The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated the applicable standard of care in the practice of dentistry in violation of section 466.028(1), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed in each of the consolidated cases; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43, and chapters 456 and 466, Florida Statutes. Stipulated Facts Respondent is a licensed dentist in the state of Florida, having been issued license number DN14223 on or about December 1, 1995. Respondent’s address of record is 530 East Howard Street, Live Oak, Florida 32064. Respondent was licensed to practice dentistry in the state of Florida during all times relevant to the administrative complaints underlying this case. Patient T.C. was a patient of Respondent. Patient S.S. was a patient of Respondent. Patient G.H. was a patient of Respondent. Patient J.D. was a patient of Respondent. Patient J.A.D. was a patient of Respondent. Other Findings of Fact On July 23, 2004, Respondent entered into a Stipulation in Department Case No. 2002-25421 to resolve an Administrative Complaint which alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (z). The Stipulation was adopted by a Final Order, dated January 31, 2005, which constitutes a first offense in these cases as to each of the sections cited. On September 21, 2007, the Department issued a Uniform Non-disciplinary Citation for an alleged violation of section 466.028(1)(n), related to the release of patient dental records. The Department offered no evidence of its disposition and, in any event, since these cases do not involve alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(n), the citation is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B5-13.005(1). On January 19, 2017, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in Case No. 2015-10804 for alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (mm). The Department offered no evidence of its disposition of the Administrative Complaint and, as a result, the Administrative Complaint is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under rule 64B5-13.005(1). On January 19, 2017, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in Case No. 2015-23828 for alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (z). The Department offered no evidence of its disposition of the Administrative Complaint and, as a result, the Administrative Complaint is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under rule 64B5-13.005(1). Case No. 19-2898PL - The T.C. Administrative Complaint Patient T.C. was a patient of Respondent from June 14, 2011, to on or about August 12, 2013. During the period in question, Respondent owned Smile Designs, a dental practice with offices in Jacksonville, Lake City, and Live Oak, Florida. The Department, in the T.C. Administrative Complaint, recognized that “Respondent, along with an associate, [Dr. Morris], are . . . licensed dentists known to work at Respondent’s practice.” The Department’s expert witness, Dr. Brotman, was also aware that Dr. Morris practiced with Respondent. Patient T.C. suffered a stroke in 2009. During the period that she was seen by Respondent, she was in “decent health,” though she was on medication for her post-stroke symptoms, which included a slight problem with aphasia, though she was able to communicate. The stroke and the aphasia are neurological issues, not mental health issues. Patient T.C. was accompanied by her husband, L.C. during her visits to Respondent’s practice. He generally waited in the waiting area during Patient T.C.’s procedures though, as will be discussed herein, he was occasionally brought back to the treatment area. L.C. testified that he had never been advised that Patient T.C. experienced a seizure while under Respondent’s care, and had no recollection of having been told that Patient T.C. ever became unresponsive. Patient T.C. died in 2015. Count I Case No. 19-2898PL, Count I, charges Respondent with failing to immediately refer Patient T.C. to a medical professional or advise Patient T.C. to seek follow-up care for the management of what were believed to be seizures while Patient T.C. was in the dental chair. From Patient T.C.’s initial visit on June 14, 2011, through her visit on September 23, 2011, Patient T.C. was seen at Respondent’s practice on five occasions. Respondent testified that the office was aware of Patient T.C.’s history of seizures because the medical history taken at her first visit listed Diazapam, Levetiracetam, Diovan, and Lyrica as medications being taken by Patient T.C., all of which are seizure medications. Nonetheless, the dental records for the four visits prior to September 23, 2011, provide no indication that Patient T.C. suffered any seizure or period of non- responsiveness during those visits. On September 23, 2011, Patient T.C. presented at Smile Designs for final impressions for crowns on teeth 20, 21, 28, and 29. Respondent testified that she was not the treating dentist on that date. Patient T.C. was given topical anesthetics, and her pulse and blood pressure were checked. The treatment notes then provide, in pertinent part, the following: Patient had seizures on the dental chair - may be due to anxiety. Seizures last 2-3 minutes. No longer. After 30 minutes, patient was calm. Able to proceed with dental procedure . . . . During seizures pt. was responsive; she was able to respond to our commands. The medical records substantiate Respondent’s unrebutted testimony that she was not the treating dentist at the September 23, 2011, appointment. The June 14, July 19, and October 7, 2011, treatment notes made by Respondent all start with “Dr. Gerry,” and are in a notably different style and format from the September 23, 2011, treatment notes. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Dr. Morris, and not Respondent, was the treating dentist when Patient T.C. experienced seizures on September 23, 2011. Much of Dr. Brotman’s testimony as to Respondent’s violation of a standard of care was based on his interpretation that, since the September 23, 2011, notes did not specifically identify the treating dentist (as did the other treatment notes described above), the notes must be presumed to be those of the business owner. Neither Dr. Brotman nor the Department established a statutory or regulatory basis for such a presumption and, in any event, the evidence adduced at hearing clearly rebutted any such presumption. Dr. Brotman testified that if another dentist had been identified in the records as having performed the treatment on September 23, 2011, that may have changed his opinion. The evidence established that Dr. Morris performed the treatment on September 23, 2011. Thus, Dr. Brotman’s opinion that Respondent violated the applicable standard of care was effectively countered. The T.C. Administrative Complaint charged Respondent with failing to comply with the applicable standard of care on September 23, 2011. The Department failed to establish that Respondent was the treating dentist on September 23, 2011, and, in fact, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that she was not. Thus, the Department failed to establish that Respondent violated the standard of care for failing to refer Patient T.C. to an appropriate medical professional for her seizures as alleged in Count I of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. Count II Case No. 19-2898PL, Count II, charges Respondent with delegating the task of intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to a person not qualified by training, experience, or licensure to perform such intraoral repair. July 17, 2012 Repair On July 17, 2012, Patient T.C. presented to Respondent because her lower partial denture was broken and the O-ring was out. The device included a female end within Patient T.C.’s jaw, and a male end with a plastic “gasket” on the denture. Respondent testified that the repair of the partial denture was performed outside of Patient T.C.’s mouth. Then, at the next scheduled visit, the treatment plan was for Respondent to “eval/repair partial denture on lower arch.” Respondent offered unrebutted testimony that “Tia of precision attachments” performed no work in Patient T.C.’s mouth. Dr. Brotman testified that, in his opinion, any repair of a precision attachment must be done by placing the attachment in the patient’s mouth to align with the teeth. However, Dr. Brotman did not know what kind of repair was done on July 17, 2012. He indicated that if a gasket or housing is missing, it can be repaired with an acrylic. Dr. Brotman testified that if acrylic was placed in the denture outside of the patient’s mouth, it would not be a violation of Florida law. The Department failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent delegated the task of adjusting or performing an intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to “Tia” or any other unlicensed person on July 17, 2012, as alleged in Count II of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. June 11, 2013 Repair On June 11, 2013, Patient T.C. presented to Respondent for an evaluation of her lower precision partial denture. Patient T.C. complained that the partial denture did not have the metal housing to connect it with the bridges to its sides. Patient T.C. was a “bruxer,” i.e. she ground her teeth, and had worn out the denture’s metal attachment. Respondent evaluated the situation, and decided to attempt a chairside repair or replacement of the denture’s male attachments. If the chairside repair was unsuccessful, a complete new partial denture would have to be prepared by a dental laboratory. Respondent attempted the chairside repair. Respondent testified that she instructed her dental assistant to add acrylic into the slot where the male attachment was to be placed in the denture. There was no evidence of any kind to suggest that the dental assistant then placed the denture into Patient T.C’s mouth. Because too much acrylic was placed in the denture, it became stuck in Patient T.C.’s mouth. Patient T.C. became understandably upset. Her husband, L.C., was brought into the room, Patient T.C. was administered local anesthesia, and the precision partial denture was removed. Respondent’s testimony regarding the incident was generally consistent with her prior written statement offered in evidence. Dr. Brotman testified that making repairs to a precision denture must be performed by a licensed dentist, except for placing acrylic into the denture outside of the patient’s mouth, which may be done by a non-dentist. The evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent’s dental assistant did anything more than place acrylic into the denture outside of Patient T.C.’s mouth. The Department failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent delegated the task of adjusting or performing an intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to her dental assistant on June 11, 2013, as alleged in Count II of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. Case No. 19-2899PL - The S.S. Administrative Complaint Count I Case No. 19-2899PL, Count I, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(m) by: Failing to keep a written record of Patient S.S.’s medical history; and/or Failing to keep an accurate written record of any consent forms signed by Patient S.S. Count II Case No. 19-2899PL, Count II, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30; Failing to adequately diagnose the condition of the roots of tooth 30; Failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 30 during root canal treatment; Failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment; Failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following changes to the tooth’s margins; and/or Failing to adequately assess and correct the crown on tooth 31 when the fit was compromised. On May 15, 2014, Patient S.S. presented to Respondent for a root canal and crown on tooth 30. Upon examination, Respondent advised Patient S.S. that she also needed a root canal and a crown on tooth 31. Patient S.S. denied that she was required to provide her medical history at the May 15, 2014, office visit, or that she was provided with an informed consent form prior to the root canal on tooth 30. Respondent’s records do not include either a medical history or an informed consent form. However, the records, which were offered as a joint exhibit, were not accompanied by a Certificate of Completeness of Patient Records, including the number of pages provided pursuant to Respondent’s investigatory subpoena, as is routine in cases of this sort, and which was provided with the records of the subsequent dentists involved in Patient S.S.’s care. Many of the records offered in these consolidated cases, including Respondent’s licensure file, include the certification attesting to their completeness. The records for Patient S.S. do not. Petitioner elicited no testimony from Respondent establishing the completeness of the records. The records offered were, by appearance, not complete. Respondent indicated that medical history and consent forms were obtained. Entries in the records introduced in evidence indicate “[m]edical history reviewed with patient” or the like. Entries for May 16, 2014, provide that “[c]rown consent explained and signed by patient” and “root canal consent explained and signed by patient.” The record for June 4, 2014, indicates that “[r]oot canal consent form explained to and signed by patient.” Patient S.S. testified that she had no recollection of having filled out a medical history, or of having signed consent forms after having Respondent’s recommended course of treatment explained to her. However, Patient S.S.’s memory was not clear regarding various aspects of her experience with Respondent and with subsequent providers. Much of her testimony was taken from notes she brought to the hearing, and some was even based on what she read in the Administrative Complaint. Her testimony failed to clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent failed to collect her medical history or consent to treatment. Respondent testified that, at the time Patient S.S. was being seen, her office was in the midst of switching its recordkeeping software and converting records to digital format. The new company botched the transition, and by the time the issue was discovered, many of the records being converted to digital format were lost, in whole or in part. Respondent surmised that, to the extent the records were not in her files provided to the Department, that they were affected by the transition. The greater weight of the evidence suggests that medical history and signed consent forms were provided. Given the issues regarding the records as described by Respondent, and given the Department’s failure to produce a certification or other evidence that the records it was relying on to prove the violation were complete, the Department failed to meet its burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent failed to keep a written record of Patient S.S.’s medical history and signed consent forms. Respondent also testified that the office notes were supplemented with handwritten notations made when a patient returned for a subsequent appointment. Several of Patient S.S.’s printed records carried handwritten notes. Respondent testified that those notes were made at some time in 2014 after Patient S.S.’s first office visit up to the time of her last visit, and were based on further discussion with Patient S.S. However, those records, Joint Exhibit 2, pages 1 through 17, bear either a date or a “print” date of March 12, 2015. Dr. Brotman testified that he knew of no software on the market that would allow contemporaneous handwriting on electronic records. Thus, the evidence is compelling that the handwritten notes were made on or after the March 12, 2015, date on which the records were printed, well after Patient S.S.’s last office visit. A root canal involves removing a tooth’s pulp chamber and nerves from the root canals. The root canals are smoothed out and scraped with a file to help find and remove debris. The canals are widened using sequentially larger files to ensure that bacteria and debris is removed. Once the debris is removed, an inert material (such as gutta percha) is placed into the canals. A “core” is placed on top of the gutta percha, and a crown is placed on top of the core. The risk of reinfection from bacteria entering from the bottom of an underfilled tooth is significantly greater than if the tooth is filled to the apex of the root. Patient S.S. returned to Respondent’s office on May 16, 2014, for the root canal on tooth 30 and crown preparations for teeth 30 and 31, which included bite impressions. Temporary crowns were placed. Respondent’s printed clinical notes for May 16, 2014, gave no indication of any obstruction of the canals, providing only the lengths of the two mesial and two distal root canals. Respondent’s hand-written notes for May 16, 2014 (which, as previously explained, could have been made no earlier than March 12, 2015), stated that the canals were “[s]ealed to as far as the canal is open. The roots are calcification.” Dr. Brotman indicated that the x-rays taken on May 15, 2014, showed evidence of calcification of the roots. However, Dr. Brotman convincingly testified that the x-rays taken during the root canal show working-length files extending to near the apices of the roots. Thus, in his opinion, the canals were sufficiently open to allow for the use of liquid materials to soften the tooth, and larger files to create space to allow for the canals to be filled and sealed to their full lengths. His testimony in that regard is credited. Patient S.S. began having pain after the root canal on tooth 30 and communicated this to Respondent. On June 5, 2014, Patient S.S. presented to Respondent to have the crowns seated for teeth 30 and 31. Patient S.S. complained of sensitivity in tooth 31. The temporary crowns were removed, and tooth 31 was seen to have exhibited a change in color. The area was probed, which caused a reaction from Patient S.S. Respondent examined the tooth, and noted the presence of soft dentin. A root canal of tooth 31 was recommended and performed, which included removal of the decay in the tooth’s dentin at the exterior of the tooth. Respondent’s removal of decay changed the shape of tooth 31, and would have changed the fit of the crown, which was made based on the May 16, 2014, impressions. There were no new impressions for a permanent crown taken for tooth 31 after removal of the decayed dentin. Respondent testified that she could simply retrofill the affected area with a flowable composite, which she believed would be sufficient to allow for an acceptable fit without making new bite impressions and ordering a new crown. There was no persuasive evidence that such would meet the relevant standard of performance. Temporary crowns were placed on teeth 30 and 31, and placement of the permanent crowns was postponed until the next appointment. Upon completion of the tooth 31 root canal on June 5, 2014, x-rays were taken of the work completed on teeth 30 and 31. Dr. Brotman testified that the accepted standard of care for root canal therapy is to have the root canal fillings come as close to the apex of the tooth as possible without extending past the apex, generally to within one millimeter, and no more than two millimeters of the apex. His examination of the x-rays taken in conjunction with Respondent’s treatment of Patient S.S. revealed a void in the filling of the middle of the distal canal of tooth 31, an underfill of approximately five millimeters in the mesial canal of tooth 31, an underfill of approximately four millimeters in the distal canal of tooth 30, and an underfill of approximately six millimeters in the two mesial root canals of tooth 30. The x-ray images also revealed remaining decay along the mesiobuccal aspect of the temporary crown placed on tooth 31. His testimony that the x-ray images were sufficiently clear to provide support for his opinions was persuasive, and was supported by the images themselves. A day after the placement of the temporary crowns, they came off while Patient S.S. was having dinner in Gainesville. She was seen by Dr. Abolverdi, a dentist in Gainesville. Dr. Abolverdi cleaned the teeth, took an x-ray, and re-cemented the temporary crowns in place. Patient S.S. next presented to Respondent on June 10, 2014. Both of Patient S.S.’s permanent crowns were seated. The permanent crown for tooth 31 was seated without a new impression or new crown being made. Patient S.S. was subsequently referred by her dentist, Dr. James Powell, to be seen by an endodontist to address the issues she was having with her teeth. She was then seen and treated by Dr. John Sullivan on July 25, 2014, and by Dr. Thomas Currie on July 29, 2014, both of whom were endodontists practicing with St. Johns Endodontics. As to the pain being experienced by Patient S.S., Dr. Sullivan concluded that it was from her masseter muscle, which is consistent with Respondent’s testimony that Patient S.S. was a “bruxer,” meaning that she ground her teeth. Dr. Sullivan also identified an open margin with the tooth 31 crown. His clinical assessment was consistent with the testimony of Dr. Brotman. The evidence was clear and convincing that the defect in the tooth 31 permanent crown was an open margin, and not a “ledge” as stated by Respondent. The evidence was equally clear and convincing that the open margin was the result of performing a “retrofill” of the altered tooth, rather than taking new bite impressions to ensure a correct fit. As a result of the foregoing, Respondent violated the accepted standard of performance by failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following the removal of dentin on June 4, 2014, and by failing to assess and correct the open margin on the tooth 31 crown. Radiographs taken on July 25, 2014, confirmed that canals in teeth 30 and 31 were underfilled, as discussed above, and that there was a canal in tooth 31 that had been missed altogether. On July 29, 2014, Dr. Currie re-treated the root canal for tooth 31, refilled the two previously treated canals, and treated and filled the previously untreated canal in tooth 31. The evidence, though disputed, was nonetheless clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the standard of performance in the root canal procedures for Patient S.S.’s teeth 30 and 31, by failing to adequately diagnose and respond to the condition of the roots of tooth 30; failing to adequately fill the canals of tooth 30 despite being able to insert working-length files beyond the area of calcification to near the apices of the roots; and failing to adequately fill the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment. The Administrative Complaint also alleged that Respondent failed to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30. Case No. 19-2900PL - The G.H. Administrative Complaint Case No. 19-2900PL charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by failing to adequately diagnose issues with the crown on tooth 13 and provide appropriate corrective treatment. On May 15, 2014, Patient G.H. presented to Respondent with a complaint that she had been feeling discomfort on the upper left of her teeth that was increasingly noticeable. Respondent diagnosed the need for a root canal of tooth 13. Patient G.H. agreed to the treatment, and Respondent performed the root canal at this same visit. Patient G.H. also had work done on other teeth to address “minor areas of decay.” On July 7, 2014, Patient G.H.’s permanent crowns were seated onto teeth 8, 9, and 13, and onlay/inlays placed on teeth 12 and 14. On July 29, 2014, Patient G.H. presented to Respondent. Respondent’s records indicate that Patient G.H. complained that when she flossed around tooth 13, she was getting “a funny taste” in her mouth. Patient G.H.’s written complaint and her testimony indicate that she also advised Respondent that her floss was “tearing,” and that she continued to experience “pressure and discomfort” or “some pain.” Respondent denied having been advised of either of those complaints. Respondent flossed the area of concern, and smelled the floss to see if it had a bad smell. Respondent denied smelling anything more than typical mouth odor, with which Patient G.H. vigorously disagreed. Respondent took a radiograph of teeth 11 through 15, which included tooth 13 and the crown. The evidence is persuasive that the radiograph image revealed that the margin between tooth 13 and the crown was open. An open margin can act as a trap for food particles, and significantly increases the risk for recurrent decay in the tooth. Respondent adjusted the crown on tooth 9, but advised Patient G.H. that there was nothing wrong with the crown on tooth 13. She offered to prescribe a rinse for the smell, but generally told Patient G.H. that there were no complications. Patient G.H. began to cry and, when Respondent left the room, got up from the chair and left the office. Respondent indicated in her testimony that she would have performed additional investigation had Patient G.H. not left. The contemporaneous records do not substantiate that testimony. Furthermore, Respondent did not contact Patient G.H. to discuss further treatment after having had a full opportunity to review the radiograph image. On March 10, 2015, after her newly-active dental insurance allowed her to see a different in-network provider, Patient G.H. sought a second opinion from Dr. Ada Y. Parra, a dentist at Premier Dental in Gainesville, Florida. Dr. Parra identified an open distal margin at tooth 13 with an overhang. Dr. Parra recommended that Patient G.H. return to Respondent’s practice before further work by Premier Dental. Patient G.H. called Respondent’s office for an appointment, and was scheduled to see Dr. Lindsay Kulczynski, who was practicing as a dentist in Respondent’s Lake City, Florida, office. Patient G.H. was seen by Dr. Kulczynski on March 19, 2015. Upon examination, Dr. Kulczynski agreed that the crown for tooth 13 “must be redone” due to, among other defects, “[d]istal lingual over hang [and] open margin.” The open margin was consistent with Patient G.H.’s earlier complaints of discomfort, floss tearing, and bad odor coming from that tooth. The evidence was persuasive that further treatment of Patient G.H. was not authorized by Respondent after the appointment with Dr. Kulczynski. Dr. Brotman credibly testified that the standard of care in crown placement allows for a space between the tooth and the crown of between 30 and 60 microns. Dr. Brotman was able to clearly identify the open margin on the radiograph taken during Patient G.H.’s July 29, 2014, appointment, and credibly testified that the space was closer to 3,000 microns than the 30 to 60 microns range acceptable under the standard of performance. His testimony is accepted. An open margin of this size is below the minimum standard of performance. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent fell below the applicable standard of performance in her treatment of Patient G.H., by seating a crown containing an open margin and by failing to perform appropriate corrective treatment after having sufficient evidence of the deficiencies. Case No. 19-2901PL - The J.D. Amended Administrative Complaint Case No. 19-2901PL charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations; Failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing an implant in the area of tooth 14; Failing to appropriately place the implant by attempting to place it into a curved root, which could not accommodate the implant; Failing to react appropriately to the sinking implant by trying to twist off the carrier instead of following the technique outlined in the implant’s manual; and/or Paying, or having paid on her behalf, an indemnity in the amount of $75,000 as a result of negligent conduct in her treatment of Patient J.D. Patient J.D. first presented to Respondent on June 28, 2014. At the time, Respondent was practicing with Dr. Jacobs, who owned the practice. Patient J.D. had been a patient of Dr. Jacobs for some time. Respondent examined Patient J.D. and discovered problems with tooth 14. Tooth 14 and tooth 15 appeared to have slid into the space occupied by a previously extracted tooth. As a result, tooth 14 was tipped and the root curved from moving into the space. Tooth 14 had been filled by Dr. Jacobs. However, by the time Respondent examined it, the tooth was not restorable, and exhibited 60 percent bone loss and class II (two millimeters of movement) mobility. Respondent discussed the issue with Patient J.D., and recommended extraction of the two teeth and replacement with a dental implant. Patient J.D. consented to the procedure and executed consent forms supplied and maintained by Dr. Jacobs. The teeth at issue were in the upper jaw. The upper jaw consists of softer bone than the lower jaw, is more vascular, and includes the floor of the nose and sinuses. The periapical radiographs taken of Patient J.D. showed that he had a “draped sinus,” described by Respondent as being where “the tooth is basically draped around the sinuses. It’s almost like they’re kind of one.” Prior to Patient J.D., Respondent had never placed an implant in a patient with a draped sinus. The x-rays also indicated that, as a result of the previous extraction of teeth and the subsequent movement of the remaining teeth, the roots of tooth 14 were tipped and curved. The evidence was persuasive that Respondent did not fail to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, the extent of available bone support, and the configuration of the roots. Dr. Kinzler testified credibly that the pneumatized/draped sinus, the 60 percent bone loss around tooth 14, and the tipped and curved roots each constituted pre- operative red flags. Respondent extracted teeth 14 and 15. When she extracted the teeth, she observed four walls. She was also able to directly observe the floor of the sinus. She estimated the depth of the socket to be 12 millimeters. Sinus penetration is a potential complication of implant placement. Being able to see the sinus floor was an additional complicating factor for implant placement. Dr. Kinzler credibly testified that if Respondent was going to place an implant of the size she chose (see below), then the standard of care required her to first do a sinus lift before placing the implant. A sinus lift involves physically lifting the floor of a patient’s sinus. Once the sinus has been lifted, material typically consisting of granulated cortical bone is placed into the space created. Eventually, the bone forms a platform for new bone to form, into which an implant can be inserted. The evidence established that the standard of care for bone replacement materials is to place the material into the space, close the incision, and allow natural bone to form and ultimately provide a stable structure to affix an implant. The implant may then be mechanically affixed to the bone, and then biologically osseointegrate with the bone. In order to seal off Patient J.D.’s sinus, Respondent used Bond Bone, which she described as a fast-setting putty-like material that is designed to protect the floor of the sinus and provide a scaffold for bone to grow into. She did not use cortical bone, described as “silly sand,” to fill the space and provide separation from the sinus because she indicated that it can displace and get lost. Respondent’s goal was to place the implant so that it would extend just short of the Bond Bone and Patient J.D.’s sinus. She also intended to angle the implant towards the palate, where there was more available bone. Bond Bone and similar materials are relatively recent innovations. Dr. Fish was encouraged by the possibilities of the use of such materials, though he was not familiar with the Bond Bone brand. The evidence was clear and convincing that, although Bond Bone can set in a short period, and shows promise as an effective medium, it does not currently meet minimum standards of performance for bone replacement necessary for placement and immediate support of an implant. Bond Bone only decreases the depth of the socket. It does not raise the floor of the sinus. As such, the standard practice would be to use a shorter implant, or perform a sinus lift. Respondent was provided with an implant supplied by Dr. Jacobs. She had not previously used the type of implant provided. The implant was a tapered screw vent, 4.7 millimeters in diameter, tapering to 4.1 millimeters at the tip with a length of 11.5 millimeters. Respondent met with and received information from the manufacturer’s representative. She used a 3.2 millimeter drill to shape the hole, as the socket was already large enough for the implant. The 3.2 millimeter drill was not evidence that the receiving socket was 3.2 millimeters in diameter. Respondent then inserted the implant and its carrier apparatus into the hole. The implant did not follow the root, and had little bone on which to affix. The initial post-placement periapical radiograph showed “placement was not correct.” Despite Respondent’s intent, the implant was not angled, but was nearly vertical, in contrast with the angulation of the socket which was tipped at least 30 degrees. Given the amount of bone loss, and the other risk factors described herein, the risk of a sinus perforation, either by having the implant extend through the root opening or by a lateral perforation through one of the sides of the socket, was substantial. After adjusting the implant, Respondent went to remove the carrier. The carrier would not release, and the pressure exerted caused the implant to loosen and begin to sink through the Bond Bone. Dr. Kinzler testified credibly that, because of the mechanics of the implant used, had it been surrounded by bone, it would not have been possible for the implant to become loose. In his opinion, which is credited, the loosening of the implant was the result of the lack of bone to hold it in place. Respondent was so intent on removing the carrier that she was not paying attention to the implant. As a result, she screwed the implant through the Bond Bone and into Patient J.D.’s sinus. By the time she realized her error, the implant had sunk in to the point it was not readily retrievable. She was hesitant to reaffix the carrier “because [she] knew [she] had no support from the bone, that it was just a matter of air.” Nonetheless, she “stuck the carrier back in, but it would not go back in.” She then turned to get forceps or a hemostat but, by that time, the implant was irretrievably into Patient J.D.’s sinus. At the hearing, Respondent testified that she could have retrieved the implant but for Patient J.D. doing a “negative pressure sneeze” when the implant was already into the sinus. At that point, she stated that the implant disappeared into Patient J.D.’s sinus, where it can be seen in Petitioner’s Exhibit 9, page 35. There is nothing in Respondent’s dental records about Patient J.D. having sneezed. Respondent further testified that Patient J.D. “was very jovial about it,” and that everyone in the office laughed about the situation, and joked about “the sneeze implant.” That the patient would be “jovial” about an implant having been screwed into his sinus, resulting in a referral to an oral surgeon, and that there was office-wide joking about the incident is simply not credible, particularly in light of the complete absence of any contemporaneous records of such a seemingly critical element of the incident. Respondent believed that the implant must have been defective for her to have experienced the problem with removing the carrier, though her testimony in that regard was entirely speculative. There is no competent, substantial, or persuasive evidence to support a finding that the implant was defective. After determining that the implant was in Patient J.D.’s sinus, Respondent informed Patient J.D. of the issue, gave him a referral to an oral surgeon, prescribed antibiotics, and gave Patient J.D. her cell phone number. Each of those acts was appropriate. On July 29, 2014, an oral surgeon surgically removed the implant from Patient J.D.’s sinus. Patient J.D. sued Respondent for medical malpractice. The suit was settled, with the outcome including a $75,000.00 indemnity paid by Respondent’s insurer on her behalf. The Office of Insurance Regulation’s Medical Malpractice Closed Claims Report provides that the suit’s allegations were based on “improper dental care and treatment.” The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance prior to the procedure at issue by failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations prior to the procedure. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance by failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing the implant in the area of tooth 14, and by placing the implant into a curved root which could not accommodate the implant. The placement of Bond Bone was not adequate to address these issues. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the standard of care by failing to pay attention while trying to twist off the carrier and by failing to appropriately react to the sinking implant. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent paid, or had paid on her behalf, an indemnity of $75,000 for negligent conduct during treatment of Patient J.D. The perforation of Patient J.D.’s sinus was not, in itself, a violation of the standard of care. In that regard, Dr. Kinzler indicated that he had perforated a sinus while placing an implant. It was, however, the totality of the circumstances regarding the process of placing Patient J.D.’s implant that constituted a failure to meet the minimum standards of performance as described herein. Case No. 19-2902PL - The J.A.D. Amended Administrative Complaint Count I Case No. 19-2902PL, Count I, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to take adequate diagnostic imaging prior to placing an implant in the area of Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8; Failing to pick an appropriately-sized implant and placing an implant that was too large; and/or Failing to diagnose and/or respond appropriately to the oral fistula that developed in the area of Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8. Count II Case No. 19-2902PL, Count II, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(m) by: Failing to document examination results showing Patient J.A.D. had an infection; Failing to document the model or serial number of the implant she placed; and/or Failing to document the results of Respondent’s bone examination. Patient J.A.D. first presented to Respondent on March 3, 2016. His first appointment included a health history, full x-rays, and an examination. Patient J.A.D.’s complaint on March 3, 2016, involved a front tooth, tooth 8, which had broken off. He was embarrassed by its appearance, and desired immediate care and attention. Respondent performed an examination of Patient J.A.D., which included exposing a series of radiographs. Based on her examination, Respondent made the following relevant diagnoses in the clinical portion of her records: caries (decay) affecting tooth 7, gross caries affecting fractured tooth 8, and caries affecting tooth 9. Patient J.A.D. was missing quite a few of his back teeth. The consent form noted periodontal disease. The evidence is of Patient J.A.D.’s grossly deficient oral hygiene extending over a prolonged period. A consent form signed by Patient J.A.D. indicates that Patient J.A.D. had an “infection.” Respondent indicated that the term indicated both the extensive decay of Patient J.A.D.’s teeth, and a sac of pus that was discovered when tooth 8 was extracted. “Infection” is a broad term in the context of dentistry, and means any bacterial invasion of a tooth or system. The consent form was executed prior to the extraction. Therefore, the term “infection,” which may have accurately described the general condition of Patient J.A.D.’s mouth, could not have included the sac of pus, which was not discovered until the extraction. The sac of pus was not otherwise described with specificity in Respondent’s dental records. A pre-operative radiograph exposed by Respondent showed that tooth 8 had a long, tapering root. Respondent proposed extraction of tooth 8, to be replaced by an immediate implant. The two adjacent teeth were to be treated and crowned, and a temporary bridge placed across the three. Patient J.A.D. consented to this treatment plan. The treatment plan of extracting tooth 8 and preparing the adjacent teeth for crowns was appropriate. Respondent cleanly extracted tooth 8 without fracturing any surrounding bone, and without bone adhering to the tooth. When the tooth came out, it had a small unruptured sac of pus at its tip. Respondent irrigated and curretted the socket, and prescribed antibiotics. Her records indicated that she cleaned to 5 millimeters, although a radiograph made it appear to be a 7 millimeter pocket. She explained that inflammation caused the pocket to appear larger than its actual 5 millimeter size, which she characterized as a “pseudo pocket.” She recorded her activities. The response to the sac of pus was appropriate. Respondent reviewed the earlier radiographs, and performed a physical examination of the dimensions of the extracted tooth 8 to determine the size of the implant to be placed into the socket. Dr. Kinsler and Dr. Fish disagreed as to whether the radiographic images were sufficient to provide adequate information as to the implant to be used. Both relied on their professional background, both applied a reasonable minimum standard of performance, and both were credible. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to take adequate diagnostic imaging prior to placing an implant to replace Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8. Respondent placed an implant into the socket left from tooth 8. The implant was in the buckle cortex, a “notoriously thin” bone feature at the anterior maxilla. The fact that it is thin does not make it pathological, and placement of an implant near a thin layer of bone is not a violation of the standard of performance as long as the implant is, in fact, in the bone. The implant used by Respondent was shorter than the length of tooth 8 and the tooth 8 socket, and did not have a full taper, being more truncated. The evidence of record, including the testimony of Dr. Kinzler, indicates that the length of the implant, though shorter than the tooth it was to replace, was not inappropriate. The evidence of record, including pre-extraction and post-implantation scaled radiographs offered as a demonstrative exhibit, was insufficient to support a finding that the implant diameter was too great for the available socket. Patient J.A.D. felt like the implant was too close to the front of his maxillary bone because it felt like a little bump on the front of his gums. That perception is insufficient to support a finding that the placement of the implant violated a standard of performance. Subsequent x-rays indicated that there was bone surrounding the implant. Clinical observations by Respondent after placement of the implant noted bone on all four walls of the implant. Her testimony is credited. The evidence that the tooth 8 implant was not placed in bone, i.e., that at the time the implant was placed, the implant penetrated the buccal plate and was not supported by bone on all four sides, was not clear and convincing. Respondent’s records document the dimensions and manufacturer of the implant. Implants are delivered with a sticker containing all of the relevant information, including model and serial number, that are routinely affixed to a patient’s dental records. It is important to document the model and serial number of implants. Every implant is different, and having that information can be vital in the case of a recall. Patient J.A.D.’s printed dental records received by the Department from Respondent have the implant size (5.1 x 13 mm) and manufacturer (Implant Direct) noted. The records introduced in evidence by the Department include a page with a sticker affixed, identified by a handwritten notation as being for a “5.1 x 13mm - Implant Direct.” (Pet. Ex. 11, pg. 43 of 83). The accompanying sticker includes information consistent with that required. Dr. Fish testified to seeing a sticker that appears to be the same sticker (“The implant label of 141, it just has the handwritten on there that it should be added.”), though it is described with a deposition exhibit number (page 141 of a CD) that is different from the hearing exhibit number. Dr. Fish indicated the sticker adequately documented the implant information. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the sticker was not in Patient J.A.D.’s records, or that Respondent failed to document the model or serial number of the implant she placed. Later in the day on March 3, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was fitted for a temporary crown, which was placed on the implant and the adjacent two teeth, and Patient J.A.D. was scheduled for a post-operative check. Patient J.A.D. appeared for his post-operative visit on March 10, 2016. He testified that he was having difficulty keeping the temporaries on, and was getting “cut up” because the two outer teeth were sharp and rubbed against his lip and tongue. Respondent noticed that Patient J.A.D. was already wearing a hole in the temporary. Since Patient J.A.D. was missing quite a few of his back teeth, much of his chewing was being done using his front teeth. His temporaries were adjusted and reseated. On March 17, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was seen by Respondent for a post-operative check of the tooth 8 extraction and implant placement. The notes indicated that Patient J.A.D. had broken his arm several days earlier, though the significance of that fact was not explained. He was charted as doing well, and using Fixodent to maintain the temporary in place. The records again noted that Patient J.A.D. had worn a hole in the back of the tooth 9 temporary crown. A follow up was scheduled for final impressions for the permanent crowns. On March 10 and March 17, 2016, Patient J.A.D. complained of a large blister or “zit” that formed over the area above the end of the implant. Patient J.A.D. had no recollection of whether Respondent told him he had an infection. He was prescribed antibiotics. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the “zit” was causally related to the placement of the implant. Patient J.A.D. also testified that the skin above tooth 9 was discolored, and he thought he could almost see metal through the skin above his front teeth. Patient J.A.D. next appeared at Respondent’s office on June 2, 2016, for final impressions. Respondent concluded that the site had not healed enough for the final impression. She made and cemented a new temporary, and set an appointment for the following month for the final impression. Patient J.A.D. did not return to Respondent. On September 28, 2016, Patient J.A.D. presented to the office of Dr. Harold R. Arthur for further treatment. The records for that date indicate that he appeared without his temporary restoration for teeth 7 through 9, stating that he had several at home, but they would not stay on. Dr. Arthur probed a “[s]mall (1.0 x 1.0 mm) red spot in facial keratinized gingiva communicating with implant.” After probing the opening in the gingiva and the “shadow” in the gingiva, he believed it was at the center of the implant body and healing screw. Dr. Arthur’s dental records for Patient J.A.D. over the course of the following year indicate that Dr. Arthur made, remade, and re-cemented temporary crowns for teeth 7, 8, and 9 on a number of occasions, noting at least once that Patient J.A.D. “broke temps” that had been prepared and seated by Dr. Arthur. On December 1, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was reevaluated by Dr. Arthur. He noted the facial soft tissue at the implant was red, with an apparent fistula. A periapical radiograph was “unremarkable.” The temporary crowns, which were loose, were removed, air abraded to remove the cement, and re-cemented in place. Patient J.A.D. was prescribed an antibiotic. He was again seen by Dr. Arthur on December 13, 2016. The temporary on tooth 9 was broken, which was then remade and re-cemented. The fistula was smaller but still present. Patient J.A.D. was seen by Dr. Arthur on February 2, 2017, with the tooth 9 temporary crown fractured again. The fistula was still present. Patient J.A.D. advised that “the bone feels like it’s caving in around where she put that implant.” That statement is accepted not for the truth of the matter asserted, but as evidence that the complaint was first voiced in February 2017. On April 4, 2017, more than a year after the placement of the implant, Patient J.A.D was seen by Dr. Arthur. Dr. Arthur determined that the implant for tooth 8 was “stable and restorable in current position.” The fistula was still present and, after anesthesia, a probe was placed in the fistula where it contacted the implant cover screw. Although Dr. Arthur replaced the implant abutment, he ultimately placed the final crown on the implant placed by Respondent, where it remained at the time of the final hearing. The fact that incidents of Patient J.A.D. breaking and loosening the temporary crowns that occurred with Respondent continued with Dr. Arthur supports a finding that the problems were, more likely than not, the result of stress and overuse of Patient J.A.D.’s front teeth. On October 24, 2016, a series of CBCT radiographs was taken of the implant and its proximity to tooth 7. Dr. Kinzler testified that, in his opinion, the implant was of an appropriate length, but was too large for the socket. Much of his testimony was based on the October 24 radiograph and his examination of the resulting October 29, 2016, report. Although the report indicated that there was minimal bone between the implant and the root of tooth 7, and that the buccal cortex appeared thinned or eroded, those observations are of limited persuasive value as to whether the standard of performance was met almost eight months prior. Patient J.A.D. obviously worked, and overworked, his dental appliances. Without more, the evidence is not clear and convincing that his subsequent and repeated problems, including “thinned or eroded” bone in the buccal cortex, were the result of a violation of the standard of performance in the sizing and placement of the tooth 8 implant by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, enter a Final Order: Dismissing the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 19-2898PL and the Amended Administrative Complaint in Case No. 19-2902PL; With regard to Case No. 19-2899PL: 1) dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint; 2) determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient S.S. by: failing to adequately diagnose the condition of the roots of tooth 30; failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 30 during root canal treatment; failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment; failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following changes to the tooth’s margins; and failing to adequately assess and correct the crown on tooth 31 when the fit was compromised, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; and 3) determining that Respondent did not fail to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient S.S. by failing to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; With regard to Case No. 19-2900PL, determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient G.H. by seating a crown containing an open margin on tooth 13 and failing to adequately diagnose issues with the crown on tooth 13, and by failing to perform appropriate corrective treatment after having sufficient evidence of the deficiencies, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; With regard to Case No. 19-2901PL: 1) determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient J.D. by: failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing an implant in the area of tooth 14; failing to appropriately place the implant by attempting to place it into a curved root which could not accommodate the implant; failing to react appropriately to the sinking implant by trying to twist off the carrier instead of following the technique outlined in the implant’s manual; and paying, or having paid on her behalf, an indemnity in the amount of $75,000 as a result of negligent conduct in her treatment of Patient J.D., as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and 2) determining that Respondent did not fail to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient J.D. by failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations; Suspending Respondent’s license in accordance with rule 64B5-13.005(1)(x) and rule 64B5-13.005(3)(e), to be followed by a period of probation, with appropriate terms of probation to include remedial education in addition to such other terms that the Board believes necessary to ensure Respondent’s practical ability to perform dentistry as authorized by rule 64B5- 13.005(3)(d)2.; Imposing an administrative fine of $10,000; and Requiring reimbursement of costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: George Kellen Brew, Esquire Law Office of George K. Brew Suite 1804 6817 Southpoint Parkway Jacksonville, Florida 32216 (eServed) Kelly Fox, Esquire Department of Health 2585 Merchant’s Row Tallahassee, Florida 32311 (eServed) Octavio Simoes-Ponce, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Chad Wayne Dunn, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Jennifer Wenhold, Interim Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health Bin C-08 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3258 (eServed) Louise Wilhite-St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue At issue in this case are: (1) the Petitioner's standing; (2) the validity of the Respondent's proposed amendment to F.A.C. Rule 21G-8.004(2) (the so- called designation rule), which would designate the Alabama Dental Hygiene Program (ADHP) as a dental hygiene college or school under Section 466.007, Fla. Stat. (1989); and (3) the validity of the Respondent's proposed amendment to Rule 21G-8.004(3) (the so-called criteria rule), which would establish criteria for approval of a dental hygiene college or school under Section 466.007, Fla. Stat. (1989).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, the Florida Dental Hygienist Association, Inc., is a state association whose members are dental hygienists licensed to practice dental hygiene under Chapter 466, Fla. Stat. (1989). The Petitioner contends that the effect of the designation rule will be to allow inadequately educated dental hygienists to sit for examination for licensure in Florida with a resultant dilution of the quality of licensed dental hygienists available to practice dental hygiene in Florida. It is the purpose of the Florida Dental Hygienists Association to insure that the quality of dental hygiene practice is maintained and to insure that the persons licensed as dental hygienists in this state meet minimum education and training requirements. The Challenged Rules The proposed rule under challenge in Case No. 89 designation rule) would amend F.A.C. Rule 21G-8.004(2) by adding the language: The Alabama Dental Hygiene Program sponsored by the Alabama Board of Dental Examiners is determined to be a dental hygiene college or school within the meaning of Section 466.007, F.S., and is hereby approved by the Board. The proposed rule under challenge in Case No. 90 criteria rule) would renumber what is now (3) of F.A.C. Rule 21G-8.004 as (4) and would insert as (3) the new language: Colleges or schools whose program meets the following criteria shall be approved by the Board for the purposes of Section 466.007(2)(b), F.S., upon submission of evidence which establishes compliance with the following requirements: The educational program provides at least 50 hours of formal preclinical training and one year of clinical training which shall include performance of a minimum of 75 prophylaxes. The educational program provides instruction in the following subject areas as they relate to dental hygiene practice. The program shall consist of at least 260 total hours, at least 160 hours of which shall be provided through formal classroom instruction. Students shall be required to successfully complete examinations testing the subject matter presented through formal classroom instruction. Anatomy; Physiology; Biochemistry; General Chemistry; Microbiology; Pathology; Nutrition; Pharmacology; Pain Control; Tooth Morphology; Head, Neck and Oral Anatomy; Oral Embryoloty and Histology; Oral Pathology; Dental Materials; Periodontology; Radiography; Clinical Dental Hygiene (clinical and didactic instruction); Oral Health Education; Community Dental Health; Patient Management; and Medical and Dental Emergencies (including basic life support). Accredited Programs Dental hygiene in Florida is taught in the community college system. There are nine community colleges that have dental hygiene programs, all of which are accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association. Course work requirements for a dental hygiene degree range from 70 to 95 academic credit hours over a two year plus time period. Florida dental hygiene programs require in excess of 70 credit hours (60 credits being the minimum that a student can have in order to receive an associate of arts degree). Typical of the dental hygiene programs are the dental hygiene programs at the Valencia Community College and the Pensacola Junior College Dental Hygiene Program, each of which requires a minimum of 84 credit hours for a degree. The program includes general education and science courses as well as dental hygiene courses. The curriculum is comprehensive and includes general education, basic sciences, and didactic and clinical dental hygiene education. Education by Florida community colleges is offered at a minimum competency level reflected in standardized "curriculum frameworks" for each program. The frameworks establish a standardized guide for development of education programs and are required by state and federal law. The curriculum frameworks are adopted by the State Board of Education. The curriculum framework for dental hygiene education makes clear that it is to meet the standards for accreditation by the Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association. The dental hygiene curriculum frameworks are built on national standards to achieve "leveling," reasonable standardization of education allowing educational credit to be transferred from one school to another. The Accreditation Standards for Dental Hygiene Educational Programs and the Procedures for Evaluation of Dental Hygiene Programs show that dental hygiene education at programs accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation is comprehensive. The Commission on Dental Accreditation requires both didactic and clinical dental hygiene education to: (1) be offered at the college level in post-secondary schools or colleges accredited by a regional accrediting agency recognized by the Counsel on Post-Secondary Accreditation; (2) award an associate or baccalaureate degree; and (3) prepare students to continue their education. Regional accrediting agencies require general and liberal arts education as part of the basic studies for each student. A basic science background in dental hygiene education helps students understand the transmission of diseases, such as AIDS. Liberal arts education helps prepare the dental hygienist for effective patient communication relating to dental hygiene. Neither the curriculum frameworks nor the Commission's accreditation standards for dental hygiene education programs establish the number of hours of formal education for each of the components of the curriculum. Some of these components include the maintenance of patient financial records, the collection of fees, the maintenance of dental office inventory controls, the demonstration of public relations responsibilities, the demonstration of skills on office equipment, and the demonstration of employability skills including job interviews and appropriate job changes. Florida's community college programs must also be accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. This accrediting body requires all vocational programs at the associate level to offer a minimum of 25% of credit hours in general education and liberal arts which can include subjects such as sociology, government, humanities, art history, music appreciation, etc. In some of Florida's programs, liberal arts and general education may comprise as much as 50% of the dental hygiene curriculum. The dental hygiene curriculum requirements in Florida's community colleges go beyond the Commission on Dental Education minimum requirements in terms of the core dental hygiene instruction. In post-secondary academia, the term "college" means an established institution of higher learning; the term "school" means an organized body that leads to a post-secondary degree. A school is usually organized within a college. A "program" is a term of art in academia that means an identified, organized course of study leading to a degree. Programs are offered within academic schools or colleges. In practice, in dental hygiene academia, the terms "dental hygiene college," "dental hygiene school" and "dental hygiene program" are synonymous. The Commission on Dental Accreditation has accredited Florida's nine dental hygiene programs as opposed to the schools in which they reside. The Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association accredits those organized courses of study that lead to a degree in dental hygiene, regardless of whether the course of study is labeled a "dental hygiene college," "dental hygiene school" or "dental hygiene program." The Alabama Dental Hygiene Program The Alabama Dental Hygiene Program (ADHP) is not accredited by, nor does it have status toward accreditation by, the Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association. The Alabama Dental Hygiene Program began in 1959 as a system of non- academic preceptorship training. Under the ADHP, any licensed dentist is approved by the state licensing board to provide on-the-job training in dental hygiene to dental assistants with at least one year experience as a dental assistant. 1/ (Candidates also must be at least 18 years of age and must be a high school graduate.) The sponsoring dentist is responsible for the clinical adequacy and thoroughness of training. The program is administered by the Alabama Board of Dental Examiners, which has final authority over it, in concert with the Alabama Dental Association. A candidate cannot enter the program without sponsorship by a dentist. The Alabama Dental Hygiene Program now is a one year course of study that combines formal classroom education with hands-on clinical training. Participants receive approximately 165 hours of didactic lectures in 2 separate week-long sessions and 4 weekend sessions concurrent with the one year of preceptor training. Accredited programs generally include a minimum of approximately 1,000 classroom hours. Faculty and facilities for didactic lectures are provided by the University of Alabama College of Dentistry in Birmingham, Alabama, on a contractual basis. With the exception of one dental hygienist from North Carolina, all of the faculty members for the current ADHP class are on the UAB dental faculty. But it is not a program within or sponsored by the university, nor does the university give academic credit for it. It does not lead to a post-secondary degree. The Alabama Dental Hygiene Program includes significantly less formal classroom education in all of the areas of general education and basic sciences and significantly fewer lectures in the clinical practice of dental hygiene than do accredited programs. The Alabama Dental Hygiene Program does not include the following courses required in an accredited program: chemistry, head and neck anatomy, histology, periodontology, nutrition, public health, pharmacology, pathology, dental materials, law and ethics, sociology, psychology and English. A course in disease control, which is of particular importance since the onset of AIDS, and which requires a strong basic science and biology background, also is absent from the ADHP. Examples of some of the differences are: ADHP ACCREDITED MODEL LECTURE LAB TOTAL HRS. ANATOMY & PHYSIOLOGY 8 88 66 134 MICROBIOLOGY 8 40 40 80 ORAL PATHOLOGY 8 34 0 34 RADIOLOGY 12.5 27 30 57 PREVENTIVE DENTISTRY 12.5 36 6 42 A person trained in the Alabama Dental Hygiene Program would not receive academic credit at Pensacola Junior College or Valencia Community College for the training because it does not meet minimum standards. Clinical training in the office of the sponsoring dentist is done by means of a series of modules which serve, in effect, as building blocks in imparting dental hygiene skills. Each module identifies a number of specific skills that the student must master and requires the sponsoring dentist to evaluate performance for each such skill. The sponsoring dentist must verify in writing that a module has been completed, and the successful completion of all modules is a prerequisite to graduation from the Program. The use of the modules is an attempt to insure that all ADHP students are learning essentially the same skills over the same general period of time. However, the ADHP clinical training is less standardized than under accredited programs. An ADHP student is likely to see more actual patients over the course of the clinical training than a student in a community college program. ADHP clinical training is administered to a one-to-one basis as opposed to the higher student-to-dentist ratio found in community college programs. A great deal of quality control is inherent in the ADHP clinical training in that the student is learning on the sponsoring dentist's patients and he has a professional duty to make sure that a good job is done. However, the dental hygiene exam is the ultimate quality control device for ADHP in that a student must pass the exam in order to become licensed as a dental hygienist. The clinical portion of the Alabama Dental Hygiene Examination is equivalent to the Florida Dental Hygiene Exam in content and in administration. A person who passes the Alabama exam would be expected to pass the Florida exam and vice versa. A six-year comparison of scores on the Alabama clinical exam achieved by ADHP graduates with the scores of graduates of traditional two- or four-year programs reveal that ADHP graduates do just as well as their college- trained counterparts. This is a strong indication of equivalency in terms of clinical abilities. Data from the Alabama Dental Hygiene Licensing Exam also show that the Alabama Dental Hygiene Program graduates perform as well or better as candidates who take the National Board of Dental Hygiene examination. However, comparison of the two examinations is not valid because the National Board Examination is a "norm referenced test" whereas the Alabama Dental Hygiene Examination and the Florida license examination are "criterion referenced tests." There is no valid comparison of examination scores of graduates from the Alabama Dental Hygiene Program with graduates from accredited programs because the Alabama Dental Hygiene Program "graduates" are not eligible to sit for the National Board exam, the only standardized examination. The Proposed Criteria Proposed Rule 21G-8.004(3) provides that a college or school whose dental hygiene program meets the proposed rule criteria shall be approved by the Board of Dentistry. There are 21 subjects listed in the rule, but it is unclear whether those subjects are to be included in the 160 hours of formal classroom instruction or under another setting. There are no minimum number of hours that are attendant to any of the listed subjects. It is not clear whether the hours referenced are academic or actual clock hours. The rule is silent as to the method by which the clinical training is to be provided. The proposed rule is unclear as to its academic requirements and the hours of instruction required. The proposed rule seems to be approving a preceptor or apprenticeship type of dental hygiene training which is similar in structure to the Alabama Dental Hygiene Program. Comparison of ADHP and Criteria with Accreditation Standards The Board of Dentistry bases the proposed rules on a finding that dental hygienists who are trained by the ADHP, or who would be trained in a similar program meeting the requirements of the proposed criteria rule, would by adequately trained to safely and competently perform dental hygiene in dental practices in Florida. Based on the evidence presented, such a finding would be neither arbitrary nor capricious. But the evidence also shows that the training given in the ADHP, and training that would be given in a similar program meeting the requirements of the proposed criteria rule, is not the equivalent of the training given in accredited programs.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Petitioner held an active license as a dentist (No. 4385) in the State of Florida. On July 29, 1981, Respondent performed a difficult maxillary hyperplastic surgery on Mrs. Jeanette Remington which required several follow-up visits and treatment. Sometime after the surgery, Mrs. Remington made a trip to Bolivia. Upon her return in either September or October, 1981, she called Respondent regarding her treatment. He felt it was necessary for her to come to his office for further examination and treatment. However, because she was suffering from acute diarrhea, she was unable to leave the house. As a result, Respondent prescribed paregoric for her to control the diarrhea so that she could leave her home to come to his office for required dental examination and treatment. Paregoric, as a derivative of opium, is a controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes (1979 and 1981). As a result, a prescription was required to obtain it. It is not generally used in the practice of dentistry. Dr. Edgar Allen Cosby, a dentist since 1950 and a former chairman of the Florida Board of Dentistry in 1979, testified, and I so find, that often a dentist will treat minor, unrelated medical problems for the purpose of getting a patient into the office. It is only recently that prescription of any drug by a licensed dentist was limited. Prior to that time, a dentist could prescribe any drug provided his license and Drug Enforcement Agency certificate were current. In November, 1981, Dr. Peters called in a prescription for Tylenol IV for Fred Remington to Sharon S. MacMahon, a registered pharmacist at the Gainesville Pic 'N Save drugstore. Ms. MacMahon filled the prescription, which had a refill authorization on it. Mr. Remington went back two days later and requested a refill. Since Ms. MacMahon felt this was too soon for a refill, she refused to do so and attempted, unsuccessfully, to reach Respondent. The following day, when Mr. Remington came back, she was able to contact Respondent, who approved the prescription. When she asked Respondent what the prescription was for, he indicated it was for a head injury resulting from a fall. Mr. Remington, on the other hand, indicated to Ms. Collins, the investigator, the prescription was for pain resulting from an auto injury. Regardless of which one was accurate, neither relates to the practice of dentistry. Tylenol IV is a derivative of codeine and is designated as a controlled substance in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes (1979 and 1981). At some time during Respondent's first year of dental practice (in 1971 or 1972), Respondent prescribed amphetamines on one occasion to a student at the University of Florida who was studying for examinations. The amphetamine was in the form of Dexedrine, the trade name for dextroamphetamine, and is currently designated as a Schedule II controlled substance in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes (1979 and 1981). Amphetamines, in 1971, were considered as a "central nervous system stimulant," as defined in Section 404.01, Florida Statutes (1971), and a prescription was required to obtain them. Ms. MacMahon has never filled a prescription for amphetamines by Respondent during her 8 1/2 years as a pharmacist. An audit of 15 to 20 pharmacies in the Gainesville area conducted by investigators for the Petitioner failed to reveal any prescriptions for amphetamines written by the Respondent during the two or more years records were kept. At some point, well prior to March, 1982, Respondent administered nitrous oxide gas to himself for purposes not related to the practice of dentistry. Respondent was divorced in 1976 and utilized the gas to relax himself, not while engaged in practice, as a result of the stress involved with his divorce. Nitrous oxide is a gas used in the practice of dentistry to relax or sedate patients prior to dental treatment. It is a form of anesthetic. Respondent's nitrous oxide equipment has been inoperative for several years because the storage tanks were stolen and not replaced. This theft was reported to the police. Respondent is considered by Petitioner's investigator and by other practitioners to be very conservative in his prescription of drugs. He does not prescribe large quantities of Schedule II drugs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Counts I and III be dismissed for lack of evidence and that Respondent be assessed an administrative fine of $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 8th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Gallagher, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth E. Brooten, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 788 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Varn Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF DENTISTRY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, CASE NOS. 0017971 (DPR) v. 82-2128 (DOAH) LICENSE NO. DN 0004385 PAUL E. PETERS, JR., D.D.S., Respondent. /
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be awarded a passing grade on the clinical portion of the dental licensing examination given on December 12 through 14, 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Dentistry was responsible for the licensing of dentists in this state and the regulation of the dental profession. Petitioner is a graduate of the University of Florida School of Dentistry and was eligible to sit for the examination for licensure as a dentist in Florida. Petitioner previously has taken and passed the written portion of the dental examination. He has taken the clinical portion of the examination twice and has received a failing grade each time. He is eligible to take the clinical portion alone for a third time, but must do so within a period of 13 months of taking it the second time or must take both the written and oral portions again. Dr. Scheutz first took the examination in June 1996. He received a passing grade in each of those examination portions which dealt with Florida laws and rules and with oral diagnosis. However, he received a grade of 2.31 on the clinical examination portion of the examination, and a passing grade was 3.0. Thereafter, in December 1996 he again took the clinical portion and this time received a grade of 2.71, still below the 3.0 passing grade. Dr. Theodor Simkin is a licensed dentist and consultant to the Board of Dentistry, who has been in the private practice of dentistry since 1950 and in Florida since 1975. He has been involved in the development, administration, and grading of the dental examination in Florida since 1979 and was a supervisor for the December 1996 examination. He is familiar with the standards applied in the clinical portion of the examination and how the examination is given and graded. Petitioner has challenged the grade he received on five separate procedures he performed during the December 1996 examination. The procedures chosen for accomplishment during the examination are not unusual procedures, but are common problems seen on a routine basis by a practicing dentist. Dr. Simkin reviewed the mannequin on which Petitioner did his work and which he presented to the examiners for grading. One of the grades challenged related to a "composite restoration" (Clinical D) for which Petitioner received a grade of 0. In this procedure the candidate is presented with a tooth on a mannequin. The candidate is instructed to cut off a corner of the tooth and then restore that corner with an amalgam restoration. The examiners are not present when the procedure is accomplished, but grade the procedure after completion. Instruction on the procedure is given to the candidate by a monitor who is present in the room but who does not grade the work done. The examination process is accomplished using the candidate number, not the candidate name, so that examiners do not know whose work at which they are looking. Once the procedure is done by the candidate, the mold is packed in the candidate's presence and is then held in the custody of the Board of Dentistry until examined independently by each of three examiners. Once graded, it is then shipped to Tallahassee and kept in a vault until needed, as here, for review by Dr. Simkin and others. Ordinarily, even if dropped, a model will not break. In the instant case, Petitioner performed the procedure on an upper right central incisor. The right corner of the tooth, approximately one-third of the tooth, was cut off and the candidate was instructed to rebuild it with a composite material. When the examiners evaluated Petitioner's work, they found that the filling was not bonded to the tooth and was loose. The loose restoration would be useless to the patient, whereas a properly done restoration should last for at least several years. On a human, the stresses applied to a tooth repair are significant, and the repair must be sufficient to withstand them. Notwithstanding Petitioner's claim that the tooth used was an artificial tooth to which the filling material does not easily bond, Dr. Simkin asserts that the bonding which occurs with a plastic tooth is different from that which occurs in a real tooth but the material can bond to the plastic tooth. He knows of no other complaints by other candidates at this examination of not being able to complete the restoration because the materials would not bond. Petitioner admits that when he did the procedure during the June 1996 examination, the tooth bonded correctly. In light of all the evidence regarding this point, it is found that Petitioner's claim is without merit. Petitioner also challenges his score of 2.0 received for his work on an "amalgam cavity preparation" (Clinical B). This composite score was based on a 2.0 awarded by each of the three examiners. An amalgam preparation is what is done to the tooth to get it ready for filling. In this case, an actual patient, supplied by the examines, had a cavity which was reviewed by the examiners. Once the patient was accepted by the examiners, the candidate then cleaned out the cavity and got it ready for filling. Dr. Simkin's review of the documentation prepared in regard to this candidate's performance of this procedure, in his opinion, supports the grades given by the examiners. Here, Petitioner sent the examiners a note as to what he proposed to do with his patient. Petitioner sought to deviate from a normal preparation due to the location of the caries, and the monitor agreed, as did the examiners. Thereafter, the candidate did the procedure. All three examiners graded his work against his proposal and gave him a failing grade. The examiners determined that his work on this patient merited only a grade of 2.0 because, according to two examiners, the margin of the filling was not separated from the next tooth as required. As to the "posterior endodonture procedure" (Clinical M), Petitioner received an overall score of 1.3. In this procedure, the candidate is required to bring in an extracted tooth which is mounted in an acrylic block. The candidate is to remove the nerve and diseased tissue, clean the cavity, file it, fill the canals, and seal the tooth. This is known as a root canal. In grading a candidate's work, the examiners look to see that the canal is properly cleaned out, is filled properly and sealed with a surface that is slightly shorter than the apex (highest point) of the tooth. On the x-ray taken of Petitioner's sample, it is obvious, according to Dr. Simkin, that one canal is at or short of the apex, but the other is long, and this is considered unacceptable treatment. Even Petitioner agrees. Petitioner received grades of 3.0, 2.0 and 1.0 for an overall failing grade of 2.0 on the "prep. cast restoration" (Clinical F). In this instance, the procedure called for the candidate to install a gold onlay. Normally the surface to which the onlay is to be placed is reduced slightly below the abutting face. Here, though one side was acceptable, Petitioner reduced too much on the other side without reason. Petitioner claims, however, that only one of the three examiners indicated excessive reduction. That determination calls for a very subjective opinion. He cannot understand how the propriety of reduction can be determined without looking into the mouth of a patient. However, Petitioner has presented no evidence in support of his opinion. The fifth challenge relates to the grade Petitioner received in the "pin amalgam pre. procedure" (Clinical G). This involves a situation where one cusp has been removed, and in order to hold a restoration, Repin must be placed in the solid portion of the tooth. The examiners determined that Petitioner's occlusal was too shallow at 1 mm, when it should have gone down 1~ to 2 mm. This, the examiners considered, would not give enough strength to hold the amalgam properly without risk of fracture. Dr. Simkins is of the opinion that Petitioner was subjected to a standardized test which was graded fairly. It would so appear and Petitioner introduced no evidence to the contrary. Ms. Carnes, a psychometrician and an expert in testing and test development who trains examiners to ensure they are consistent in their evaluations, agrees with Dr. Simkins' appraisal. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation tries to insure through its standardization efforts that the approach to grading of each examiner is consistent and that all examiners are grading with the same set of criteria. This was done in preparation for the December 1996 dental examination and a check done after the examination showed it was graded this way. Petitioner cites by way of explanation, if not excuse, that during his senior year in dental school, he was badly injured in an automobile accident and required stitches and several weeks of physical therapy for, among other injuries, a herniated disc. When he recovered sufficiently, he finished his course work and sat for the dental examination in June 1996, passing two of three sections, but not the clinical portion. Dr. Scheutz took the clinical portion of the examination again in December 1996 and again failed to earn a passing score. In his opinion, his knowledge has improved over time, but his procedural skills have diminished over the months due to his injuries. He contends he has work in dentistry he can do which will make accommodations for his physical condition, but does not believe he should have to wait another six months to take the examination again, especially since he would have to again take the entire examination, including those portions he has already passed since at that time more than 13 months from his last examination would have passed. Petitioner contends the clinical testing portion of the examination is too subjective to be valid. He wants to close this chapter in his life, but does not want to deal any more with the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge and sustaining the award of a failing grade on the clinical portion of the dental examination taken by the Petitioner on December 12 through 14, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Eric J. Scheutz, pro se 332 Whispering Oaks Court Sarasota, Florida 34232 Karel Baarelag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33906-0127 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Peter Kurachek, was a licensed dentist at all times relevant to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, having been issued license number 0005429, and was so licensed at the time of hearing. On January 19, 1981, Clarence Nicholson consulted the Respondent at the Sheppard Dental Center in Clearwater, Florida, regarding a dental problem. The Respondent performed a root canal treatment on Nicholson's tooth number six, a cuspid, and prepared the tooth to receive a crown. On January 31, 1981, the Respondent installed the permanent crown, which he had had prepared. In August 1981, the crown fell out, and Nicholson returned to the Sheppard Dental Center. Nicholson did not see the Respondent on this visit, and the crown was recemented by Dr. Christopher Clarke. In November 1981, the crown fell out a second time. Nicholson returned to the Sheppard Dental Center. On this occasion, Nicholson did not see Respondent, and the crown was recemented in place by Dr. Clarke. Dr. Clarke made no gross alterations to the crown on either of the appointments; however, he did clean the crown in preparation for recementing it on both occasions. Shortly after Dr. Clarke recemented the crown the second time, Nicholson saw Respondent and requested that he correct the crown. The Respondent advised Nicholson that he would be happy to replace the crown and redo the work if the crown became loose again. Respondent feared that forcefully removing the crown in order to prepare a new one might damage Nicholson's tooth. Because he would be responsible if the tooth were broken while removing the crown, the Respondent elected to deal with Nicholson's problem if the crown became loose again of its own accord. In April 1982, more than a year after Respondent did the work for Nicholson, and after the crown had been recemented twice by another dentist, Nicholson was examined by Dr. Paul Hounchell, a dental consultant for the Petitioner. As a result of his examination, Dr. Hounchell opined that the treatment provided by the Respondent did not meet the minimal accepted standards of practice in the community. (Tr. 81.) However, Dr. Hounchell indicated that his opinion was based upon the fact that Nicholson was unable to have the crown fixed to his satisfaction. Dr. Hounchell stated, "The only unprofessional thing is that we run this man around, you know, for a half a year, a year or something like that." (Tr. 121.) The record reflects that Nicholson only saw the Respondent one time after the Respondent installed the crown, and that on that occasion the Respondent told Nicholson that he would replace the crown to Nicholson's satisfaction if the crown became loose again. The record further reflects that Nicholson never tried to see the Respondent thereafter. The tooth in question was a nonvital tooth as a result of the root canal therapy. Such a tooth is more brittle and may fracture more easily. However, the tooth had a good-sized large root which was adequate to support a longer post. The various dentists disagree concerning whether it would have been appropriate for the Respondent to have removed the crown when he saw Nicholson after Dr. Clarke had recemented the crown in place. The treatment provided by the Respondent to Nicholson met minimum acceptable standards of practice in the community.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the charges against the Respondent, Peter Kurachek, D.D.S., be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 25th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Gallagher, Esquire Department of professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Peter Kurachek, DDS 703 Tropical Circle Sarasota, Florida 33581 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Fred Varn, Executive Director Board of Dentistry 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a dentist licensed by the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN0002113. Between January 27, 1979 and March 22, 1980, Respondent provided dental diagnosis or treatment to Robert J. Durant in Respondent's dental office in Melbourne, Florida. Durant's first three visits, which occurred prior to August 4, 1979, were for the purpose of having Respondent re-cement Durant's bridge which had become loosened in his mouth. On August 4, 1979, Respondent cleaned Durant's teeth and took a complete set of x-rays. Respondent recommended to Durant that he have 13 crowns placed on his upper teeth and that root canal therapy be performed on four of Durant's upper teeth. Respondent did not recommend to Durant that any of his upper teeth be extracted. On August 4, 1979, the only appropriate diagnosis for Durant's upper teeth was extraction since the few remaining teeth he had were no longer capable of being restored since Durant had a severe case of periodontal disease and almost no bone remained for supporting any teeth. Respondent's diagnosis that Durant receive 13 crowns failed to meet minimum standards of diagnosis in that it ignored the severe case of periodontal disease which would continue if left untreated. On March 22, 1980, Respondent performed root canal therapy on Durant's upper right cuspid, upper left central incisor, upper left lateral incisor, and an upper left molar. At that time, extraction of those teeth was the only appropriate course of treatment, and Respondent's treatment of those teeth with root canal therapy was not warranted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of incompetence by failing to meet the minimum standards of performance, suspending Respondent's license to practice dentistry for 30 days, and requiring Respondent to pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 by a date certain. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 29th day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ralph C. Robinson, D.D.S. 316 Ingraham Building Miami, Florida 33131 H. Fred Varn, Executive Director Board of Dentistry 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent committed a violation of section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2002-2004)1/, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the regulation of the practice of dentistry pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 466, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Richard Moffett, D.M.D., is a licensed dentist in the state of Florida, having been issued license DN 10580. His current address of record is 1776 Tamiami Trail, Venice, Florida 34293. Respondent provided dental care and treatment to Patient C.D. beginning on or about March 12, 2003. On or about March 12, 2003, C.D. presented to Respondent as a new patient. Although there is some indication that Respondent saw C.D. around 1990, there are no records regarding any treatment rendered at that time, and any treatment given in or around 1990 is not relevant to this proceeding. The last time C.D. received actual treatment from Respondent was September 15, 2003, although he provided her a consultation on March 23, 2005. C.D. presented to Respondent on March 12, 2003, complaining of swelling and pain in the lower left side of her mouth. C.D. signed a consent form indicating that she understood that she was having an emergency examination pertaining to an isolated problem, and she needed to return for a full mouth examination. Respondent diagnosed an abscess on tooth number 29 and recommended either extraction or root canal treatment. He began root canal treatment, for which C.D. signed a consent form. The root canal was completed on March 20, 2003. On March 20, 2003, C.D. returned to Respondent's office, and Respondent conducted a comprehensive evaluation and took x-rays of C.D.'s mouth. As part of his evaluation Respondent performed periodontal pocket depth probing and charted the results. C.D. had a probing depth range from 3mm to 7mm. Readings over 3mm are an indication of periodontal disease. C.D. did not present as an average patient. The problems existing in her mouth at the time of the comprehensive exam included missing teeth, widespread decay, a TMJ problem, and periodontal disease. Specifically, C.D. had moderate to advanced periodontal disease, and caries (areas of decay) at teeth numbers 2, 3, 11, 14, 18, 20, 21 and 22 and perhaps others. At the March 20, 2003 visit, Respondent finished the root canal for tooth number 29 and focused on the problems identified in the lower left quadrant of her mouth, because that was the area that was bothering her. Tooth number 19 was missing, and tooth number 14, positioned over tooth number 19, had moved down into the space where tooth number 19 should have been. Tooth 18 was tipped forward into the space that should have housed tooth 19, and tooth 20 had broken off at the gum line from the constant impact from tooth 14, above it. C.D. had TMJ issues on the left side of her mouth, and teeth 20 and 21 had cavities as well. At this visit, Respondent proposed a treatment plan to C.D. that included a bridge spanning teeth numbers 18-20 and a bridge spanning teeth numbers 29-31. He advised C.D. regarding what was needed; and that crowns alone on teeth 20 and 21 would not suffice, and that temporary crowns would break down. He also, however, recommended gross debridement, root planing and curettage, which are methods of cleaning the teeth and providing periodontal treatment. As is discussed more fully below, C.D. did not follow Dr. Moffett's recommendations regarding any sort of periodontal treatment or even basic dental hygiene. C.D. had not had her teeth cleaned since at least 1989. She claimed that prior to 1990, the dentist she saw, as opposed to staff within the dentist's office, had cleaned her teeth twice a year; that her routine of brushing, using a Sonicare and Water-Pic was sufficient; and that she saw little problem with her dental hygiene. She admitted to shaving ten years off of her age in her medical records, but did not consider recording her birth date at 1947 (as opposed to 1937) to be a lie. C.D.'s testimony, provided by deposition, was less then credible. On April 2, 2003, Respondent examined tooth number 29, prepared it for a crown and reviewed the treatment plan with C.D. On May 27, 2003, C.D. returned to Respondent's office for a previously scheduled visit. At that time, C.D.'s chief complaint was that teeth 20 and 21 were bothering her. Respondent noted that C.D.'s bite was slightly sensitive at tooth number 29. Respondent indicated that teeth numbers 20 and 21 were scheduled for restorations at C.D.'s next visit, and that Respondent would re-evaluate tooth number 29 for possible fracture in three months. Respondent's treatment notes for this day state: "wants to start with #20, 6/9 @10am, Just Lower Left right now." C.D.'s patient records for this date also indicate the need for gross debridement and oral hygiene instruction. On June 9, 2003, C.D. presented to Respondent for treatment, and Respondent prepared teeth numbers 20 and 21 for crowns, which included addressing the caries for those teeth. Respondent placed a temporary crown on tooth number 20 and/or For the next visit, Respondent noted the need for "prophy OHI (oral hygiene instruction) ASAP." Although scheduled for July 8, 2003, C.D. did not present for teeth cleaning, gross debridement, or root planning, all procedures recommended by Dr. Moffett, at any time during his treatment of her. On July 8, 2003, Respondent reviewed C.D.'s treatment plan regarding the bridge for teeth 18-20. He again noted the need for oral hygiene instruction as soon as possible. Notes regarding plans for the next visit state the following: Adjust occlusal length of 14 - Prep/buildup 18 -impress 18/20 bridge, 21 crown -bond 23, 26 -redo 24/25 crowns? -review treatment needs per treatment plan 3,2,4, 5? -- prophy/ASAP/OHI On August 14, 2003, C.D. presented for treatment, and Respondent reduced the occlusion for tooth 14, addressed the deep caries on tooth 18 and performed the buildup and preparation for that tooth. He also took alginate impressions for a temporary bridge. On September 3, 2003, it appears that Respondent seated the temporary bridge for teeth numbers 18-20. Respondent also took impressions for fabricating a permanent bridge. Although Respondent sent the mold to the laboratory to create the dental models for a permanent bridge, no permanent bridge was ever seated. Respondent's office charged C.D. and her insurance company for a permanent bridge. C.D. brought the charge to his attention several years later, and he refunded the insurance company the difference between the cost of a permanent bridge and a temporary bridge, adjusted charges for permanent crowns to temporary crowns, and deleted existing interest charges on her account.2/ On September 15, 2003, C.D. presented to Respondent for treatment. At this visit, C.D. told Respondent that she wanted to conserve treatment within insurance coverage limits, and wanted fillings as opposed to crowns, or temporary crowns only. Respondent reviewed her treatment needs with C.D., and advised that he did not think teeth numbered 4 and 5, which were scheduled for restoration, were structurally sound enough to support fillings. At the patient's request, Respondent placed new fillings in teeth numbers 4 and 5 instead of crowning them. The patient note for the September 15, 2003, visit, consistent with prior notes, indicated the need for gross debridement and root planing. There is also a note for a referral for periodontal surgery. On October 30, 2003, C.D. received a letter from Sherri Moffett, who served as the bookkeeper for the office, regarding her outstanding balance. The letter stated in part, "we are working with the laboratory to complete your crown and bridge work in the next few weeks." Ms. Moffett, however, did not testify and Dr. Moffett neither wrote nor knew about the letter. The statements contained in the letter provide no persuasive information regarding Dr. Moffett's intentions for C.D.'s course of treatment, or whether he would have placed the permanent bridge before the patient's periodontal condition was addressed. C.D. did not return to see Respondent again until March 23, 2005. At that time, she wanted a new temporary crown for tooth number 29. Respondent advised her she needed a permanent crown on the tooth, which she did not choose to have. The Department presented the testimony of James W. Jackson, D.D.S. Dr. Jackson graduated from Northwestern University Dental School and was in private dental practice in Clearwater, Florida, from 1966 to 2009. Since that time, Dr. Jackson has volunteered weekly at a local dental clinic. Dr. Jackson's primary concern was that it did not appear to him that Respondent had ever presented to C.D. a treatment plan addressing all of her dental situation, with options of treating those disease processes, and the fees involved for the options presented.3/ He also took issue with Respondent beginning the fabrication of the fixed bridge and the crown on the lower left side before any of the periodontal disease and active decay processes were resolved. Dr. Jackson opined that the proper sequence of dental treatment is 1) to get to know the patient; 2) if the patient is in pain, to do whatever is necessary to alleviate the pain; 3) to perform an examination if the patient is to become a patient of record; 4) to make a diagnoses from the examination to determine what difficulties are present for the patient; and 5) propose a treatment plan to the patient and decide with the patient how to proceed. In addition to his criticism that Respondent did not present a comprehensive treatment plan, he opined that it was improper to begin a permanent bridge for C.D. without first addressing her periodontal disease and addressing the caries in her mouth. Respondent presented the expert testimony of Dr. James E. Haddix, D.M.D. Dr. Haddix graduated from the University of Florida College of Dentistry in 1977, and has been licensed in Florida since 1978. He has served on the faculty of the College of Dentistry since 1991, and is currently an associate professor and assistant dean for continuing dental education, and director of the comprehensive dentistry continuing education program. Dr. Haddix continues to practice dentistry through the University's Academic Enrichment Fund, which is a faculty practice clinic. In Dr. Haddix's opinion, Respondent did not fail to meet the appropriate standard of care. He did not believe that stabilizing an area of the mouth with a temporary bridge falls below the standard of care, and in his words, "you have to start somewhere, and he started in the area of the patient's chief complaint." Dr. Haddix also stated that a dentist cannot treat all areas of the mouth simultaneously, and it was permissible for him to treat one quadrant of the mouth at a time. Dr. Haddix's opinion did not change in light of the fact that Dr. Moffett took impressions for a permanent bridge. Dr. Moffett testified that he agreed that the periodontal disease in C.D.'s mouth needed to be treated before a permanent bridge could be placed. He consistently recommended periodontal treatment in the form of gross debridement, followed by root planing as necessary as a part of his treatment plan, and the patient continued to put if off. He testified that he planned to keep C.D. in the temporary bridge as long as necessary to stabilize her occlusion and her TMJ, and to address to the periodontal issues. If the patient continued to refuse to address the periodontal issues, then he would not have placed the permanent bridge, and ultimately did not do so. Dr. Moffett acknowledged that there was a good chance that once the periodontal treatment was completed and the TMJ addressed, new impressions would have to be taken for the permanent bridge, but testified that it was his policy not to charge the patient if a new impression was required. He agreed in principle with the sequence of treatment advocated by Dr. Jackson, but stated that his treatment was consistent with that sequence in that his stabilization of the lower left quadrant was designed to address her area of pain. After careful review of all of the evidence presented, the testimony of Dr. Moffett and Dr. Haddix is credited, and it is found that Dr. Moffett's treatment of patient C.D. did not fail to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2012.
