dental appliances, and the discussion of the case with the patient. Most of the work that Morlock did was done at a time when Dr. Haas was not in attendance in the aforementioned office and was done without supervision from any licensed dentist. This process undertaxen by Bernie Morlock happened on numerous occasions. The patients were considered to be Morlock's patients and the patients only saw licensed dentists for the purpose of extracting teeth or other dental procedures unconnected with the fabrication and try-in and adjustment to the dentures. These actions on the part of Bernie Morlock took place during the time period alleged in Count IV of the Amended Accusation. By allowing Bernie Morlock to attend patients in the fashion that Morlock did, the Respondent was willfully negligent in the practice of dentistry within the moaning of Section 466.24(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and in addition was guilty of a violation of Section 466.24(e), Florida Statutes, which states: "Employing or permitting any unlicensed per- son or persons to perform any work in his office which would constitute the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene, except a dental auxiliary pursuant to the provisions of this chapter." During the period of time alleged in Count V of the Amended Accusation, the Respondent employed dental hygienists Vic Simmons and Mary Simmons at his office in Longwood, Florida. Although they wore dental hygienists, these individuals were not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene within the State of Florida. Notwithstanding this absence of a license, the Simmonses practiced dentistry in the Longwood office within the meaning of Section 466.04, Florida Statutes. This included having certain schedules set for them as indicated by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. This is an example of the schedule for the Simmonses under the title, "Ortho". This scheduling was with the knowledge of Dr. Haas, who had arranged for the Simmonses to come and treat orthodontic patients in his office. The Simmonses came to the location of the Respondent's office two days a month, of which Dr. Haas was in the Longwood office one of those days. These orthodontic patients would be seen initially by Dr. Haas and then treated for their condition by the Simmonses. Some of the patients first seen by the Simmonses arrived at the office without any form of braces in the mouth of the patient. The procedures that the Simmonses then performed were done without supervision by a licensed dentist. By that it is meant that the Simmonses were performing the dental services without the licensed dentist being in the room. The Simmonses, in the pursuit of orthodontic dental practice, placed bands and changed beads, cemented hands and placed arch wires; all with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent. Under the circumstances involved in the employment of the Simmonses, it has been demonstrated that the Respondent is guilty of willful negligence in the practice of dentistry as prescribed in Section 466.24(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is also guilty of a violation of Section 466.24(3)(e), Florida Statutes, in that he employed and permitted unlicensed persons to perform work in his office which would constitute the practice of dentistry. The proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation offered by the parties have been revied prior to the rendition of this Recommended Order. To the extent that the proposals conform to the findings herein, they have been utilized in developing the Recommended Order. To the extent that the proposals are inconsistent with the findings herein, they are rejected.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should have received a passing score on the June 2001 Florida Dental Licensure Examination, notwithstanding Respondent’s determination that he failed the test.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Siegel, who graduated from dental school in 1999, took the June 2001 Florida Dental Licensure Examination (the “Exam”), which was administered by the Department on June 2 through June 5, 2001. The Exam had two parts, a Clinical Part and a Laws and Rules Part. The Clinical Part was further divided into ten sections, each of which consisted of a separate clinical procedure. The minimum passing score on the Laws and Rules Part was 75.00; on the Clinical Part, a minimum score of 3.00 was required to pass. As calculated by The Department, Siegel scored 70.00 and 1.49, respectively, on the two parts. Thus, according to The Department, Siegel failed both parts of the Exam. Each candidate’s performance on the Clinical Part of the Exam was scored independently by three examiners chosen by the Department.1 These examiners were not informed of any candidate’s identity, nor were the candidates told the examiners’ names; they were not permitted to speak directly to one another while the Exam was being administered. The examiners who graded Siegel’s clinical performance had successfully completed standardization training.2 Additionally, the Department determined, as part of a routine post-Exam statistical review of examiner performance, that these particular examiners were reliable in terms of their consistency in applying the proper grading criteria.3 To determine a candidate’s overall score on the Clinical Part of the Exam, the Department first computed the average of the three examiners’ raw scores for each individual procedure. Each average score was then adjusted using the percentages prescribed in Rule 64B5-2.013, Florida Administrative Code, to arrive at a weighted mean score. A candidate’s overall score on the Clinical Part was equal to the sum of his or her weighted mean scores for each section. At hearing, Siegel challenged just one clinical procedure, the Patient Amalgam Restoration.4 An amalgam restoration is a dental procedure that involves filling a cavity so that the affected tooth is restored to proper form and function. After this procedure, the treated tooth should closely resemble its original size and shape. Siegel’s raw scores on this procedure were very low. One of the examiners who testified at the hearing, a dentist with some 40 years’ experience, had awarded Siegel no points for the Patient Amalgam Restoration procedure because, after completion of the work, the restoration was fractured and the patient’s gingival margin was open. Another examiner, a dentist with 35 years of experience, explained at hearing that Siegel's work on the amalgam restoration was a failure; in this examiner’s opinion, the patient's tooth was actually in worse condition after Siegel had finished the procedure. The testimony of these examiners was credible and is accepted as being truthful and accurate. Accordingly, it is found that Siegel failed to perform the amalgam restoration with the minimum degree of skill and competence required for licensure as a dentist in this state. For his part, Siegel contended that one of the examiners (presumably the one who did not testify at hearing) had caused the restoration to fracture. Siegel based this theory on the account of his patient, Scott Graham, who testified that one of the examiners had "picked" at his tooth with a sharp instrument.5 (Mr. Graham is not a dentist.) Mr. Graham, however, had not complained about any alleged examiner misconduct at the time of the examination. Likewise, no examiner ever reported any such irregularity. In the absence of contemporaneous corroborating evidence, created before it became known that Siegel had failed the Exam, Mr. Graham’s testimony is simply not persuasive evidence of examiner misconduct. To be sure, it is theoretically possible that an examiner might damage a candidate’s work and then attempt to cover up his error by blaming the candidate. The evidence in this case, however, is not nearly sufficient to support such a finding. To underscore the point: Siegel’s theory is speculative at best. As for the remaining clinical procedures, while Siegel complained that his scores were not a reliable or accurate measure of his performance, he failed to introduce any persuasive evidence in support of this allegation. At bottom, the trier is not persuaded that the scores Siegel received were arbitrary, capricious, unfair, inconsistent, or otherwise objectionable. To the contrary, the evidence in the record demonstrates convincingly that the scores Siegel received on this Exam were reliable, correct, impartially rendered, and consistent with the grading practices used in scoring other candidates’ work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department advise the Board Of Dentistry to enter a Final Order (a) holding that Siegel's administrative challenge to the scores he received on the June 2001 Florida Dental Licensure Examination is without factual and legal merit and (b) declaring that Siegel failed said examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 2002.
The Issue 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)
