The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Phillip Kibbee Parsons holds a dentist's license issued by petitioner, No. DN 0003193, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, and has at all pertinent times. Also at all pertinent times, he has been engaged in the private practice of dentistry in Keystone Heights, Florida. In May of 1986, Bruce Robert McHollan made his first visit to Dr. Parsons' office, to "have [his] teeth checked and to see if [he] needed any work done." T.10. Dr. Parsons caused radiographs to be taken, and Mr. McHollan's teeth were cleaned on this initial visit. When Dr. Parsons suggested replacing his fillings with "non-mercury amalgam fillings," (T.11), Mr. McHollan rejected the idea, and told Dr. Parsons he "was only interested in having decay . . . [and] any cavities . . . repaired." T.11. During two visits in September of 1986 Dr. Parsons placed or replaced nine fillings in Mr. McHollan's teeth. At the time, Mr. McHollan assumed this work was necessary to repair damage done by tooth decay, and the evidence did not establish otherwise. The following year and again on June 8, 1989, Mr. McHollan returned. He had his teeth cleaned on both occasions and, on June 8, 1989, Dr. Parsons who caused a second set of radiographs to be taken that day, advised Mr. McHollan that he needed additional fillings. Under the impression that these fillings were needed on account of decay that had developed since the earlier fillings, Mr. McHollan authorized Dr. Parsons to proceed. He submitted to six fillings on June 13, 1989, and another ten fillings on July 25, 1989. Eventually he noticed that his original fillings had all been replaced. Dr. Parsons' testimony at hearing that the original fillings all leaked and required replacement was uncontroverted. When Mr. McHollan returned to Dr. Parsons' office on August 1, 1989, to discuss his dental health, Dr. Parsons told him "that there w[ere] at least nine [more] areas where there was decay and needed to be filled, but he [Dr. Parsons] couldn't be sure of the total amount until he installed a rubber dam." T.15. Estimating the cost of additional restorations, Dr. Parsons continued, "Let's be conservative and let's say there are 12 more," id., then jotted down the following: ESTIMATE: 8/1/89 BRUCE McHOLLAN 12 90 1080 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. He wrote this estimate on a piece of paper on which his name and address are printed. At the time, Dr. Parsons charged $90 per filling. Suspicious about the need for additional fillings, Mr. McHollan went to his mother's dentist, George W. Boring, for a second opinion. On September 8, 1989, Dr. Boring examined Mr. McHollan's teeth and two bite-wing radiographs he had taken of them that day. He found no decay nor any evidence of decalcification or other demineralization. Later asked to compare radiographs taken in his office on September 8, 1989, with copies of those taken in Dr. Parsons' office on June 13, 1989, Dr. Boring concluded that they "basically looked the same." T.47. Cavities or carious conditions do not always show up on x-rays; in fact, "as often as not," (T.4a) they cannot be detected in this fashion. On December 7, 1989, Mr. McHollan sent Dr. Parsons a letter, the body of which began, "Send me my complete dental office records and all of my x-rays as soon as possible." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. He received x-rays taken in Dr. Parsons' office on June 13, 1989, but obtained no other records directly from Dr. Parsons' office. Later a collection agency sent Mr. McHollan copies of some, but not all, of the records Dr. Parson had maintained on him. In performing the restorations in the summer of 1989, Dr. Parsons had used rubber dams. A rubber dam permits isolation of a tooth surface so that the dentist can dry it for work (or observation) free of a film of saliva. Both Dr. Parsons and his assistant of twelve years, Pamela Slocumb, saw "white spots" on dry surfaces of Mr. McHollan's teeth, but neither saw carious lesions penetrating to the dentin. Expert testimony established that white spots on dry teeth evince demineralization. "[A]ccording to dental textbooks," (T.168E) demineralization constitutes active decay. In the early stages, demineralization usually is not very visible to the eye on a wet tooth, and either isolation with a rubber dam or isolation with cotton rolls, and then drying the tooth, would demonstrate this, whereas to the naked eye and, for that matter, even to the little sharp explorer, . . . if they were wet, they probably wouldn't be observable. T.190. Demineralization can lead to further decay, but it can also be a transitory condition: [C]ertain of the chemicals that are in the enamel are also dissolved in the saliva, and under certain circumstances . . . the calcium and other products in the saliva, will redeposit in these areas, and will actually build it back up. T.192. Remineralization can occur very rapidly, (T.193) and easily be completed over a period as long as that which elapsed between Dr. Parsons' last examination and the examination Dr. Boring performed. On October 29, 1990, some fourteen months after Dr. Parsons told him he needed at least nine fillings, Mr. McHollan's teeth had "moderate plaque and some stain," but not the kind of stain sometimes incorporated into the structure of the teeth in the course of remineralization. On October 29, 1990, a third dentist, Hugh B. Avant, examined Mr. McHollan's mouth as well as roentgenograms taken that day, bite-wing views from either side and three periapical views. On the cheek side of the upper left wisdom tooth, one of the places on which Dr. Parsons had seen white spots, Dr. Avant found a carious lesion of moderate size, which had penetrated the enamel into the dentin. He found no other carious lesions. In keeping with the standard of care for a general dentist practicing in Keystone Heights and elsewhere in that part of Florida, teeth require restoration by a dentist once a carious lesion penetrates the enamel into the dentin. Both Doctors Avant and Boring adhere to this standard. Filling a tooth which has demineralized but has no carious lesion would "not generally" be in conformity with the standard, at least the standard DPR's expert is "accustomed to." T.110. DPR's expert testified: "I don't think it's the standard of practice to start filling all areas like that, just because you think they are susceptible and they have some decalcification." T.112. But the patient's history may have a bearing. Dr. Bliss, a former member of the Board of Dentistry, testified for respondent, specifically with reference to Mr. McHollan and in light of his particular history, that "in a patient like this . . . it would not be below the standard to recommend that these [white-spotted] areas be cleaned and restored." T.189. He further testified that he had "had patients where I have identified these areas, and in my extreme conservatism, didn't do something, and within a month's time, it had gone into the dentin." T.200.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, in keeping with Rule 21G-13.005(3)(v), Florida Administrative Code, RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Dentistry impose a fine of five hundred dollars ($500), reprimand respondent, and place him on probation for a period of three years. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 44 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 13, whether Dr. Parsons had a recollection concerning the use of an explorer was not established. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 15, Dr. Parsons testified that he filled teeth when there was a history of severe decay and decalcification, and he felt further decay was likely, but he did not testify to any standard on page 180. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 16 and 26 pertain to immaterial matters. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 21, 22, 23, 33, 34, 35 and 36 pertain to subordinate matters. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 25 and 43 have been rejected as unsupported by the evidence cited. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 16 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 4, the testimony was that "these decalcified areas" would not have been visible if wet. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 5 and 11 were not convincingly disproven. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 8, there were nine, not twelve, surfaces. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, there are other ways to dry teeth for observation. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 15 relates to a subordinate matter. COPIES FURNISHED: Anna Cam Fentriss, Esquire Newell & Stahl, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32303-6313 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire One North Dale Mabry, Suite 1010 Tampa, FL 33609 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
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. /
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dr. John R. Parry, at all times pertinent to this hearing, was licensed by the State of Florida to practice dentistry under License No. DN- 0005282. His primary practice is at the Florence Denture Clinic, located at 255 Wymore Road, Winter Park, Florida, but he also operates several other clinics under the same name in Jacksonville and St. Petersburg, Florida. In late February, 1981, Nancy Bradley, a 28-year-old married woman living in Leesburg, Florida, was experiencing extreme pain due to an abscessed tooth. She had tried to get dental treatment in her hometown, but for some reason was unable to do so, so she requested that her sister, Leslie Wilson, who lives in Orlando, get an appointment for her with a dentist in that area. Ms. Wilson contacted Respondent's Winter Park clinic and made an appointment for Ms. Bradley for February 27, 1981. During the course of her conversation with the receptionist, she was quoted the price for various services provided by the clinic. She called this clinic because she had been treated there before and it was the only place she knew that was reasonable. On February 27, 1981, Ms. Bradley and Ms. Wilson went to Respondent's clinic early in the morning. Ms. Bradley told the receptionist she had a bad tooth, filled out some forms, paid $180 in advance, and was told to wait. At this time, even though early in the morning, the waiting room was crowded. After a wait of approximately 30 minutes, she was called in for X rays and afterwards, after a wait of an additional five minutes or so, was taken into the work area. She described this area as a large room broken up by partitions into separate work stations. After being put in the chair, she waited for a few minutes until a man she identified later as Wayne Giddens came in and took a molded impression of her mouth. She described the man in question and heard him referred to by others as Wayne. Her description fits that of the Wayne Giddens who testified at the hearing. After Giddens left, Respondent came in and examined her mouth, telling her she needed to have four teeth pulled. Ms. Bradley told Respondent to pull only those teeth which could not reasonably be saved. Respondent did not tell her which teeth would have to be pulled. At this point, Ms. Wilson, who was also present, started asking questions as to why the teeth could not be saved. Respondent became upset by these questions, told Ms. Wilson to leave, threw the X rays down on the tray and told Ms. Bradley that if he did not pull the teeth, he would not do anything. When she acquiesced, he told her to come back at 2:00 that afternoon. Because she had already paid for the treatment, because she was in much pain from her teeth, and because she thought the doctor knew what he was talking about, she came back as instructed and was taken into another room for treatment. This time her sister, Ms. Wilson, remained in the waiting room. When Ms. Bradley was seated, a different dentist from Respondent came in and, after quickly looking at her chart, gave her an injection of anesthetic. Almost immediately and before the injection had a chance to take effect, this dentist started to pull her teeth. It hurt badly, and she asked for more anesthetic, which the doctor administered, and again began to pull her tooth. Partly through the procedure, however, he stopped, called someone on the phone that was there, and asked why an oral surgeon had not been called in. Apparently satisfied with the answer he received, he returned to the patient and finished the extraction. After the first tooth was removed, the doctor started to pull a front tooth. Ms. Bradley asked why he was pulling there, when her pain was in the back. The attending dentist said it was because Respondent, Dr. Parry, bad said so. The attending dentist, however, indicated his opinion that the extraction of the front tooth was questionable. A total of four teeth were pulled from Ms. Bradley's mouth that day. These were teeth numbered 3, 9, 10, and 12. Aside from the initial comment to Respondent requesting that any teeth that could be saved not be pulled and her question to the attending dentist, Ms. Bradley did not raise any objection to the extraction of her teeth. She indicated that she trusted the doctor involved, and since she had come in to seek relief from an abscess, in light of her prefatory comments, she felt that if teeth were pulled, they had to be pulled. In fact, she signed a consent form numbered 1083, which refers to an attached Information Sheet. Ms. Bradley does not recall having seen the information sheet, but no doubt was furnished one. However, review of the information sheet shows the "procedures outlined" are not at all clearly defined. In fact, it is more in the form of a disclaimer and cannot in any reasonable way be considered as forming the basis for an informed consent. Consequently, it is clear that the procedures undertaken by Respondent and his staff were not based on a full and informed consent by the patient, Ms. Bradley. After the teeth in question were pulled, Ms. Bradley was taken into another room, where she was put in a chair. At this point, though her mouth was still bloody from the extractions, the same individual who took the impressions earlier in the day came in with the dentures and inserted them in her mouth. He told her to leave them there for 24 hours and not to eat for the period, and left. Ms. Bradley was then led out to the waiting room, where her sister met her. Ms. Wilson was quite upset by the condition of Ms. Bradley and, after taking her to the car, immediately went back into the clinic to talk with someone about the situation. When she asked for Respondent, she was told that he and all other dentists were gone for the day. A few days later, Ms. Bradley went to another dentist, Dr. Rucher, who treated her for four dry sockets, where the teeth had been pulled, and a gum infection. He also made a new partial bridge for her to replace the one made at Respondent's clinic, which device did not fit properly. She did not return to Respondent's clinic. Mr. Giddens, the individual who took the impression of Ms. Bradley's mouth and who placed the completed bridgework in, is not a licensed dentist, but is a dental technician and has been for approximately 14 years. He has had no formal schooling for his work and has secured all his knowledge through on-the- job training. With the exception of a three-month hiatus in the summer of 1982, he has worked for Respondent since 1980. He primarily works in quality control, inspecting dentures when they come from the laboratory. His duties do not include taking impressions of patients' mouths or the fitting of dentures. These are functions performed by others in the office. He denies having put any dentures in Ms. Bradley's mouth. If he were to do so, he states, Respondent would fire him. The dental chart on each patient contains the initials of the individual who actually accomplished the work. For example, the chart on Ms. Bradley shows that on February 27, 1981, the examination and the X rays were performed by "P," which stands for "Parry." The delivery of the dentures is noted by the initials "WG." Mr. Giddens' first name is Wayne. Therefore, since Ms. Bradley positively identified Mr. Giddens as the individual who took the impression of her mouth and later inserted the denture, since she called him by name from overhearing his name mentioned by others in the clinic while the work was being done, and since the witness alone initialed the records denoting delivery of the dentures, it is found that Mr. Giddens did, in fact, do both, as alleged. As was previously found, four teeth were pulled from Ms. Bradley's mouth at Respondent's clinic on February 27, 1981. These teeth were identified on her dental chart as Nos. 3, 9, 10, and 12. Several experts in the field of dental surgery examined the X rays that were taken of Ms. Bradley's mouth at Respondent's clinic on the day of her visit, but before the extraction. This X- ray picture shows clearly the condition of teeth numbered 9, 10, and 12. It was the consensus of all experts that teeth numbered 9 and 10 were not in such deteriorated condition that they needed to be pulled. A reasonable amount of restoration work by a competent dentist could have saved these two teeth. It was also the consensus that tooth numbered 12 was not reasonably salvageable and was properly extracted. Because of the location of tooth numbered 3 and the quality of the X ray, no firm opinion was reached by the experts with regard to this tooth. Therefore, it is found that of the four teeth pulled, two, Nos. 9 and 10, could have been saved by the use of root canal and crown work, a reasonably simple procedure which was available, but considerably more costly than the extraction and bridgework. Ms. Bradley indicated that while she has paid little attention to her mouth and tooth condition prior to this episode, and that while her mouth, at the time in question, was not in good shape and did not reflect good dental hygiene practices, she would have paid what was necessary to save her teeth. There are numerous factors for a patient to consider before making a decision to have teeth extracted. Among these are: The willingness to have it done with the knowledge that once the tooth is gone, it is forever. The patient's dental I.Q.--the willingness of the patient to practice good dental hygiene afterwards. The cost of restoration versus extraction. The pain and inconvenience to the patient, recognizing that restorative treatment may require several visits while extraction is done in one visit. Generally speaking and based on these considerations, most dentists believe it is better to save a tooth than to extract it. With that in mind, it is generally considered to be practice below minimum community standards not to advise a potential extraction patient of available alternative treatments. It is up to the patient, then, to make the decision whether to extract or not, after being provided with all reasonable available information. If there is a proper informed consent given by the patient, then an extraction of even salvageable teeth would not be practice below minimum standards. However, if a dentist pulls a restorable tooth without informing the patient of alternative treatments, since any taking of patient tissue is serious, this action would fall below community standards. The standards stated above are no different for a high-volume clinic practice than for a routine practice. All elections of the patient, including the fact that the patient was advised and declined alternate treatment, should be made a part of the patient records. Here, the records kept by Respondent reflect no advice as to alternatives nor an election as to treatment. The "consent" form utilized by Respondent is totally insufficient to establish informed consent. Respondent did not authorize Mr. Giddens to either take the impression of Ms. Bradley's mouth or insert the appliance. To do either would be the unauthorized practice of dentistry. It is his policy that technicians do not get into a patient's mouth, particularly in the case of partial bridgework, where the fit is critical. He does not recall Ms. Bradley nor is she listed in his appointment book for the date in question. This latter factor, he states, indicates she came in either as a walk-in, or was fit in as a favor to her sister, already a patient at the clinic. As to the payment, she could not have had a fee set until it was determined what action would be taken. Also, Ms. Bradley was patient number 17 for the day. Respondent states this shows she did not come in early, but more like 8:30 or 9:00 a.m. All of these factors are claimed by Respondent to show that Ms. Bradley is not being truthful in her allegations. However, this has not been shown. Respondent, in one statement, says he does not recall this patient, nor does he recall throwing the X rays on the table and stalking out of the office. However, he contends she asked him to take out the four teeth in question. Based on the state of the evidence, Ms. Bradley is the more credible witness.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent pay an administrative fine of $2,000 and be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 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 6th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Gallagher, Esq. Department of professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas Infantino, Esq. Post Office Drawer 30 Winter Park, Florida 32790-0030 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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should receive a passing score on the December 2001 dental license examination.
Findings Of Fact In December 2001, Petitioner took the dental licensure examination and failed to pass the clinical portion of the exam. The examination is a three-day process involving two days of clinical examination. Those two days of clinical examination consist of nine procedures. Four of the nine procedures were challenged by Petitioner. The clinical portion is where the candidate is required to perform certain patient procedures. The work product of the student, or candidate, is evaluated following the performance of those procedures by three examiners. Each examiner grades the candidate independently of whatever score the other examiners may award on a particular procedure. Then the average grade for each procedure is weighted in accordance with requirements of Rule 64B5-2.013, Florida Administrative Code. This produces the overall score for the entire clinical exam. The Department uses three examiners' scores because this provides a more reliable indication of the candidate's competency and true score. Further, each examiner must be a licensed dentist for a minimum of five years and have no complaints or disciplinary actions against their license. Examiners have no contact with the candidate taking the examination and, accordingly, have no idea of who they are grading. To further ensure fairness, each examiner must attend and successfully complete a standardization session. The purpose of these sessions is to ensure that each examiner is trained to use the same internal grading criteria. In standardization, each examiner is thoroughly taught specific grading criteria with the result that examiners are instructed on how to evaluate the work of the candidates. The examiners who graded Petitioner’s examination had successfully completed the foregoing standardization session. Also, the Department’s post-exam check found these examiners’ grading to be reliable. Petitioner contested the score he received on Procedure 4, the Endodontic procedure, a root canal. The Endodontic procedure required removal of infected nerve tissue and blood vessels pulp from the tooth. Petitioner was required to access the canal and pulp tissue from the outside. Then, Petitioner was required to remove the bad nerve and cleanse the canal. Finally, Petitioner was required to seal the canal to prevent recurring bacteria. Petitioner failed to observe a fracture in the tooth. He claimed that a fracture to the root of the tooth was caused by the Department after he reviewed his examination and that no one advised him the root was fractured. Petitioner requested a score of 3.00 for this procedure. However, the Department's witness, Dr. William F. Robinson, a licensed dentist for 32 years who examined the tooth and X-ray prepared by Petitioner, testified that the fracture to the root was noticed in both the X-ray and on the tooth when he examined the same. Additionally, two of the three re-graders also noted the fracture of the root. With regard to Petitioner's preparation of the X-ray at the conclusion of the examination, Dr. Robinson opined that Petitioner caused the fracture to the root during the examination and not the Department, as alleged by Petitioner. Dr. Robinson further opined that even without a fracture to the root of the tooth, Petitioner failed the procedure and the failing grade he received was fair. Dr. Robinson would not recommend that Petitioner receive a passing score of 3.00 on the procedure. The examiners' comments and grades and the testimony of Dr. William F. Robinson establish that Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure. The grade Petitioner received was fair. Petitioner challenged the grade he received on Procedure 5, the Class IV Composite Restoration of the front tooth, but did not offer any testimony at the hearing as to why the score was not correct for the procedure. Petitioner requested that the score of 1.00 given by one of the examiners be thrown out, thus giving him a passing grade on this procedure. Procedure 5 of the dental licensure examination is a procedure that involves the candidate’s ability to replace the edge of the front tooth with a composite resin material, which is a tooth-colored filling. As established by the examiners’ comments and grades and the testimony of Dr. William F. Robinson, Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure and the grade Petitioner received was fair. Specifically, the examiners found that the tooth was abraded and the re-grader noted, as did the examiners, the excessive “flash” on the tooth. Dr. Robinson also noted both deficiencies in the procedure. Petitioner contested the score he received on Procedure 6, the Class II Composite Restoration procedure in his original petition, but offered no testimony at the hearing concerning this procedure. Dr. Robinson reviewed the examiners' grades and the tooth prepared by Petitioner and opined that Petitioner’s grade of 2.66 for this procedure is fair. Based on the examiners’ comments and grades and the testimony of Dr. Robinson, Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure and the grade Petitioner received was fair. Petitioner contested the score he received on Procedure 7, the preparation for a 3-unit Fixed Partial Denture, claiming that on the re-grade one of the examiners reviewed the wrong procedure. The Preparation for a 3-unit Fixed Partial Denture procedure of the dental licensure examination is a procedure that involves the candidate’s ability to provide preparations of two (2) teeth in order to replace a missing tooth with a fixed bridge. Dr. Robinson established that Petitioner’s work on this procedure resulted in one tooth, No. 29, being grossly over reduced and tooth No. 31 was insufficiently reduced. The result of such work is that it is impossible to place a bridge on such an improper preparation. As established by testimony of Dr. Robinson, Petitioner's problem with this procedure resulted from Petitioner’s undercut. This undercut indicated that Petitioner’s preparations were not properly aligned to accept a bridge. Based on the examiners’ comments and grades, and the testimony of Dr. Robinson, Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure and the grade Petitioner received was fair. The Department's “re-grade” process was utilized in this case. Used to give all candidates who timely request a hearing another chance at passing, the re-grade process allows the Department to go back and determine whether any grades rendered were inconsistent. The Department selects the top three examiners who had the highest reliability from that examination to participate in the re-grade process. The Department maintains post-standardization statistics of the examiners’ performance. In this case, those statistics indicated that Petitioner’s examiners graded reliably. In addition, the Department calculates post- examination statistics for the examiners, which are as follows for the examiners who graded Petitioner’s challenged procedures: Examiner Accuracy Index & Rating #206 95.8-Excellent #375 98.8-Excellent #380 92.1-Good #334 97.8-Excellent #298 95.9-Excellent #375 98.8-Excellent-was an original and a re-grader. All of Petitioner's examiners exhibited a reliability significantly above the minimum acceptable accuracy index of 85.0.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the grade assigned him for the December 2001 dental licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Jason S. Baker, D.M.D. Westchester Medical Center 95 Grasslands Road, Box 572 Valhalla, New York 10595 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
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 The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Jennifer Lee Brown, D.M.D., should receive a passing grade on the December 1997 Florida dental licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jennifer Lee Brown, D.M.D., is a graduate from the University of Florida College of Dentistry. Respondent, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is responsible for the licensure of dentists in the State of Florida. In December 1997 the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on behalf of the Department, administered the Florida dental licensure examination which persons wishing to practice dentistry in the State were required to pass. Dr. Brown took the December 1997 dental examination (hereinafter referred to as the "Examination"). The Examination consisted of clinical, Florida laws and rules, and oral diagnosis parts. The clinical portion of the Examination consisted of 8 procedures: procedures 1-3 and 5-9. Each procedure was graded by three separate examiners. The scores awarded by the three examiners on each procedure were averaged, resulting in a truer score. Each procedure had standardized "comments" concerning a candidate's performance on the procedure which examiners could note. Examiners were selected from individuals recommended by existing examiners or members of the Board of Dentistry (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). Prospective examiners could not have any complaints against their license and they were required to have actively practiced dentistry and to be licensed as a dentist in Florida for a minimum of five years. Prospective examiners were required to file an application with the Board's examination committee. Prior to the Examination, a "standardization" session was conducted for the examiners selected. During the session, examiners were trained how to grade the Examination using the same internal criteria. The standardization session was conducted by assistant examiner supervisors appointed by the Board. After completion of the standardization session, and before the Examination, examiners were required to grade five mannequin models in order to evaluate the examiners' understanding of the grading criteria. Each examiner's performance was evaluated to determine whether the examiner should be used during the Examination. The examiners who graded Dr. Brown's clinical part of the Examination were designated as Examiners 168, 176, 195, 207, 264, 290, 298, and 299. All of these examiners completed the standardization session and the post-standardization evaluation. During the clinical part of the Examination, the examiners were required to grade each procedure independently, without conferring with each other. The clinical part of the Examination was "double blind" graded. Examiners did not see the candidates they were grading or watch their work. The test procedures were performed in a clinic in the presence of a licensed dentist. After the procedure was completed, the patient or tooth was taken to another clinic where the examiners reviewed the work performed on the patient and graded the procedure. The examiners had no direct contact with any candidate. Candidates were permitted to use "monitor-to-examiner" notes to convey information to the examiners that a candidate wanted the examiners to take into consideration when grading a procedure. Any such notes were read by the examiners and initialed "SMN" (saw monitor note) before they actually looked at the patient or tooth. For the clinical part of the Examination the following grading system was used: Zero: complete failure; One: unacceptable; Two: below minimally acceptable. Three: minimally acceptable. Four: better than minimally acceptable. Five: outstanding. After the Examination was graded, all examiners underwent a post-examination evaluation. Grades awarded by each examiner were compared to other examiners for consistency. All of the examiners who graded Dr. Brown's clinical part of the Examination were found to have performed acceptably. Dr. Brown was subsequently informed that she had failed to obtain the minimum passing grade of 3.00 for the clinical part of the Examination. Dr. Brown was informed that she had been awarded a score of 2.67. Dr. Brown was also informed that she passed the other two parts of the Examination. Dr. Brown challenged the scores she had been awarded on the clinical part of the Examination for procedures 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The procedures challenged were graded by examiners 176 (graded all the challenged procedures), 195 (graded procedures 5- 9), 207 (graded procedure 2), 298 (graded procedure 2), and 299 (graded procedures 5-9). The Department conceded that the scores awarded Dr. Brown on procedures 7 and 8 were incorrect. As a result, the Department agreed that Dr. Brown's overall score for the clinical part of the Examination should be raised to 2.82. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Brown should have received a higher score on procedures 7 and 8. Procedure 2 consisted of an amalgam (filling)n preparation on a human patient. Dr. Brown was required to select a tooth and, after the selected tooth was checked by an examiner, complete preparation for the amalgam. Dr. Brown wrote three monitor-to-examiner notes during procedure 2. All three examiners wrote "SMN" on all three notes. Dr. Brown received an average score on procedure 2 of 3.66. Dr. Brown was awarded the following individual scores for her performance on procedure 2: Examiner Score 176 4 207 4 298 3 Examiners 176 and 298 noted the following comment concerning Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 2: "Depth Prep." Examiner 298 also noted the following comment: "Marginal Finish." Examiner 207 noted the following comment: "Retention Form." Dr. Brown admitted that her performance on procedure 2 was not ideal, but expressed concern that she was graded down for matters dealt with in the monitor-to-examiner notes. Dr. Shields opined that it was possible for the examiners to have reduced the score awarded to Dr. Brown on procedure for depth preparation, marginal finish, and retention form and not have graded her down for the monitor-to-examiner notes. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Shields' opinion was not reasonable or accurate. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Brown should have received a higher score for procedure 2 of the clinical part of the Examination. Dr. Brown received a fairly consistent score from all three graders. Procedure 5 was a "class IV composite restoration." This procedure involved the selection of a tooth by Dr. Brown which she was then required to make a slice cut on to replicate a fracture. Dr. Brown was then required to restore the simulated fractured tooth to its normal contour and function. The procedure was performed on a mannequin. Dr. Brown received an average score of 1.66 on procedure 5. Dr. Brown was awarded the following individual scores for her performance on procedure 5: Examiner Score 176 3 195 0 299 2 Examiners 176 and 195 noted the following comment concerning Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 5: "Proximal Contour." Examiners 176 and 299 noted the following comment concerning Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 5: "Margin." Finally, the following additional comments were noted by the examiners: Examiner Comment: 195 Functional Anatomy Mutilation of Adjacent Teeth 289 Gingival Overhang Dr. Brown's challenge to her score for procedure 5 was essentially that Examiner 199 had given her such a low score on this procedure and procedures 7 through 9 when compared to the scores awarded by Examiners 176 and 298. Dr. Shields opined that Dr. Brown should not have received a higher score for her performance on procedure 5. Dr. Shields' opinion was based generally upon his 21 years of experience as a dentist. More specifically, Dr. Shields based his opinion upon his examination of the actual tooth that Dr. Brown performed procedure 5 on. Dr. Shields found excess material left at the gingival or gum portion of the tooth. Dr. Shields also found that Dr. Brown attempted to polish the material off and had flattened some of the surface of the tooth. Apparently, based upon Examiner 195's comment notes, Examiner 195 was the only examiner to catch these deficiencies in Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 5. Dr. Shields also found slight damage on the mesial, the approximating surface of the lateral incisor, the tooth next to the tooth that was restored. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Shields' opinions concerning Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 5 were not reasonable and accurate. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Brown should have received a higher score for procedure 5 of the clinical part of the Examination. Procedure 6 required that Dr. Brown perform an Endodontic Evaluation of the Maxillary First Premolar. Dr. Brown was required to select an extracted tooth, a maxillary tricuspid, examine x-rays of the tooth, and then perform a root canal on the tooth. The tooth had two roots. The root canal involved creating an opening in the tooth and removing the pulpal tissue from the two nerve canals of the tooth (a debridement). The canals were to be shaped for an obturation or the filling of the canal. A final x-ray of the tooth was taken after the procedure was completed. Dr. Brown received an average score on procedure 6 of 1.00. Dr. Brown was awarded the following individual scores for her performance on procedure 6: Examiner Score 176 3 195 0 299 0 All three examiners noted the following comment for Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 6: "Proper Filling of Canal Spaces with Gutta Percha." Gutta Percha is the material that was used by Dr. Brown to fill the canal of the roots after she completed the debridement. Examiner 195 noted the following additional comment for Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 6: "Access Preparation." Examiner 299 noted the following additional comment: "Shaping of Canals." Dr. Brown's challenge to her score for procedure 6 was based in part on her concern that Examiners 199 and 299 had given her a score of 0 on this procedure while Examiner 176 had given her a score of 3. Dr. Brown admitted that she had caused the gutta percha to extrude through the apex of the canals. She argued, however, that gutta percha is reabsorbed by the patient. Therefore, Dr. Brown suggested that her performance was "clinically acceptable." Dr. Brown questioned how one examiner, Examiner 176, could conclude that her performance was in fact clinically acceptable, while the other two examiners concluded it was not. The difficulty with Dr. Brown's position with regard to procedure 6 is that she assumes that the only deficiency with her performance was the extrusion of gutta percha and that it was not a significant deficiency. The evidence failed to support this position. Dr. Shields opined that Dr. Brown should not have received a higher score for her performance on procedure 6. His opinion was based upon the fact that the extrusion of gutta percha was very significant on one of the canals: it extended a millimeter and a half. On the other canal it was a half of a millimeter. Filling the canal one half millimeter to a millimeter is considered ideal. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Shields' opinion was not reasonable or accurate. During the standardization session, examiners were told that extrusion of gutta percha more than a half millimeter through the apex was to be considered an error of major consequence. Candidates who extruded guttal percha more than a half millimeter were not to receive a grade higher than one. In light of the instructions during the standardization session, it was more likely that Examiner 176 gave Dr. Brown too high of a score on procedure 6. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Brown should have received a higher score for procedure 6 of the clinical part of the Examination. Procedure 9 was a pin amalgam final restoration. Although this procedure involved, in a lay person's terms, a filling, what exactly was involved in this procedure was not explained during the formal hearing. Dr. Brown received an average score on procedure 9 of 1.66. Dr. Brown was awarded the following individual scores for her performance on procedure 9: Examiner Score 176 4 195 0 299 1 All three examiners noted the following comment concerning Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 9: "Functional Anatomy." Examiners 195 and 299, who both graded Dr. Brown below minimal acceptability, also noted the following comments: "Proximal Contour," "Contract," and "Margin." Dr. Brown failed to present any evidence to support her claim that she should have received a higher score for procedure Dr. Brown simply questioned the fact that Examiner 195 had graded her low on all the clinical procedures. Dr. Shields opined that Dr. Brown should not receive a higher score on procedure 9. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Shields' opinion was not reasonable or accurate. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Brown should have received a higher score for procedure 9 of the clinical part of the Examination. Dr. Brown's challenge in this case was based largely on the fact that Examiner 195 had graded her performance on procedures 5, 6, and 9 as a zero, procedure 7 as a one, and procedure 8 as a two. Other than the fact that Examiner 195's scores were consistently low, the evidence failed to prove that Examiner 195 improperly graded Dr. Brown except as conceded by the Department on procedures 7 and 8. Comparing the scores awarded by Examiner 195 to Examiner 176 does raise some question as to why there was such a discrepancy in the two examiners' scores. When the scores on procedures 5, 6, and 9 of all three examiners are compared, however, Examiners 195 and 298 generally were consistently below acceptable, while Examiner 176's scores were generally higher on these three procedures: Examiner Procedure 5 Score Procedure 6 Score Procedure 9 Score 176 3 3 4 195 0 0 0 299 2 0 1 This simple mathematical comparison, however, is not sufficient to conclude that Examiner 195 scored too low or that Examiner 176 scored too high. Other than a simple comparison of the scores of the three examiners, the only evidence concerning whether Examiner 195 graded too low based upon the scores alone was presented by Ms. Carnes, an expert in psychometrics. Ms. Carnes opined that Examiner 195's performance was acceptable, except with regard to procedures 7 and 8. The evidence failed to refute Ms. Canres' opinion. Based upon the weight of the evidence, Dr. Brown's score for the clinical portion of the Examination, as adjusted by the Department during the final hearing of this case, was reasonable and accurate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, dismissing Dr. Brown's challenge to the amended grade awarded for the clinical part of the December 1997 Dental Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Brown Post Office Box 39 Starke, Florida 32091-0039 Anna Marie Williamson, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
