Findings Of Fact Dr. Farah is a candidate for licensure by the Board of Dentistry, having taken the dental clinical examination in June 1985. The examination covers ten domains of dental knowledge and practice; each is separately graded, and then weighted according to an algorithm. Rule 21G-2.13(3), Florida Administrative Code. A weighted grade of 3.0 is required to pass the clinical dental examination. Rule 21G-2.13(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Dr. Farah received a grade of 2.96. The June 1985 examination was Dr. Farah's second attempt to pass the clinical examination. The grading scale for each procedure is established in Rule 21G- 2.13(1), Florida Administrative Code, as follows: complete failure unacceptable dental procedure below minimal acceptable dental procedure 3- minimal acceptable dental procedure better than minimally acceptable dental procedure outstanding dental procedure An examiner is required to record a comment in support of any grade below 5. Examiners for the dental examination are experienced licensed Florida dentists. Rule 21G-2.20(4), Florida Administrative Code. They are trained by the completion of 8 to 10 hours of standardization exercises. During the standardization exercises the examiners receive examination grading criteria, grade identical procedures, discuss any grade variance and attempt to eliminate any discrepancies in interpretations of the grading criteria in order to bring the examiners to a consensus on grading. In the periodontal portion of the examination there are five criteria which are accorded equal importance in grading. These are: (a) presence of stain on the assigned teeth, (b) presence of supra-gingival calculus on assigned teeth, (c) presence of sub-gingival calculus on assigned teeth, (d) root roughness on the assigned teeth, (e) improper management of tissue such as gums which may have been lacerated during the procedure. Rule 21G-2.13(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The grading is holistic and each examiner assigns a grade based on the examiner's evaluation of the overall procedure. Three examiner's grades are averaged to obtain a final grade score for the individual procedure. Rule 21G- 2.17(1), Florida Administrative Code. The score for that procedure is then weighted and added with the other weighted scores to obtain the overall grade on the clinical examination. As a standardization technique in grading the periodontal exercise, an examiner marks off for root roughness when use of an explorer on treated teeth reveals a tactile roughness but the examiner is unable to visually confirm the presence of sub-gingival calculus. Use of an explorer reveals the presence of root roughness or calculus below the gum level (i.e., calculus which is sub- gingival). Dr. Farah was assigned teeth number 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, l4 and 15 on her periodontal patient. A prior candidate (Candidate 20057) had treated the same patient in her periodontal exercise, and had been assigned some of the same teeth as Dr. Farah, viz., teeth 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Candidate 20057 received individual holistic grades of 4, 4 and 5, which average to a grade of 4.33 for the periodontal procedure. Dr. Farah received grades of 1, 2 and 3, which average to a grade of 2.00 for the procedure. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8) Examiner #006 graded both Dr. Farah and Candidate 20057 on their periodontal treatment. That examiner gave Candidate 20057 a holistic grade of 4 (better than minimally acceptable), noting a deduction for "root roughness," but there is no indication on the grade sheet of the tooth or teeth on which roughness was found. Examiner #015 also gave Candidate 20057 a grade of 4, and noted "root roughness" on the mesial side of tooth number 7, which was not one of the teeth later treated by Dr. Farah. The third examiner gave Candidate 20057 a grade of 5 with no comments. (All comments are found on Respondent's Exhibit 3.) After Dr. Farah's treatment of the patient, which occurred two days after the treatment provided by Candidate 20057, Examiner #006 gave Dr. Farah a grade of 3, and recorded that he found sub-gingival calculus on the mesial side of tooth number 3. Calculus is a mineral deposit on teeth which does not form in 48 hours; Examiner #006 missed the calculus on tooth 3 when grading Candidate 20057 (perhaps because it was obscured by the inflammation and bleeding of the gums which the patient testified about at the hearing) or the calculus was on a tooth other than tooth 3, and the wrong tooth was noted by Examiner #006 on Dr. Farah's grade report. Examiner #005 gave Dr. Farah a grade of 2, finding root roughness and sub-gingival calculus on the distal side of tooth number 12, a tooth not treated by Candidate 20057. Examiner #048 gave Petitioner a grade of 1, commenting on "several" instances of sub-gingival calculus on teeth treated by Dr. Farah, as well as the presence of root roughness. (All comments are found on Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) Examiner #006 gave Dr. Farah the highest of her grades on the periodontal procedure, which was that it was minimally acceptable. The other examiners determined that Dr. Farah's treatment left sub-gingival calculus, and was below minimally acceptable standards (the grade of 2) or was unacceptable (the grade of 1). At the hearing Dr. Farah agreed that if calculus remained the appropriate grade would be 2 or lower. There is no reason to adjust the grades assigned on the periodontal exercise. Dr. Farah also prepared a cast class II restoration onlay wax up on a posterior tooth on a stone mannequin of a lower jaw. She received grades of 5, 3 and 2, which average to 3.33. Examiner #080 assigned a grade of 2, wrote on the grading form "undercuts," and also noted that the procedure had a marginal surface finish. Examiner #133 assigned a grade of 3, and noted "poor outline form" but added no comment concerning an undercut. The third examiner, #048, made no deductions and assigned a grade of 5. An "undercut" is an improper preparation of a tooth surface which is to support a crown. During the preparation of the assigned tooth, the center portion of the tooth was reduced to create a trapezoidal shape, similar to an equilateral triangle, the top of which has been cut by a plane parallel to its floor. A wax model of the crown is then prepared. If the side walls of the trapezoid, when the prepared surface is viewed from the top, do not slope downward and slightly outward, when the wax cast is removed, the wax deforms, and the crown made from it will not seat correctly on the tooth. This may cause the crown to fail, and is a serious error. When a curved dental explorer is placed against the base of the tooth and against the surface of the tooth vertically, one may observe whether there is an angular displacement outward from the vertical at the top, indicating an undercut. On Dr. Farah's preparation this test reveals an undercut. The testimony of Dr. Farah's expert, Dr. Robert Murrell, was that a "surveyor" is the proper instrument to use to evaluate a tooth preparation surface for an undercut. Dr. Murrell did so and determined there was no undercut on the Petitioner's work. There are two difficulties in determining whether there is an undercut using the surveyor. The surveyor's rod is fixed in a vertical position and cannot reflect whether it is actually up against the base of the tooth or not, and viewing the rod from the top down does not give visual confirmation whether the top edge is wider than the bottom; neither can one visually inspect the vertical alignment from the side because the remaining portion of the tooth would prevent one from viewing the alignment from the side position. Secondly, as the expert for the Department, Dr. Theodor Simkin, testified, the surveyor is not a proper instrument for determining undercuts on a mannequin, but is meant to be used on castings and other bridge or denture work done outside the patient's mouth. Logic supports Dr. Simkin's assessment, because a surveyor simply cannot be inserted into a patient's mouth. Dr. Simkin's testimony is also more persuasive because he has been, for several years, an experienced dental examiner and examination grading consultant. Dr. Murrell, while certainly a well-qualified dentist, has never been trained to grade the Florida clinical dental examination. Laying aside the question whether the surveyor or the explorer is the better instrument for assessing whether there is an undercut on a tooth, the other method for determining an undercut explained by Dr. Simkin is persuasive. If no undercut is present, when the stone mannequin of the mouth on which Dr. Farah worked is viewed from directly above, it should be possible to view all four bottom corners of the preparation surface at the same time; if there is an undercut, the undercut bottom corner will be hidden when all of the other corners are viewed. Visual examination confirms the presence of an undercut in the front right corner of Dr. Farah's preparation.
Recommendation It is recommended that the petition for regrading of the failing score assigned to Dr. Farah on the June 1985 clinical dental examination be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of March 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 86-0235 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985) on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Findings of Fact (onlay) Rejected for the reasons stated in Findings of Fact 14 and 16. Accepted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected for the reasons stated in Finding of Fact 15. Findings of Fact (periodontal)1 Generally accepted in Findings of Fact 1 and 8, except for the final sentence, which is rejected as argument. Rejected for the reasons stated in Findings of Fact 10 and 11. In addition, the question of whether the performance of Candidate 20057 was properly graded does not arise in this proceeding. If Candidate 20057 received high grades although three of the seven teeth treated had to be retreated 48 ours later by Dr. Farah, this does not address the central question in this case: Did the treatment provided by Dr. Farah meet minimum standards? [page 7] Rejected because there is no competent substantial evidence that Dr. Simkin was Examiner #015, but if he was, the proposal is argument, not a finding of fact. Rulings on Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Accepted in Findings of Fact 4, 5 and 6. Accepted in Finding of Fact 5. Accepted in Finding of Fact 4. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 8, 9 and 10. Accepted in Finding of Fact 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. Accepted, but clarified in Findings of Fact 13 and 14. Accepted in Finding of Fact 15. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Fred Varn Executive Director Board of Dentistry 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Mina Farah 21-32 Crescent Street #D-7 Astoria, NY 11105
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of incompetence or negligence and failing to keep adequate dental records and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed dentist, holding license number DN 0010415. He has been licensed continuously in Florida since 1985, and he practices in Naples. On February 13, 1992, M. D. presented to Respondent at Kings Lake Dental Services. M. D. complained of a loose three-unit fixed bridge, which had replaced tooth number 4, using teeth numbers 3 and 5 as abutments. Respondent performed a focused emergency examination. He found a decaying, loose bridge that was falling apart and coming out of M. D.'s mouth; tooth number 5 was decayed and had fractured off; and tooth number three was decayed around the abutment crown and post. Respondent took an x-ray and found root canals on teeth numbers 3 and 5. Based on these findings, Respondent recommended to M. D. that he have post and cores on teeth numbers 3 and 5 and a new bridge. Respondent noted in his dental records these findings during this initial visit and the limited nature of the examination. At the time of this initial examination, Respondent determined that teeth numbers 3 and 5 could serve as abutment teeth to support the bridge for tooth number 4. His determination was correct as tooth number 5, but the record suggests that his determination was questionable as to tooth number 3. However, Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the suitability determination for tooth number 3 was incompetent or negligent. On M. D.'s next visit, which took place on February 26, 1992, Respondent prepared teeth numbers 3 and 5 for the new bridge by removing the existing post and core in tooth number 3 and preparing tooth number 5 for a post and core. Respondent installed a temporary bridge during this visit. A post and core is an appliance that is cemented into a tooth that has undergone previous endodontic treatment. A post goes into the residual root, and the core replaces the natural crown of the tooth. The post and core can then be prepared for a crown or, as in this case, a fixed bridge. The final result resembles the placement of a peg into a tooth on which additional material is built up. On M. D.'s third visit, which took place on March 4, 1992, Respondent re-cemented the temporary bridge, which had come loose. On M. D.'s fourth and final visit, which took place on March 13, 1992, Respondent installed the permanent fixed bridge. At no time did any blood collect in M. D.'s post preparations. At no time during the post-and-core work, including during the unanaestheticized installation procedure, did M. D. experience pain. As material to this case, a perforation would result from excessive drilling in the process of preparing the tooth for the post, so as to create an extra opening into the bone. The absence of blood during the post preparation is generally inconsistent with a post perforation. The absence of pain during the ensuing installation procedure also militates against a finding that Respondent inadvertently perforated the tooth. The crucial findings on the issue whether Respondent perforated the tooth are thus the absence of blood during the drilling attendant to the post-and-core procedure and the absence of pain during the ensuing installation procedure. These findings are based in part on the self-serving testimony of Respondent, but also are supported by other evidence. At the time of the incident, Respondent had practiced dentistry in Florida for over six years. It is likely that he would have known that an untreated perforation would eventually cause the restorative work to fail. Respondent had treated numerous patients, presumably including seasonal Naples residents, without this issue previously arising, even though excessive-drilling perforations themselves are not that uncommon. When M. D. later contacted Respondent and complained of the dental work, he made no mention of the pain that typically would have accompanied the installation of a core over a perforated tooth. M. D. was a winter resident of Naples. Fourteen months after his final visit to Respondent, a dentist in Massachusetts discovered a perforation of the root on tooth number 5 and an acute periodontal abscess on tooth number 3. An acute periodontal abscess occurs at the end of the root and is secondary to infection involving the dental pulp in the soft tissue part of the tooth. Periodontal abscesses occur around the supporting structures of the teeth. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent perforated M. D.'s tooth. Although excessive drilling may cause a perforation, decay, a root fracture, and rampant periodontal disease may also cause perforations. Given the considerable period of time between Respondent's treatment of M. D. and the discovery of the perforation, the likelihood of decay, a root fracture, and rampant periodontal disease increases as the cause of the perforation. Given the other factors, such as lack of blood during the post procedure or pain during the core procedure, Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's treatment of M. D. was incompetent or negligent. The record provides even less basis to find by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's work caused the periodontal abscess 14 months later. Respondent's dental records are adequate in many respects. The records adequately describe the cast post and core technique; Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the failure to distinguish between the two types of cast post and core is material in this case. Petitioner has also failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the records fail to provide an adequate basis for another dentist to infer the removal of the old post and core. The x-ray is of extremely poor quality, but it is merely a duplicate. The original is not in the record, and the record provides insufficient basis for inferring the quality of the original. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the actual x-ray was of such poor quality as to preclude reliance upon it. Respondent's records indicate that tooth number 5 is decayed and fractured off, that tooth number 3 is decayed, and that the x-rays reveal root canals on both these teeth. While adequately documenting these findings, the records do not document Respondent's evaluation of the suitability of teeth numbers 3 and 5 to serve as abutment teeth. Nor do the records document the "moderate" periodontal disease that Respondent testified that he also observed. Respondent's restorative work eventually failed. The most likely cause of failure was the perforation of tooth number 5. However, fourteen months later, tooth number 3 was no longer capable of serving as an abutment tooth. By inference, its condition at the time of Respondent's decision to use it as an abutment tooth at least warranted documentation in the dental records. Similarly, the acute periodontal abscess also evidences the need to document Respondent's finding of moderate periodontal disease. These omissions from Respondent's dental records are material due to the questionable suitability of tooth number 3 as an abutment tooth and the subsequent development of periodontal disease. On these facts, Respondent's records fail to document a thorough evaluation of M. D.'s oral structures involved in the restorative work and his overall dental condition. In these respects, Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to keep adequate dental records in that they fail to justify the course of Respondent's treatment of M. D. On March 30, 1992, S. T. presented to the Fort Myers Dental Service for an abscessed tooth at tooth number 3. One of the dentists at the office, Dr. Rubin, saw S. T. He recommended full mouth x-rays and study models and prescribed pain medication and an antibiotic. The dental records contain no indication of periodontal disease at this time. The Fort Myers Dental Service maintained a system of patient referral in which Respondent or Dr. Johnson saw patients requiring endodontic treatment and other dentists saw patients requiring periodontic treatment. Following her visit, Dr. Rubin referred S. T. to Respondent for endodontic work on April 2, 1992. The x-rays had revealed lesions on teeth numbers 3 and 4, so the referral was for an evaluation for root canals. On April 3, Respondent examined S. T.'s mouth and noted buccal swelling around teeth numbers 3 and 4 and broken- down, decayed teeth at teeth numbers 3, 4, and 5. However, his examination did not reveal any periodontal disease. Respondent recommended root canals for teeth numbers 3 and 4 followed by casts, posts, and cores for teeth 3 and 4 and a porcelain fuse metal crown for tooth number 5. Respondent commenced this dental treatment on April 10, 1992. During this visit, Respondent began a root canal on tooth number 4. On April 17, Respondent completed the root canal on tooth number 4. On April 24, Respondent began a root canal on tooth number 3. On May 22, Respondent completed the root canal on tooth number 4. On September 24, 1992, Respondent prepared teeth numbers 3, 4, and 5 for crowns. On October 8, Respondent installed crowns on these teeth and posts and cores on teeth numbers 3 and 4. Fourteen months later, on December 7, 1993, S. T. was examined by Dr. William McKenzie, a periodontist who practiced 33 years, primarily in Fort Myers, until his retirement prior to the hearing in this case. A general dentist in Fort Myers had referred S. T. to him. At the time of his examination, Dr. McKenzie found poorly fitting crowns on teeth numbers 3, 4, and 5 and open contacts between teeth numbers 2 and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5, and 5 and 6. In general, S. T.'s dental health was good, except for the area in which Respondent had worked. In this area, S. T.'s gums bled profusely upon probing by Dr. McKenzie. In part, Petitioner tried to prove that Respondent improperly proceeded with endodontic treatment despite unresolved periodontic problems. However, the record fails to sustain this allegation. To the contrary, as Dr. McKenzie testified, the poor-fitting and gapped crowns caused the periodontal condition that Dr. McKenzie encountered. The open contacts, which allowed food to pack between the teeth, led to infection, which caused the inflammatory process in the gums and bone deterioration that Dr. McKenzie also discovered in this area of S. T.'s mouth. As to the fit of the crowns, Dr. McKenzie described it as "horrible" and work of which a "freshman dental student" was capable. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance in the treatment of S. T.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for six months and, following the expiration of the suspension, placing the license on probation for a period of 12 months. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Wright Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 E. Raymond Shope, II 1404 Goodlette Road, North Naples, Florida 34102 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Bill Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed dentist practicing in Holiday, Florida. He has practiced dentistry for approximately 30 years and has limited his practice to prosthetics (dentures) since 1974. Doctors Christian, Bliss and Venable are likewise dentists licensed and practicing in Florida. On the basis of education and experience, each was qualified as an expert witness in the filed of dental prosthetics. In determining whether a denture meets or falls below the minimum standard of acceptability, several technical factors are considered. The denture is placed in the patient's mouth to check area of coverage or the adaptation of the denture to the ridges of the mouth; the extension of the flanges or borders of the dentures; the occlusion of the teeth and bite; the extension of the dentures into the soft palate; esthetics and finally, speech. The expert testimony of Dr. Christian in the evaluation of the dentures is accorded greater weight than that of Doctors Venable and Bliss since Dr. Christina conducted his examinations in May and June 1979, while Doctors Bliss and Venable performed their examinations some two years later. Changes in the patients mouth as well as the dentures over time make such later evaluations less meaningful. Dr. London's testimony is entitled to greater weight than that of his complaining patients with respect to precise financial agreements and dates on which various services were performed. This determination is based on the fact that Dr. London maintained contemporaneous records on each patient (office charts) and was able to refer to these documents during the course of his testimony. However, the testimony of his former patients with respect to the difficulties they encountered with their dentures was not lacking in credibility. On April 13, 1979, Rose Edwards went to Dr. London for treatment, and she agreed to pay $265.00 for a full set of porcelain dentures. On that same date impressions were taken for the construction of upper and lower dentures. On May 4, 1979, Respondent delivered the upper and lower dentures to Ms. Edwards. On May 8, 1979, she returned to Respondent's office complaining that the two front teeth were crooked and too far apart. Respondent found that the two front teeth needed reversing and he did so. On May 11, 1979, Ms. Edwards returned to Respondent's office complaining that she could not chew with the dentures, that the lower denture would not stay in her mouth, that food particles would get under the lower dentures and that she had blisters in her mouth from the loose dentures. Respondent adjusted the dentures. On July 24, 1979, Ms. Edwards returned to Respondent and stated that she was still having a great deal of difficulty with the dentures delivered by Respondent. Respondent advised Ms. Edwards that he would make no further adjustments and dismissed her as his patient. Dr. Christian conducted an examination of Ms. Edwards and the dentures prepared by Dr. London. He found that the borders of the lower denture were overextended into the cheek area. Dr. Bliss later examined Ms. Edwards and the same dentures and found the border areas to be greatly overextended into the soft tissue and muscle. The fact that the lower denture was overextended into the border areas caused it to lift up on movement of Ms. Edwards' mouth making it impossible for her to chew with the denture. Dr. Venable also conducted an examination of Ms. Edwards and the dentures delivered by Respondent. He found that the upper denture was overextended in the posterior or postdam area, and the lower denture underextended in the posterior area. The dentists generally agreed that Ms. Edwards was difficult to fit as she had poor ridges (required to support the denture) from having worn false teeth for many years. However, Ms. Edwards was relatively satisfied with her old dentures and returned to wearing them after being dismissed as a patient by Dr. London. The testimony taken as a whole established that the dentures Dr. London prepared for Ms. Edwards were deficient in several respects and did not meet the overall standards of quality required as a licensed dentist. Dr. Bliss and Dr. Christian stated that their fee for fitting Mrs. Edwards with dentures would have been $800 and $1,000 respectively. However, none of the dentists who testified, including Dr. London, regarded his substantially lower fee of $265 as any excuse for less than satisfactory work. On February 20, 1978, Lila Andrews went to Dr. London for treatment and agreed to pay Dr. London $290 for a full set of dentures, including adjustments and a relining, if required. On that same date impressions were made for the upper and lower dentures. On March 27, 1978, Dr. London delivered upper and lower dentures to Ms. Andrews for insertion by her oral surgeon. On April 7, 1978, Ms. Andrews returned to Dr. London complaining of severe pain on her lower gum. An adjustment was made to the lower denture by Dr. London. On May 18, 1978, Ms. Andrews returned to Dr. London complaining that she still could not put any pressure on her lower gums without a great deal of pain. In addition, she had developed sores in her mouth. At that time, Dr. London told her that he would remake the lower denture if Ms. Andrews agreed to pay Dr. London $45.00 to reline the upper dentures. Ms. Andrews agreed to pay him $45.00 since she wanted a usable denture, although she believed this charge was contrary to their agreement. On June 12, 1978, Dr. London delivered a second lower denture to Ms. Andrews and on June 14, 1978, she returned for an adjustment and told Dr. London that her dentures would not stay in her mouth and that her mouth continued to be extremely sore. Dr. London relined the lower denture. On December 14, 1978, Ms. Andrews returned to Dr. London's office and informed him that her dentures still would not stay in her mouth and that the soreness had continued. Dr. London advised Ms. Andrews that he would reline the dentures but that he would charge her for this service. She refused to pay and received no further treatment from Dr. London. Ms. Andrews currently uses the denture prepared by Dr. London but does so only with the aid of commercial fastening products. She also suffers a "lisp" which she did not previously have. On May 9, 1979, Dr. Deuel Christian examined Ms. Andrews and the dentures delivered by Dr. London. His examination revealed the following: The borders on the upper denture were grossly underextended into the soft tissue. The upper denture was not extended far enough into the postdam area, that area of soft tissue along the junction of the hard and soft palate of the roof of the mouth. The aesthetics of the upper denture were poor and the phonetics were such that the denture caused lisping. The borders of the lower denture were underextended into the soft tissue and the tooth placement in relation to the gum was poor. The bite relation between the upper and lower jaw was such that when the jaw was closed only four teeth made contact. The grossly underextended borders, the underextension in the postdam area, the poor tooth placement in relation to the gum and the poor bite relationship resulted in a lack of stability (especially when chewing), lack of retention and soreness in the mouth. Dr. Venable's examination revealed some deficiencies, but to a much lesser degree. His findings indicated that the flange on the lower denture was too short and the front section of the upper denture was too far forward. The testimony taken as a whole established was too far forward. The testimony taken as a whole established that the dentures Respondent prepared for Ms. Andrews failed to meet the minimum standards of quality required of a licensed dentist. On November 1, 1978, Grace McMichael visited Dr. London to have an upper denture made. A primary impression was taken of Ms. McMichael's upper jaw on November 1, and the upper denture was delivered to her on November 13, 1978. On November 17, Ms. McMichael returned to Dr. London's office complaining that the upper denture would not stay in her mouth, and the denture pressed into her nose when she bit down. Dr. London adjusted the denture. Mr. McMichael returned to Dr. London's office on December 13, as she was not satisfied with her denture. Dr. London advised her that he could not do anything further for three months when her gums would be more stable. He recommended that she purpose adhesive to hold her denture in. Dr. London made an appointment for Ms. McMichael on February 2, 1979, but she cancelled and never returned. Dr. Christian's examination of Ms. McMichael and the denture delivered by Dr. London revealed that the borders on the denture were underextended, that there was no postdam area and that the phonetics were poor. The underextended borders and the lack of extension into the postdam area affected the stability and retention of the denture. The phonetics problems observed by Dr. Christian resulted in Ms. McMichael lisping. It should be noted that any changes that might have occurred in Ms. McMichael's mouth between December 13, 1978, and February 2, 1979, would have had no affect on the underextension of the denture or the phonetics and could not have been corrected by adjustment. The examination by Dr. Venable revealed that the posterior border of the denture (throat area) and the planges (cheek area) were overextended. Although Dr. Venable did not consider these to be major deficiencies, the testimony as a whole established that the denture failed to meet the minimum standards of quality required of a licensed dentist.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of incompetence in the practice of dentistry. It is further
The Issue The issues presented herein are: (1) whether or not the Respondent, Kenneth T. Risco, D.D.S., permitted an unlicensed dental employee (Wilbert E. Bolyea) to examine and diagnose the mouth of Dr. Erwin Ochs for treatment or treatment planning in violation of Chapters 466.024(4)(b) and 455.026(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1979); whether Respondent, thereby aided, assisted, procured or advised an unlicensed person to practice dentistry or dental hygiene contrary to Chapter 466.028(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1979); whether Respondent knowingly permitted Bolyea to take an impression for the purpose of fabricating an intra- oral restoration, to wit: upper and lower dentures, in violation Chapter 466.024(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1979); whether Respondent thereby delegated professional responsibilities to a person with knowledge or reason to know that such person did not qualify by licensure to perform such tasks in violation of Section 466.028(1)(aa), Florida Statutes (1979); whether Respondent permitted Bolyea to engage in the examination, diagnosis and treatment planning of conditions within the human oral cavity audits adjacent tissues in conjunction with the supplying of dentures to patients in Respondent's office in violation of Chapter 466.026(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), and thereby knowingly employed a person to perform duties outside the scope allowed such persons in violation of Chapter 466.024(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1979).
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its eight (8) count Administrative Complaint filed herein on November 6, 1980, the Petitioner seeks to revoke, suspend or take disciplinary action against Respondent as a licensee and his license as a dentist under the laws of Florida. Respondent, Kenneth T. Risco, is a licensed dentist having been issued license No. DN6971, since approximately August of 1975. On approximately January 7, 1980, Respondent because professional associated with Wilbert Bolyea (Bolyea) whom he employed as an expanded duty assistant. In summary fashion, the complaint allegations are that Respondent, during the period January 7 through 18, 1980, permitted Bolyea, his expanded duty assistant, to engage in the examination, diagnosis, treatment planning and the taking of impressions for the purpose of fabricating prosthetic dentures and the adjusting of such dentures in violation of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes (1979). Petitioner's proof herein consists of testimony adduced from a deposition of Respondent taken on January 18, 1980, in Collier County Circuit Court, Case No.79-1029 captioned Bolyea v. Wittenberg; Dr. Erwin Ochs, who is now deceased, testimony was received as an unavailable declarant pursuant to Chapter 90-803(18), Florida Statutes; and testimony taken during the hearing herein on February 24, 1981, in Naples, Florida. Ruppert Bliss, a licensed dentist and a member of Petitioner's Board, has been practicing dentistry since approximately 1956. Dr. Bliss is a member of several professional associations and expressed familiarity with the terms of art peculiar to the dental profession. Dr. Bliss was received as an expert in prosthetic dentistry in this proceeding. According to Dr. Bliss, the treatment and diagnosis of a patient with dental problems should proceed as follows. First, the patient is examined by a visual inspection of the patient's pathological signs. A working relationship is then developed with the patient and a study model is made to follow and coordinate subsequent diagnostic procedures. This includes a study of a patient's tissue contours which aids in making a model to trace registrations and to effect proper adjustments which affect a patient's ability to bite. Throughout the procedure, the patient is constantly examined and a final adjustment is made to ensure that the dentures, as constructed and fitted, enable the patient to bite properly and that the bone and tissue conditions are not adversely affected. Dr. Bliss described the difference between the terms of art in the dental profession known as a "remediable" versus nd "irremediable" task. A "remediable" task is one that can be reversed whereas an "irremediable' task can not be reversed. Dr. Bliss included in the list of irremediable tasks, the adjustment of prosthetic appliances since they affect a patient's bite; may worsen bone or tissue conditions and also impacts on a patient's mannerisms. The diagnosis of a denture problem and its adjustment is an irremediable task. (Tr. 41) Respondent's Defense Dr. Riso is a 1975 graduate of the University of Pennsylvania. Upon graduation, he became licensed to practice in the states of Florida, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Respondent's spouse, Dr. Rebecca Weber, is also a dentist licensed to practice in Florida and practices jointly with Respondent. Respondent, during the instant hearing on February 24, 1981, denied permitting Bolyea or any unlicensed person employed by him to practice dentistry or to examine patients without any supervision by him. Respondent became professionally associated with Bolyea on January 7, 1980, as an expanded duty assistant. In keeping with this employment relationship, Respondent and Bolyea entered into an employment agreement which delineated the procedures under which Bolyea was authorized to carry out his employment functions. (See Respondent's Exhibit No. 1) According to Respondent, he first learned of the services performed for Dr. Ochs by Bolyea, at the contempt hearing on January 21, 1980. Pursuant to the employment agreement, Bolyea was authorized to greet patients; take patients' dental history; determine the need for dentures and report back to Respondent. (Tr. pp. 53 and 67) Respondent therefore claims that he was unaware of any dental adjustments by Bolyea during times material to the allegations herein. (Se Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 and Tr. p 69) When Dr. Ochs visited Respondent's office for treatment on January 11, 1980, the employment relationship in effect between Respondent and Bolyea had been effective approximately two days. Dr. Ochs was not seen or examined by Respondent. On January 11, 1980, Dr. Ochs, a former dentist for approximately 35 years, visited Respondent's denture clinic in Naples for an examination and, if necessary, to have dentures made. After being greeted by an office assistant, Bolyea began talking to Ochs about the price and quality or dentures. At the outset of the examination by Bolyea, Ochs explained that he only needed an upper denture made since his lower denture was all right. Bolyea donned a pair of rubber gloves; removed Ochs' upper denture and placed it on a try. Bolyea then examined Ochs' mouth; massaged his lower gum with his finger; remarked that his ridge was very flat and had been pounded to almost nothing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7, pp 3 and 4) After a mirrored view of Ochs' oral cavity while in the protruding position, Bolyea remarked that "there is contact anteriorly and posteriorly, but in the space between there, you have quite a space. That is why you are pounding your ridge to pieces, because your bite is not right." Bolyea advised Ochs that he could not help him with only a lower denture and that his only solution was to construct a complete set of dentures to correct his bite. Thereafter, Bolyea took a wax bite of Ochs' mouth. According to Respondent, the study model is made by Bolyea after a patient is initially screened. Thereafter, examines the model and a custom tray is made from which a final impression is made by Respondent. Respondent physically delivers the appliance after the third appointment. At some point during the course of fabricating the dentures, Respondent examines the patient. This occurred, in the usual case, during the second or third visit. Respondent's testimony during the contempt hearing held on January 21, 1980, is as follows. Patients desiring dentures were required to make three visits and at some point during the diagnostic procedures of the patient (by Bolyea), Respondent diagnosed and examined the patient. Respondent considered that Bolyea's actions in feeling dr. Ochs' gums and advising him as to the condition of the ridges included the corrective measures he would employ to correct his bite were "physical observations" rather than an examination and diagnosis. Respondent authorized Bolyea to make those determinations. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6 at p 48) Respondent did not check to determine the corrections of Bolyea's judgment as to the necessity for a new set of dentures. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6 at p 48) Respondent also stated that a patient was free to, and in fact would, return to his office if he was dissatisfied with the dentures (as fitted or adjusted by Bolyea). However, Respondent agreed that an improperly adjusted denture could result in irreversible harm to the muscles and soft tissues of the mouth. In this regard, Respondent's and Ms. Chesser's testimony during the hearing, to the effect that he (Respondent) was unaware of Respondent making adjustments to patients' dentures is contrary to Respondent's testimony on January 21, 1980. Respondent's sworn statements, when he was not under the pressure of disciplinary sanction by the Petitioner is considered more credible than the subsequent testimony herein when the threat of disciplinary action existed. To the extent that his testimony herein differs from the version offered by him during the prior proceedings, the more recent testimony is rejected. Likewise, Ms. Chesser's testimony to the effect that Respondent was unaware of Bolyea's actions relative to the adjustments of dentures is contrary to Respondent's testimony on January 21, 1980, and is also rejected. Joyce Chesser was employed by Messr. Dolyea from approximately July 1979, through March of 1980. She was hired as an assistant and officer manager. Based on Bolyea's procedures, dentures were completed during a span of not less than four weeks subsequent to a patient's first visit. Bolyea made adjustments to patients' dentures without Respondent's knowledge, permission or authorization (Tr. 76 thru 82). Bolyea also examined patients and went behind Respondent's back to adjust dentures which were already prepared prior to any employment relationship with Respondent. 2/ Respondent's wife, Dr. Rebecca Weber, was also familiar with the employment relationship between Respondent and Bolyea. Dr. Weber denied that Respondent permitted Bolyea to examine or otherwise diagnose patients.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Board of dentistry, enter a final order herein finding the Respondent guilty of the allegations set forth in Counts 1 through 8 of the Administrative Complaint filed herein and suspending the Respondent's license to practice dentistry in the State of Florida for a period of six (6) months. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of May 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May 1981.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, James A. Ford, D.D.S., is the holder of license No. 5715, which is held with the State of Florida, State Board of Dentistry. A copy of this license may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. At all times pertinent to the charges in this cause, Dr. Ford was the holder of the aforementioned license. On April 18, 1977, the administrative accusation which is the basis of this case was brought against Dr. Ford. Dr. Ford was duly apprised of that accusation and requested a formal hearing to challenge the administrative accusation. The administrative accusation may be found as a part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2. The initial count in the administrative accusation pertains to the care and treatment of Mrs. Henry Good. Mrs. Good was also identified in the hearing as Gladys Good. Mrs. Good went to Dr. Ford's office for the purpose of being treated by a Dr. Foley who had semi-retired at the time she went for treatment. The purpose of going to the office was to have a maxillary full denture constructed. Dr. Foley was not working in the office at that time and the patient was seen by Dr. Ford. When she came to the office she had been a denture wearer for a period of 20 years and the last set of dentures had been fabricated 15 years prior to her office visit with Dr. Ford. The Respondent took impressions and asked Mrs. Good to return for a try-in of the actual dentures. The new dentures were painful to Mrs. Good and were difficult to retain, in that they kept falling down in her mouth. Dr. Ford advised her to keep trying to make the dentures work and to wear them day and night. At some point an argument ensued between Dr. Ford and the patient, Mrs. Good, at which point Dr. Ford explained to the patient that if she could not rely on his instructions and what he told her about the problem, then he would no longer treat her. The patient then demanded that her money be reimbursed and Dr. Ford refused and the patient did not return. Petitioner's Exhibits 14 and 15 are receipts given to Mrs. Good for the payment that she gave to Dr. Ford for the treatment. The dentures in question may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 16, admitted into evidence. Mrs. Good tried to wear the dentures after leaving the care of Dr. Ford, but the dentures kept falling down. Finally, Mrs. Good made a complaint to the Broward County Dental Association and was eventually referred to the Petitioner for purposes of investigating her complaint. One of the aspects of the investigation of the complaint was to have other dentists review the history of the complaint, together with an inspection of the dentures and an examination of the patient. One of the doctors involved in the examination of Mrs. Good, for the benefit of Petitioner, was Dr. Mervyn J. Dixon, D.D.S. Dr. Dixon is a dentist licensed with the State of Florida and is a member of the Broward County Dental Association, the Atlantic Coast Dental Society, the Florida State Dental Society, the American Dental Association, the Academy of General Practitioners, and the Broward Research Clinic. He is also Secretary-Treasurer of the Broward County Dental Association. His knowledge and experience in the field of prosthetics began with four months practice while in the armed services. He is a member of the Prosthetics Section of the Research Group in Palm Beach County, Florida, which meets once a month and does only prosthetics. Dr. Dixon has also been involved in the administration of the Petitioner's State Board Exams, specifically, checking the setups in the portion of the examination dealing with prosthetics. This function was preformed in the summer of 1977. After his initial practice in the armed services he has continued to work in the field of prosthetics. His total experience in the construction of prosthetic appliances would number at least 1,000. Finally, Dr. Dixon is also an assistant Secretary- Treasurer for the Florida State Board of Dental Examiners of the State Board of Dentistry. Dr. Dixon saw Mrs. Good on March 16, 1977. Her complaint to him was that the upper denture would not stay up and that the denture was too big. Dr. Dixon reviewed the condition of the maxillary denture, which is Petitioner's Exhibit 16. One of the aspects of the examination, was to have the patient try the dentures in her mouth. When he observed the dentures in her mouth he found that they would not stay up, except when the patient bit down and held the dentures in position against the lower partial and lower natural dentition. When she opened the mandibular portion of her mouth the upper denture would fall down. The peripheral or outer border of the denture which had been fabricated by Dr. Ford was over extended in the canine area, to the extent that when you pushed up there was resistence or the denture would drop back down. The over extension was approximately 5 millimeters beyond where the roll of the sulcus is found. This caused an elastic reaction when he tried to push the tissue up. (This reaction is similar to the elasticity found in a rubber band.) A contraction then takes place and the dentures come down. The post-dam was not adequate the post-dam being an excessive acrylic in the posterior part of the denture. This caused a problem with retention. Dr. Dixon felt that the denture did not meet minimum acceptable standards of the community for prosthetic devices. In view of the observations by Dr. Dixon and the complaints by Mrs. Good, the Petitioner charged the Respondent with a number of violations which were reflected in the Issues section of this recommended order. Several of those provisions are set forth in Section 466.24(3)(a), (c) and (d), F.S. The language of those sections states the following: "Suspension or revocation of license certi- ficate for cause. - The Board shall suspend or revoke the license of any dentist or dental hygienist when it establishes to its satisfaction that he: * * * (3) has been guilty of: (a) misconduct either in his business or in his personal affairs which would bring discredit upon the dental profession; * * * malpractice; willful negligence in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene" An examination of the facts in the case of Mrs. Good establishes misconduct in Dr. Ford's business that would bring discredit upon the dental profession. The facts spoken of include the fabrication of the highly unacceptable maxillary dentures and the insistance that the patient be required to accept them, and the further insistance that the patient be dismissed because of her unwillingness to accept the dentures. The same facts of Mrs. Good's case are so flagrant, that it would constitute malpractice within the meaning of Chapter 466, F.S. The act of constructing an inferior maxillary denture and causing the patient to wear that denture, in opposition to constructing a serviceable denture, constitutes willful neglect in the practice of dentistry as described in Section 466.24(3)(d), F.S. In count number eight of the accusation, the Respondent is charged with being grossly incompetent in violation of Section 466.24(2), F.S. This provision states: "Suspension or revocation of license certi- ficate of cause. - The Board shall suspend or revoke the license of any dentist or dental hygienist when it is established to its satisfaction that he: * * * (2) is grossly ignorant or incompetent" The treatment that Dr. Ford gave Mrs. Good constitutes gross incompetence, by the nature of the construction of the dentures themselves, and the insistance that those dentures be utilized by the patient. Count two of the administrative accusation pertains to the same statutory allegations as set forth in the case of Mrs. Good. This count deals with Yolande Breckley, for whom Dr. Ford constructed a prosthetic appliance: A maxillary full denture. Mrs. Breckley was a patient who had insisted that she needed to have her natural dentition removed and a prosthetic appliance substituted. To effect this end, she requested a Dr. King to remove the teeth and Dr. Ford was to make the denture. Her natural teeth were removed and Dr. Ford made a maxillary denture. Dr. Ford had questioned her decision to remove her natural teeth and had also indicated that the initial maxillary denture, i.e., prosthetic appliance might not function properly. Mrs. Breckley picked up the Ford dentures in an envelope and had those fitted by Dr. King. She was to return to Dr. Ford for further fittings. These dentures that Dr. Ford had made hurt her in the anterior area and in her lip. The latter area was discolored, "black and blue." She told Dr. Ford that the denture was painful. This conversation was held about a week after Dr. King had fitted the denture. She described the pain as being like a toothache. She could not eat with the dentures. The dentures did not match up well with her lower teeth. It was necessary that she remain on a soft diet. Two or three weeks after this, Dr. Ford relined the dentures and she then asked Dr. Ford for a new set of dentures. Where ensued a series of office visits in which every several weeks she would try to have Dr. Ford make an adjustment. The total time was approximately six months. Mrs. Breckley had paid Dr. Ford for the dentures as evidenced by Petitioner's Exhibit 8, admitted into evidence. Subsequent to that six month period, a second set of dentures were made by a Dr. Foley, who is in Dr. Ford's office, but who is not responsible to Dr. Ford. There was no charge for these dentures. They were made while Dr. Ford was on vacation. These dentures were unacceptable and a third set was made by Dr. Ford for which he charged the price of $100.00 and an additional $31.00 for two relines. This is reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit 9, admitted into evidence. This third set of dentures also gave the patient pain and she complained about the pain to Dr. Ford. Dr. Ford tried to persuade the patient that something was wrong with her, not the teeth, suggesting that the condition was perhaps psychosomatic. There were many visits to try to adjust the third set of dentures, and paste was placed on the dentures and they were ground. During the course of this treatment for the latter set of dentures, Mrs. Breckley went to Canada and was seen by a dentist who worked with the dentures. Eventually there was some falling out between Dr. Ford and Mrs. Breckley and Dr. Ford told her he did not wish to see her face again. In result of her confrontation with Dr. Ford, she wrote a letter of complaint which brought about the current accusation. The patient has seen three dentists after seeing Dr. Ford. The patient is still experiencing difficulty with the new set of dentures she now has, and has to have those dentures relined. In investigating the complaint Dr. Dixon saw Yolande Breckley. He saw the patient on December 13, 1976. She related the history that Dr. Ford had constructed two sets of dentures. The first of the two was delivered in July, 1975. When Dr. Dixon saw the patient she was wearing a new upper denture that was constructed by Dr. Burch. She also had the two sets of dentures that Dr. Ford had prepared and Dr. Dixon attempted to try these dentures in her mouth. The patient placed the dentures in her mouth, but when she opened her mouth the dentures fell down. This refers to the maxillary dentures that had been constructed by Dr. Ford. He also observed a very sharp boney ridge with much pendulous tissue in the maxila. This is felt to have occurred because of abnormal bone resorption, which occurred after the extractions of the upper teeth, leaving boney ridges leading to the ensuing pendulous tissue. This made it extremely difficult to get the denture stable because it would shake like "jello." This would cause the dentures to slip and slide. Dr. Dixon feels that he would not have attempted to make dentures until such time the patient had been referred to an oral surgeon to have some of the tissue trimed and the boney ridges smoothed down. This type of difficulty was easily observable by the treating dentist. In addition the lower rehabilitation work had been done in such a way that the cuspation of the teeth and of the crowns and bridges was about 20 percent and therefore similar to the remaining natural dentition in the mandibular area. The upper appliance was flatplane; therefore, the inner digitation of the cusp was deficient, causing problems with chewing. In summary, Dr. Dixon felt that the condition of the patient was one which it would be difficult to treat and oral surgery seemed indicated before trying to make the dentures. The dentures that Dr. Ford had made were felt to be below minimum standards because they could not be retained. Measured against the allegations, Dr. Ford's treatment of Mrs. Breckley shows gross incompetence within the meaning of Section 466.24(2), F.S., due to his failure to recommend surgical intervention. This would also constitute misconduct in his business, which would bring discredit upon the dental profession. In addition, the poor construction of the dentures would tend to discredit the dental profession. Furthermore, this conduct constitutes malpractice and willful negligence in the practice of dentistry. The subsequent findings establish violations of Section 466.24(a), (c) and (d), F.S. The third count of the accusation pertains to the same statutory allegations found in the first and second counts. The treatment involved Jacob Klapper who received a prosthetic appliance, namely full maxillary and mandibular dentures. Mr. Klapper did not give testimony in the hearing and the description of his case was given by the Respondent and Dr. Dixon. Mr. Klapper was a man of considerable age, who was terminally ill at the time that Dr. Ford saw him in August, 1976. Mr. Klapper had been wearing a full upper denture for 22 years prior to that time. His principal complaint to Dr. Dixon was that Dr. Ford had relined the upper dentures, but he still had looseness and that Dr. Ford had instructed the patient to wear those dentures until they welt in the patient's mouth. Dr. Dixon noted that Mr. Klapper had an extremely poor lower ridge and the centric relation was not correct, in that the mandible or the condyle of the mandible was not in the most superior position in the fossa. This means the position in which all teeth touch simultaneously. After achieving the centric position with the patient, the teeth did not make very acceptable contact. The molars did not contact at all. These dentures prepared by Dr. Ford had over extensions in the set, particularly in the retromolar pad and the mylohyoid ridge. There was a reverse curve of spee. The patient also complained to Dr. Dixon that Dr. Ford had a lack of compassion and that Dr. Ford had instructed him to insert the dentures in the restroom and leave before seeing how the dentures looked. Dr. Dixon did not feel that the dentures met the minimum standards of the community, in fact the dentures would not stay in the patient's mouth and there were some very sore areas in the patient's mouth evidenced by the redness in the tissue when the dentures were inserted. Furthermore, the over extensions of the lower and retromolar pad and mylohyoid area contributed to the fact that the dentures could not be retained. Every time the patient opened his mouth the lower denture jumped up. Dr. Ford claimed that the patient got angry in his office which led to their disagreement and the patient's not coming back. Dr. Ford stated that the patient wrote a threating letter which is Respondent's Exhibit 2. This letter had been addressed to Dr. Foley, the other dentist in the office. Dr. Ford also stated that he had prepared two sets of dentures for Mr. Klapper and questioned which dentures Dr. Dixon's testimony referred to. The dentures which Dr. Dixon had examined from Mr. Klapper were not presented in the hearing. There is therefore, some conflict on the question of which dentures that had been fabricated by Dr. Ford were at issue. In view of Mr. Klapper's non-attendance at the hearing it is hard to tell what really transpired between the Respondent and he, concerning any misunderstanding about the trying of the dentures. No matter which dentures Dr. Dixon looked at, those dentures which had been fabricated for Mr. Klapper demonstrated gross incompetence on the part of Dr. Ford, within the meaning of Section 466.24(2), F.S. There has been insufficient showing to demonstrate that Dr. Ford was guilty of misconduct in his business, such to bring discredit upon the dental profession or guilty of malpractice or guilty of willful negligence in the practice of dentistry while involved with the patient Mr. Klapper, all within the meaning of Section 466.24(3), F.S. The fourth count in this cause concerns the treatment and care of Robert R. Whittaker. Again this count has the same violations alleged for the other patients in this case. The dispute arose over the preparation of full maxillary and mandibular dentures. Robert Whittaker was first seen by Dr. Ford on November 9, 1976. He went there to have a full upper and lower set of dentures constructed. He had been wearing full upper and lower dentures for 20 years. When Dr. Ford looked at the patient's mouth he stated that the dentures that Whittaker was wearing needed replacing. Whittaker requested that the dentures be made in the same style and color as the old dentures. The fee for this work was $220.00. Impressions were taken and try-ins were made on November 15, 17 and 19, 1976. The actual dentures were received on November 23, 1976. The dentures, according to Whittaker, did not fit in that the rails were too high. At first the dentures would not fit his gums and Ford told his assistant to have them altered. They were altered and the dentures were returned to the patient, but they still did not feel right and were sore in the upper quadrant. Dr. Ford made no further attempt at that time to correct the dentures and told Mr. Whittaker to take them home and try to eat and get used to them. Mr. Whittaker went home and wore the dentures but still experienced a great deal of pain and could not eat with the dentures, because they slid around in his mouth both in the upper and lower, but mostly in the upper. The patient went back to Dr. Ford approximately November 29, 1976 because of the continued discomfort. Dr. Ford's assistant got mad at the patient when she saw that he wasn't wearing the dentures. Dr. Ford came in and the patient complained to him that the dentures hurt, were the wrong style, and protruded. In that regard, Petitioner's Exhibit 19, admitted into evidence, is a depiction of the prior dentures and those that were prepared by Dr. Ford, and the photograph clearly shows that the dentures prepared by Dr. Ford did protrude. In addition, the prior dentures had not given the patient any problem and did not protrude. Dr. Ford then tried the dentures he made in the patient's mouth and told the patient he would have to pay another $220.00 if he wanted additional dentures made. The patient told Dr. Ford that he would have to consider legal action and that was the last time he saw Dr. Ford. The dentures themselves may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 5, admitted into evidence. The checks for payment are Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 7, admitted into evidence. Dr. Dixon saw Mr. Whittaker on December 8, 1976. At that time Mr. Whittaker was wearing the old dentures which had been constructed 12 years prior to that time. He complained of Dr. Ford's dentures and said that the dentures hurt especially in the upper right quadrant, and that he could not eat and that the dentures were loose. Dr. Dixon's clinical observations were that the vertical dimension of the new dentures was increased by 5 millimeters, which is too much of an increase for a single increment of change in the dentures. When the patient was placed in centric he was a half tooth forward. The periphery of the dentures constructed by Dr. Ford is over extended. In the retromolar pad area, there was a tendency for the teeth to pop up when the teeth were opened. These teeth were also over extended in the maxillary area and the mylohyoid. There was a poor retention of both the upper and lower dentures. The upper and lower dentures were mismatched in terms of their dimensions. This caused an inefficiency in the utilization of the teeth. In Dr. Dixon's mind this construction violated the minimum acceptable standards of the profession. In review of the testimony concerning Dr. Ford's care and treatment of Mr. Whittaker, that testimony demonstrates that the construction of the dentures indicated gross incompetence on the part of Dr. Ford within the meaning of Section 466.24(2), F.S. The act of the poor construction and the attempt to charge further for a second set of dentures is misconduct in his business, by Dr. Ford, which would bring discredit upon the dental profession and constitutes malpractice, all within the meaning of Section 466.24(3)(a) and (c), F.S. The facts do not demonstrate any willful negligence in Dr. Ford's care and treatment of Mr. Whittaker, as defined in Section 466.24(3)(d), F.S. Count number five of the accusation, involves the patient Violet B. Arnst and contains the same allegations found in prior counts. Mrs. Arnst had Dr. Ford prepare a prosthetic appliance, a full maxillary and mandibular denture. Mrs. Arnst had been seen by Dr. Foley, the working associate of Dr. Ford, a number of years before her visit to Dr. Ford. She called to make an appointment with Dr. Foley but was told that he only came in when Dr. Ford was out. Therefore she was seen by Dr. Ford in July or August, 1975. Dr. Ford told the patient that her lower teeth were receding and that she needed a lower set of dentures for that reason and that the more appropriate approach was to make an upper and lower set of dentures. She paid Dr. Ford $200.00 for the services of fabricating prosthetic appliances; maxillary and mandibular. This is verified by Petitioner's Exhibits 10 and 11 which are the cancelled checks for the services. When she went to pick up the teeth and try them on she told Dr. Ford that the teeth did not look right or feel right and that she could not see her teeth when she smiled. This is borne out by Petitioner's Exhibit 18, which was admitted into evidence and is a series of photographs showing the dentures that were prepared by Dr. Foley prior to the dentures prepared by Dr. Ford, as compared to the Ford dentures. It can be seen in the photographs that the Foley dentures allow a smile line, in that the maxillary dentures are showing, whereas in the Ford dentures the maxillary dentures are completely covered by her upper lip. Mrs. Arnst had another initial complaint that the teeth hurt her in the gum area and the gums felt sore when she tried to bite. The dentures were also loose and she could not eat with them. She continued to see Dr. Ford after the initial try-ins and Dr. Ford advised that she was impatient and would have to become accustomed to wearing the dentures. She saw Dr. Ford for five or six times and returned two weeks after the dentures were prepared and said that the dentures still hurt and didn't look right. The last time Mrs. Arnst saw Dr. Ford, Dr. Ford told her to make an appointment for a reline of the dentures and then became angry with the patient and told his office personnel that he did not want to see Mrs. Arnst again. Mrs. Arnst then wrote a letter to Dr. Foley complaining of the situation with Dr. Ford and also wrote a complaint letter to the authorities who regulate Dr. Ford's practice of dentistry. Petitioner's Exhibit 3, admitted into evidence are the dentures made by Dr. Ford which are the subject of discussion. At present the patient is using the dentures prepared by Dr. Foley, which are those prepared immediately before Dr. Ford's. This patient was also seen by Dr. Dixon in the investigative phases of the accusation. Dr. Dixon found that the patient was a person approximately 65 years old who had been wearing full dentures since the age of 16. Dr. Dixon found that the patient had a moderate lower ridge, and still had bone left and for that reason he found her to be an ideal denture patient. Dr. Dixon also noted that there were no second molars on the dentures that were fabricated by Dr. Ford, although there were second molars fabricated by Dr. Foley. From Dr. Dixon's point of view he felt that there was sufficient room to have accommodated the second molars especially on the right side, when Dr. Ford prepared the new set of dentures. Because of the missing second molars this cut down on the efficiency of the utilization of the dentures because there was a lesser number of posterior teeth. These teeth are used for purposes of grinding. He found that the lower molars were not over the crest of the ridge, meaning the highest point of the lower boney ridge. This caused unnecessary tipping and upsetting of the denture when going through the occlusal pattern of chewing. Dr. Dixon also observed a three millimeter buckle to buckle difference in the width of the original upper denture prepared by Dr. Foley and that prepared by Dr. Ford. The buckle to buckle dimension is the outside dimension, that is to say cheek to cheek cuspation of the molars. The retention of the upper dentures prepared by Dr. Foley was fair, but there was no retention of the lower denture in the patient Mrs. Arnst. Dr. Dixon found that the post-dam was fair to poor. He also noted that there was a reverse curve of spee, meaning that gentle slopping curve in the second molar down to the cuspid, that conforms to the curvature of the fossa in the temporal-mandibular joint. This reverse curve caused a lack of continuous contact or occlusion of the teeth. Dr. Dixon also noted that the "smile line" was extremely poor. He, in fact, prepared the photographs which have been referred to before. In Dr. Dixon's opinion the maxillary dentures were set too far up toward the nose or maxila to show. Dr. Dixon felt that Dr. Ford should have seen the problem of the "smile line" at the time the teeth were tried in. In summary, Dr. Dixon felt that both the maxillary and mandibular dentures in the patient Violet Arnst would not meet minimum acceptable standards of the dental profession, due to the lack of retention and due to the fact that the lower teeth are not over the crest of the ridge. In Dr. Dixon's opinion this caused an inability in the patient to chew her food. The patient Violet Arnst was also seen by Dr. Richard A. Saul, D.D.S. Dr. Saul is licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida and has been so licensed since 1956. He is a member of the American Dental Association, Florida Dental Association, and the Broward County Dental Association. He has practiced dentistry continuously since his graduation in 1956. Dr. Saul sees approximately 50 to 60 appointments a week. Dr. Saul has continued to take courses in prosthetics since his graduation and in his practice Dr. Saul repairs full or partial dentures. In examining Violet Arnst, he agreed with Dr. Dixon that the chief complaint of the patient was one of aesthetics. He found that the upper anteriors did not show in her mouth, because the lip covered them. This is referring to the teeth that were prepared by Dr. Ford. He found that the borders of the full upper and lower dentures were over extended. He noted that the lower anterior region had a knife like ridge and when he palpated the patient, this caused a great deal of pain to her. In his opinion the patient's situation could have been better treated had the lower ridge been flattened out, removing the knife like appearance of the bone. The over extension of the dentures into the musculature was believed to cause ultimate dislodgement of the dentures. Dr. Saul noted that only two of four teeth on one side were in centric. He felt that this was inadequate and would cause the dentures to skid, and cause movement of the denture in the patient's mouth. He observed that the patient at his interview was experiencing some pain. Saul did not feel that the dentures constructed by Dr. Ford for the patient Violet Arnst met the minimum standards of the community for acceptable dental practice. This examination of Mrs. Arnst took place on July 22, 1977. Based upon the quality of the construction of the dentures for Mrs. Arnst, and the abrupt dismissal of the patient, Dr. Ford has been guilty of misconduct in his business which would bring discredit upon the dental profession, in violation of Section 466.24(3)(a), F.S. This conduct on the part of Dr. Ford also shows malpractice and willful negligence in the treatment of Mrs. Arnst, as defined in Section 466.24(3)(c) and (d), F.S. Finally, this quality of treatment of Mrs. Arnst constitutes gross incompetence as set forth in Section 466.24(2), F.S. Count number six of the administrative accusation pertains to the patient Joseph Jenkins. This patient was seen by Dr. Ford in August of 1975, based upon the patient's referral by persons who had been treated by the Respondent. It was necessary to make extractions of the natural teeth prior to the preparation of full maxillary and mandibular dentures. These extractions began in August, 1975 and the patient received the teeth in November, 1975. (The extractions were not done by Dr. Ford.) The format of the treatment of the patient by Dr. Ford was to make impressions, then to try-in the teeth; then the actual dentures were given to the patient. The patient observed that the teeth appeared too large and the upper dentures kept falling out. When the patient would take a bite the teeth would "jump up". Dr. Ford told the patient to keep the dentures in his mouth and to line the dentures with denture powder. Additionally, he indicated to the patient that once the gums had "shrunk", and the teeth were relined, they would fit. The patient was not experiencing trouble with the mandibular teeth, his main problem was with the maxillary teeth. The maxillary dentures rubbed against the top of his mouth and caused him to gag. The patient saw Dr. Ford three or four times in December, 1975 and again in January 1976 at which point the dentures were relined. In February, 1976, the lower dentures were relined. During February and after February, 1976 the patient saw Dr. Ford five or six times. In the course of these visits, Dr. Ford would correct the problem of the rubbing dentures. In the course of treatment prescribed by Dr. Ford he told the patient Joseph Jenkins to use sandpaper to relieve the discomfort, but the dentures still did not fit, meaning the maxillary dentures. In March, 1976, the patient's wife tried to get an understanding of the problem from Dr. Ford and Dr. Ford hung the phone up and did not talk to her. At that point the patient ceased to see Dr. Ford and the patient is not wearing any dentures at this point. The dentures in question may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit 17, admitted into evidence. For the total services the patient paid Dr. Ford $560.00. In accordance with the investigation of the accusation the patient was seen by Dr. Dixon on December 8, 1976. At that time the patient was complaining of the poor fit of the maxillary dentures. He did not have a complaint about the mandibular dentures. Dr. Dixon observed that the patient gagged excessively when the dentures were placed in his mouth, to the extent of having to use a local topical anesthetic on the palate to allow the patient to keep the dentures in for a sufficient period of time to be observed. Dr. Dixon observed a poor retention of the maxillary denture, in that it kept falling out while the doctor was trying to examine it. There was no post-dam whatsoever. The maxillary dentures were grossly over extended in the area of the soft palate, about five or six millimeters beyond the vibrating line. This is why the gaging occurred. Dr. Dixon felt that in view of the number of visits that the patient had with Dr. Ford, the problem with the post-dam and the gaging should have been observable by Dr. Ford, and been corrected. In view of the lack of retention, Dr. Dixon did not feel that the dentures met minimum acceptable standards of the community. In addition, Dr. Dixon felt that there was no necessity to have to use denture powder, in view of the fact that the dentures had just been fabricated for the patient, as opposed to having been utilized for a period of five or six years. The use of denture powder was not a good technique in Dr. Dixon's mind because the gum could not receive proper circulation causing a destruction of the tissue and bone. Dr. Dixon also felt that it would be improper for Dr. Ford to prescribe the use of sandpaper to relieve soreness. Dr. Saul examined Joseph Jenkins in July or August, 1976. At that point Mr. Jenkins' complaint to Dr. Saul was that the denture was ill fitting. Dr. Saul observed that the borders of the dentures were grossly over extended, especially in the areas of the soft palate and the patient was found to be complaining and gaging. Dr. Saul noted that the maxillary tended to drop when being used. In Dr. Saul's mind, this extension into the soft palate, made by the maxillary dentures, made it difficult for the patient to speak and eat. In Dr. Saul's opinion the over extension of the dentures caused them to fail to meet the minimum acceptable standards of the dental community. In view of the testimony offered by the investigating dentists, it is clear that Dr. Ford has been guilty of misconduct in his business, such that it would bring discredit to the dental profession, as set out in Section 466.24(3)(a), F.S. This is based upon the poor preparation of the maxillary dentures and the failure to correct that prosthetics over a long period of time of innumberable visits. These facts also establish that Dr. Ford is guilty of malpractice and willful negligence in the treatment of Mr. Jenkins, as prohibited by Section 466.24(3)(c) and (d), F.S. Dr. Ford was also grossly incompetent in the preparation of the Jenkins maxillary dentures, as defined by Section 466.24(2), F.S. Count seven of the administrative accusation pertains to the care and treatment given by Dr. Ford to the patient Edith Wenke. In January, 1976 Mrs. Wenke went to Dr. Ford for the purpose of having him prepare a prosthetic appliance, in this instance, full maxillary and mandibular dentures. The patient had worn dentures for 25 years prior to being seen by Dr. Ford. The initial set of dentures by Dr. Ford were prepared before February 3, 1976. These dentures gave the patient a great deal of pain in the gum area and the teeth were not straight and were somewhat misaligned. Another problem that the patient had with Dr. Ford's dentures was the inability to eat because of pain. She made another appointment with Dr. Ford and complained about the first set of teeth. Dr. Ford told her that she had some problem with a "trick" jaw which caused a difficulty in making the dentures. In fact, the patient did not have the problem with a "trick" jaw. Subsequently, a second set of dentures were prepared by Dr. Ford, these too were uncomfortable, and the patient continued to go back as much as twice a week, to try to rectify the problem. Mrs. Wenke is not certain but there may have been a third set of dentures made and the offering by Dr. Ford to make a fourth set or to give the money back. Whether or not Dr. Ford offered to give the money back after completing two or three sets of teeth is uncertain, but it is established that he did offer to refund the money. The patient thought about the offer of a refund over the course of a weekend and elected to have the money refunded. At that point Dr. Ford said that he had changed his mind and would refund only a portion of the money, namely $100.00. The patient later went to another dentist who told her to put in the dentures she had been wearing prior to seeing Dr. Ford. After that date she has had a new set of dentures prepared by a dentist other than Dr. Ford and has experienced no pain or poor quality prosthesis that was found in the dentures that had been prepared by Dr. Ford. Upon consideration of the testimony of Mrs. Wenke, in view of the general opinions stated by Dr. Saul and Dr. Dixon, it is clear that the dentures prepared for Mrs. Wenke were below community standards as to their construction. The dentures were so substandard as to indicate gross incompetence on the part of Dr. Ford as set forth in Section 466.24(2), F.S. Dr. Ford was also guilty of misconduct in his business which would bring discredit upon the dental profession, by his poor construction of the dentures for Mrs. Wenke and his agreement to make a refund to her, which was unreasonably rescinded. This misconduct was a violation of Section 466.24(3)(a), F.S. Dr. Ford's treatment of Mrs. Wenke also demonstrated malpractice, within the meaning of Section 466.24(3)(c), F.S. There is no indication that this conduct with Mrs. Wenke constituted willful negligence in the practice of dentistry as defined in Section 466.24(3)(b), F.S.
Recommendation Having fully considered the testimony offered by the Petitioner and the Respondent, and being duly apprised of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, it is the recommendation of the undersigned that the Respondent, James A. Ford, D.D.S., have his license to practice dentistry in the State of Florida revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 2516 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 James A. Ford, D.D.S. 1201 Sample Road Pompano Beach, Florida 33064
