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 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. /
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 466.028(1)(m) and 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (1998); Subsections 466.028(1)(i) and 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2000); and Subsections 456.072(1)(bb), 466.028(1)(i), 466.028(1)(l), 466.028(1)(m), 466.028(1)(t), and 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2001), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times to this proceeding, Dr. D'Amico was a licensed dentist within the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 7121. From 1999 to 2000, Dr. D'Amico was practicing dentistry at Florida Dental, located at 1535 Prosperity Farms Road, Lake Park, Florida. Florida Dental was a clinical-type practice, with several general dentists and Dr. D'Amico, who was the oral surgeon. In January 2001, Dr. D'Amico and Dr. Charles McNamara entered into an agreement by which Dr. D'Amico agreed to purchase Dr. McNamara's office equipment and supplies and to sublet Dr. McNamara's office space located on Lakemont Avenue in Winter Park, Florida. Because of an extended illness, Dr. McNamara was no longer going to practice at the Lakemont Avenue office, but was going to work for another dentist. When Dr. McNamara vacated his office space, he took his patient records with him. Dr. D'Amico was not an independent contractor of Dr. McNamara's, and they did not share a practice. Dr. D'Amico did not leave any of his patients' records with Dr. McNamara. There was not an agreement between Dr. D'Amico and Dr. McNamara that Dr. McNamara would cover for any of Dr. D'Amico's patients. Dr. McNamara had difficulty with Dr. D'Amico paying the rent for the office space and with payments received by Dr. D'Amico from patients of Dr. McNamara. By September 2001, Dr. McNamara was ready to evict Dr. D'Amico from the premises. Dr. McNamara went to the Lakemont Avenue office to give Dr. D'Amico eviction papers, and Dr. D'Amico was not there. A woman was sitting at the reception desk, and it appeared that the practice was being moved. Dr. McNamara later returned to the office, and it was obvious that Dr. D'Amico was no longer practicing at the Lakemont Avenue address. In the fall of 2001, Dr. John M. Altomare was in the process of leaving his office located at 7145 East Colonial Drive, Orlando, Florida, and moving into a new office which was under construction. During the days and hours that Dr. Altomare was not in his East Colonial Drive office, he agreed to let Dr. D'Amico use the office space. Dr. D'Amico had a separate telephone line at the East Colonial Drive office. Dr. D'Amico did not see any of Dr. Altomare's patients at the East Colonial Drive office. Dr. Altomare did not agree to cover for Dr. D'Amico. The relationship between Dr. D'Amico and Dr. Altomare lasted approximately two to three months during the fall of 2001. In the early part of 2002, Dr. D'Amico associated himself with a dental group in Tampa, Florida. Dr. D'Amico failed to publish a notice in the newspaper of greatest circulation in the county where he practiced, advising his patients of the relocation of his practice, when he left Florida Dental and the East Colonial Drive office. The evidence did not establish that the East Colonial Drive office was outside the local telephone directory service of the Lakemont Avenue office. Vicki Bruno was Dr. D'Amico's office manager beginning on August 1, 2001. She filed the patient records and other information in the patients' files. The files were kept in a filing cabinet at the Lakemont Avenue office. When Dr. D'Amico left the Lakemont Avenue office, the files were removed from the office. When Dr. D'Amico starting working out of Dr. Altomare's office, Ms. Bruno was assigned a closet in which to store the files. The closet space was not adequate to store the files, and, at one time, Ms. Bruno placed the patient files in the trunk of her car. Dr. Edward Allen Rumberger testified as an expert witness for the Department. Dr. Rumberger has been licensed to practice dentistry in Florida since 1975 and is board-certified in oral surgery. He reviewed materials related to the four cases at issue, consisting of patient statements, interviews with other individuals, including a former employee, some of the medical records of the patients, and some of the x-rays related to the cases. Patient C.O. On June 20, 1999, C.O. needed to have some repair work done on his Hader bar and went to Florida Dental, where he had been treated in the past. C.O. normally dealt with another dentist, but on this particular visit, he was seen by Dr. D'Amico. C.O. had four implants in his upper mouth. Dr. D'Amico advised C.O. that he did not have enough support for the implants and that he needed to have two pins inserted, at a cost of $1,000 per pin. As Dr. D'Amico began working on C.O., he advised C.O. that the other implants were infected. C.O. was the last patient to leave Florida Dental on June 20, 1999. After Dr. D'Amico finished his work on C.O., he asked C.O. for a check for $5,300 for the work he had done. C.O., groggy from the anesthesia, wrote a check to Florida Dental and gave it to Dr. D'Amico. C.O. returned to Florida Dental for several more visits after his initial treatment by Dr. D'Amico. Dr. D'Amico removed all of C.O.'s original implants and put in new implants. The new implants became infected and had to be removed. The site of the implants had to be débrided. Several weeks after the débridment procedure, Dr. D'Amico did a tibial harvest and grafting to the maxilla in an attempt to provide bone which would support an implant. After C.O.'s last visit with Dr. D'Amico, C.O. experienced pain, infection, and swelling. Dr. D'Amico had given C.O. several telephone numbers at which C.O. could reach him. C.O. called the telephone numbers that Dr. D'Amico had given him, but he could not reach Dr. D'Amico at any of the numbers called. Dr. D'Amico did not give C.O. the name of another dentist to call in case of an emergency. C.O. returned to Florida Dental and advised the person in charge that he needed to have something done for him. Another dentist, Dr. Castillo, was called in to attend C.O. C.O. continued to see Dr. Castillo, who was eventually able to insert three implants in C.O.'s mouth. After C.O. began treatment with Dr. Castillo, Dr. D'Amico contacted C.O. in an attempt to get C.O. to return to him for treatment. C.O. declined further treatment by Dr. D'Amico. Dr. Rumberger reviewed the medical records relating to C.O.'s treatment by Dr. D'Amico. The medical notes consisted of a brief note that five implants were placed and another note stating "Left Tibial Harvest Global Maxillary Cellular Graft." There was no mention of the type of anesthesia that was used. The records did not contain a treatment plan, which should have been done for both the implants and the tibial harvest. There is no documentation that the procedures were thoroughly discussed with C.O. or that C.O. gave informed consent for the procedures. The records do not contain a diagnosis. The x-rays in C.O.'s file were of poor quality and were unsuitable for use in forming an opinion. The records do not justify the course of treatment used by Dr. D'Amico based on the clinical examinations and x-rays of C.O. Patient J.H. On June 12, 2001, J.H. visited Dr. D'Amico at the Winter Park office, to have four lower teeth extracted. Some of the four teeth were broken and infected, causing J.H. pain. J.H. wanted to be fitted with a partial denture after the lower teeth were extracted. Dr. D'Amico extracted the four teeth on June 12, 2001, while J.H. was under sedation. An assistant was present during at least part of the procedure. On July 11, 2001, J.H. returned to see Dr. D'Amico for examination of the extraction sites and to have an impression made for a partial denture. Dr. D'Amico asked J.H. to remove his upper denture plate. Upon examination, Dr. D'Amico found some redundant soft tissue in the posterior of J.H.'s mouth. Dr. D'Amico told J.H. that the lesions may be precancerous. Dr. D'Amico excised some tissue from both sides of D.H.'s mouth. One sample was sent to a laboratory for testing, and the laboratory results indicated that the lesion was benign. Although Ms. Bruno testified that laboratory work was not being done because Dr. D'Amico was delinquent in paying for laboratory work, the tissue sample that was sent to the laboratory in July was prior to Ms. Bruno's employment with Dr. D'Amico. On July 31, 2001, J.H. returned to Dr. D'Amico's office, where Dr. D'Amico removed tissue from the anterior maxillar vestibule. The lesion in the upper area was probably an epulis fissura, which would not require a biopsy, but would require justification for removal. The tissue was removed to make the area more structurally amenable to wearing a new denture. A sample was not sent to a laboratory for testing. Ten days later, J.H. returned for a post-operative visit, complaining of pain in an area where Dr. D'Amico had excised tissue. J.H. was placed under sedation, and Dr. D'Amico reopened the incision. Dr. D'Amico removed a suture needle from the site. Tiffany Callicott, who was Dr. D'Amico's assistant, was present during the procedure and witnessed the removal of the suture needle. Dr. D'Amico did not tell J.H. that a suture needle had been left in his gum. When J.H. awoke from the anesthesia, Dr. D'Amico told J.H. that he had removed a stone. Later Ms. Callicott told J.H. that Dr. D'Amico had removed a suture needle and not a stone. J.H. had difficulty in getting Dr. D'Amico to fill out and submit insurance claims for J.H.'s dental work. He went to Dr. D'Amico's office to see about the insurance. One of Dr. D'Amico's staff gave J.H. three vials containing tissue samples which Dr. D'Amico had removed from J.H.'s mouth. J.H. took the vials to his family physician so that the samples could be sent to a laboratory. J.H. was billed for laboratory analyses for the two tissue samples that Dr. D'Amico did not send to the laboratory. He was also billed for the work that Dr. D'Amico did in removing the suture needle. Lija Scherer is a medical malpractice investigator with the Department. Part of her responsibilities, include obtaining medical records for cases which are being investigated. Ms. Scherer obtained an authorization for release of patient information from J.H. and served Dr. D'Amico with a subpoena to produce the medical records for J.H. Dr. D'Amico failed to produce the medical records. The evidence is not clear how the Department obtained the dental records for J.H., but some records were furnished by the Department to Dr. Rumberger. The medical records furnished to Dr. Rumberger consisted of two anesthesia records and a few progress notes, which were in different handwritings and were not signed or identified. Patient A.P. Dr. D'Amico provided dental treatment to A.P. in September 2001. A.P. had been advised by his regular dentist that his wisdom teeth were impacted and needed to be removed. A.P. went to the office of Dr. McNamara in Winter Park, Florida, to arrange to have the teeth extracted. When A.P. arrived at the office, he was met by Dr. D'Amico, who advised A.P. that Dr. McNamara had retired and that he was taking over the practice. A.P. agreed to allow Dr. D'Amico to treat him. On the first visit, A.P. brought a panoramic x-ray which had been taken by his general dentist. Dr. D'Amico went over the x-ray with A.P., told A.P. the procedure that he would use to extract the teeth, advised A.P. that he would have anesthesia for the procedure, and advised A.P. of the number of days needed for recovery. A.P. made an appointment with Dr. D'Amico to have his wisdom teeth removed on the Friday of the following week, September 13, 1991. S.P., A.P.'s mother, accompanied A.P. to Dr. D'Amico's office for the surgical procedure. A.P. filled out a medical history form and indicated that he was allergic to codeine. A.P. was taken to a room, which contained only a chair in which A.P. sat, a stool on which Dr. D'Amico sat, and a device by which the anesthesia was to be administered. Dr. D'Amico was accompanied by an assistant. A.P. was given anesthesia through an I.V. and went completely to sleep. Dr. D'Amico extracted the four wisdom teeth. After the surgical procedure, Dr. D'Amico's assistant gave S.P. three prescriptions for A.P. and no oral post- operative instructions.1 One of the prescriptions was a pain reliever, one was an antibiotic, and one was for inflammation. Neither A.P. nor his mother was advised that the anti-inflammation medication should be started immediately following surgery. A.P. did not have the prescriptions filled until the day after the surgery. A.P. felt that one of the medications contained codeine, and he did not take that medication. The evidence does not establish that codeine or a medication containing codeine was actually prescribed. After the surgery, A.P. experienced discoloration on the arm in which the I.V. had been given. The arm turned a dark purple from his elbow to his wrist. A.P. was also experiencing pain in his jaw. On the Monday following the procedure, A.P. attempted to contact Dr. D'Amico by telephone. A.P.'s telephone calls were put through to an answering service. A.P. received no answer from Dr. D'Amico on Monday. The next day A.P. again called Dr. D'Amico and spoke with a woman with the answering service. He told the lady that it was an emergency and that he needed to speak to Dr. D'Amico. About ten minutes later, Dr. D'Amico returned A.P.'s telephone call. Dr. D'Amico advised A.P. to apply warm compresses to his arm and that it was normal to have pain after impacted wisdom teeth were removed. A.P. was told to call Dr. D'Amico's office and set up an appointment to see Dr. D'Amico in a week. A.P. was still in a lot of pain and tried to telephone Dr. D'Amico again on Wednesday and Thursday. He was unsuccessful in reaching the doctor. A.P. left messages with the answering service, but Dr. D'Amico did not respond. On Friday, September 20, 2001, A.P. again tried to telephone Dr. D'Amico. This time he was unable to reach either Dr. D'Amico or the answering service. By September 20, 2001, S.P. became frustrated with the lack of response from Dr. D'Amico to A.P.'s attempts to contact him. S.P. went back to the office where the surgery had been performed, and the office was closed. Dr. D'Amico had advised her that he would be moving his office, so she also went to the location where the office was to be moved, but that office was also closed. She left a letter marked "urgent" at both offices. The letter stated that she and her son had been unable to contact Dr. D'Amico and that her son needed to be checked because he was still in pain and his arm was swollen at the site of the I.V. injection. In the letter, S.P. listed four telephone numbers by which either she or her son could be reached. Neither A.P. nor S.P. received any response from Dr. D'Amico. S.P. called another dentist, Dr. Andre Buchs, and requested that he see A.P. Dr. Buchs, who is board-certified in oral and maxillofacial surgery, saw A.P. on September 21, 2001. Dr. Buchs diagnosed possible phlebitis of the right arm secondary to the intravenous sedation that A.P. had been given by Dr. D'Amico. Phlebitis is an inflammation of the inside of the vein. Dr. Buchs also examined A.P. for the severe pain that A.P. was having in his upper right jaw. He found that there was a hole or perforation in the sinus membrane so that there was a communication between the mouth and the maxillary sinus. About 85 percent of such openings will spontaneously close over a period of time. The treatment was to prevent the area from getting infected with antibiotic therapy and to observe the opening for two to three months. Dr. Buchs prescribed amoxicillin and told A.P. to apply warm compresses to his arm and to avoid anything that would aggravate the perforation. He also advised A.P. that if he was unsuccessful in locating Dr. D'Amico to come by for a follow-up visit. Dr. Buchs saw A.P. again on September 26, 2001. A.P. was doing better by the time of the follow-up visit. On October 17, 2001, A.P. again saw Dr. Buchs. At this time, the opening in the sinus cavity appeared to be closing. Dr. Buchs did see a raised firm lump on A.P.'s inner right arm, which meant that A.P. had a true phlebitis. Ms. Scherer obtained an authorization for release of patient information from A.P. and served Dr. D'Amico with a subpoena for the medical records of A.P. Dr. D'Amico failed to produce the medical records. Thus, there are no medical records available to document the course of treatment for A.P. Patient M.F. M.F. saw an advertisement in her local newspaper that Dr. D'Amico, a maxillofacial surgeon, was associated with Florida Dental. M.F. had been experiencing discomfort with her set of dentures that was not functioning properly. She felt that implants might be a better solution to her problems and that a maxillofacial surgeon could perform the procedure. In October 1999, she went to see Dr. D'Amico for a consultation. Dr. D'Amico explained that he would place six implants into her upper gum ridge and that it would take approximately four months to complete the process. Dr. D'Amico described the steps in the procedure. A week later M.F. returned to Dr. D'Amico to begin the procedure. After the implants were inserted, M.F. began a waiting period to see if the implants would be rejected. She did have pain with two of the implants, and Dr. D'Amico did further work on those implants, which resolved the pain. During the implant process, M.F. would wait until Dr. D'Amico called her to come in for further work. Frequently he would make an appointment with M.F. and not appear for the appointment. M.F. would go to different locations for her appointments with Dr. D'Amico. Some of the locations appeared to her to be dental offices and some did not. During the healing process, Dr. D'Amico placed healing columns in the implants. Impressions were made for temporary teeth. M.F. wore the temporary teeth until permanent teeth could be made. During one session in which Dr. D'Amico was making an impression for her permanent teeth, he broke one of the front teeth on the temporary set. Dr. D'Amico told M.F. that she could get some Crazy Glue and repair the tooth. M.F. tried to repair the tooth with Crazy Glue, but it would not hold. Thus, M.F. had a missing front tooth for three or four months. After Dr. D'Amico had fitted M.F. with temporary teeth, he told her that he was going to move his dental practice to Boynton Beach. She did not hear from Dr. D'Amico for approximately three or four months. M.F. went to Boynton Beach to look for him, but was unsuccessful in locating him. Dr. D'Amico finally called M.F. and set up an appointment in Winter Park to finish placing the permanent teeth. She went to the appointment. According to M.F., when Dr. D'Amico placed the permanent teeth in her mouth, the teeth did not fit. There was one central incisor in front, and the second incisor was placed to the side. M.F. complained that the upper and lower teeth on both sides did not touch, resulting in difficulty in chewing. The permanent teeth were a different color from her natural lower teeth. Dr. Rumberger opined that the provision of permanent teeth was beyond Dr. D'Amico's expertise and that Dr. D'Amico should have referred M.F. to another dentist for that procedure. In an attempt to get better articulation between the upper and lower teeth, Dr. D'Amico filed a cap on her lower teeth. The cap had been placed by another dentist. In filing the cap, Dr. D'Amico exposed the metal. He did not offer to repair the cap. Dr. Rumberger did not give an opinion on whether the filing of the cap was below the standard of care. His comment was, "That can happen." Dr. D'Amico told M.F. to try wearing the permanent teeth for two weeks. After the two weeks had passed, M.F. called Dr. D'Amico's office. She was told by the person answering the telephone that Dr. D'Amico would return her call, but he did not. Several months passed before Dr. D'Amico contacted M.F. to come in so that the permanent teeth could be cemented in place. At this time, five of the implants had permanent abutments, but one implant still had a temporary abutment. Dr. D'Amico was going to cement the teeth without replacing the temporary abutment with a permanent abutment. M.F. would not allow him to cement the teeth in place without all the permanent abutments inserted. Dr. D'Amico moved his practice again. M.F. could not locate him and wanted to have the work finished. M.F. had paid Dr. D'Amico in full, approximately $20,000, for the work prior to the work being finished. She had the implant work finished by another dentist at a cost of $9,000. M.F. brought a legal action against Dr. D'Amico to recover her money. The medical records of M.F., which were provided to Dr. Rumberger for his review, were minimal and illegible. There was no mention of a study model being used or that there was a pre-op consultation with a dentist who would construct the permanent teeth. The medical records for M.F. were inadequate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Dr. D'Amico violated Subsections 466.028(1)(m) and 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (1998); Subsections 466.028(1)(i) and 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2000); and Subsections 466.028(1)(i), 466.028(1)(l), 466.028(1)(m), 466.028(1)(t), 466.028(1)(x), and 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2001). It is further recommended that Dr. D'Amico's license be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 23rd day of July, 2004.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should receive on the the clinical portion of the examination additional credit, which is sufficient to receive a passing grade on the December 1997 dental licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Neda Raeisian, was a candidate for the dental licensure examination administered by the State of Florida in December 1997. The dental examination administered in December 1997 consisted of three parts: a "Florida Laws & Rules" part, an "Oral Diagnosis" part, and a "Clinical" part. The Petitioner received passing scores on the "Florida Laws & Rules" and "Oral Diagnosis" parts of the examination. Petitioner received a score of 2.95 on the Clinical part of the examination. A score of 3.00 was required on the Clinical part of the examination. The Petitioner failed the Clinical portion by .05 of a point, and, therefore, she failed the overall dental examination. Three examiners grade each candidate's clinical portion of the dental examination. Three examiners are used because by averaging the scores of the three examiners, the Respondent is more likely to capture the candidate's true score than by using one or two examiners. Before an examiner may be used for an examination, he or she must be recommended by an existing examiner or by a member of the Board of Dentistry. The proposed examiner may not have any complaints against his or her license and he or she must have been actively practicing and licensed for at least five years in the State of Florida. The examiner must complete an application that is sent to the Board of Dentistry examination committee, where it is then reviewed by the committee, and if approved, the examiner is entered into the pool of examiners. Before every examination, the Respondent conducts a standardization session, which is a process by which examiners are trained to grade using the same internal criteria. The Respondent uses assistant examiner supervisors who are appointed by the Board to train examiners on the different criteria that are used during the examination. The assistant examination supervisors go through and describe what a score of five would be, all the way down to a zero, the different criteria for each of those particular grades, and under what circumstances those grades should be given. After the examiners go through a verbal training, they are shown slides of teeth and told what the score on that procedure should be. After the standardization, there is a post- standardization exercise where the examiners are required to grade five mannequin models to make sure they have been able to internalize the criteria. After the post-standardization exercise, the Respondent evaluates the examiners to determine whether they are acceptable to use during the examination. There are also post-examination checks on the examiner, whereby the Respondent decides whether or not to use the examiners again. The Respondent runs the post-examination statistical checks to make sure that the examiners grade with consistency and reliability. There is generally a very high agreement rate between the examiners. Typically if there is an inconsistency in grading, it is usually the examiner who gives the higher grade that is incorrect because he or she missed an error; any error found by an examiner must be documented. The examiners grade the examination independently of each other; that is, they do not confer with each other while scoring the examination. The examination is also double-blind graded. Double- blind grading is the process through which examiners have no contact with the candidates. The examination is conducted in such a way that there is one clinic that is monitored by a licensed dentist in which the candidates actually perform the procedures. When the candidates are finished a proctor walks the patient over to another clinic where the examiners are located, and the examiners grade the examination. The candidates perform the patient portion of the examination on human beings that they are responsible for bringing in. If the patient has the necessary characteristics, the patient could serve for two different candidates or on two different examinations. The examination is a minimum competency examination. The grading system used during the clinical portion of the examination is as follows: A zero is a complete failure, a one is unacceptable dental procedure; a two is below minimally acceptable dental procedure; a three is minimally acceptable procedure, which is the minimum required to pass the clinical portion; a four is better than minimally acceptable dental procedure; and a five is outstanding dental procedure. An overall score is determine by averaging the three examiners' scores on the eight clinical procedures, putting different weights into a formula, and calculating the final grade. It is required in Board rule that the scores of the examiners be averaged. The Petitioner challenges the score given to her for her performance on Procedure 03, "Amalgam Final Restoration," of the Clinical portion of the examination. The Petitioner performed Procedure 03, the "Amalgam Final Restoration," on a live patient, Ms. Desiree Peacock. The Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03 was graded by three examiners: examiner number 290, identified as Dr. Richard Tomlin, of Pinellas Park, Florida; examiner number 299, identified as Dr. Haychell Saraydar, of Pinellas Park, Florida; and examiner number 176, identified as Dr. Leonard Britten, of Lutz, Florida. The Petitioner received a grade of 4 on a scale of 0-5 for her performance on Procedure 03 by examiner number 290; and a grade of 3 on a scale of 0-5 for her performance on Procedure 3 by examiner number 299. However, she received a grade of 0 on a scale of 0-5 for her performance on Procedure 03 by examiner number 176. The reason the Petitioner was given a score of 0 on procedure 03 by examiner number 176 was that the examiner felt that there was a lack of contact at the amalgam restoration site. The Respondent's dental expert, Jorge H. Miyares, D.D.S., testified that a score of 4 is given on Procedure 3 when, in the judgment of the examiner, there are only minor errors present which will not jeopardize the procedure; that a score of 3 is given on Procedure 03 when, in the judgment of the examiner, the procedure is completed at entry level; and that a score of 0 on Procedure 03 is mandatory if there is a total lack of contact. The examiners are taught and trained to check for contact when grading a candidate's performance on Procedure 03, as a lack of contact is a very significant error that jeopardizes the integrity of the amalgam restoration. There are two different types of contact involved in a Class II Restoration. The type of contact that was referenced by Examiner 176 in his grade documentation sheet is proximal contact. Proximal contact is when a tooth is restored, the proximal tooth next to it must be touching the tooth that has been prepared. Contact is something that either does or does not exist between two teeth. Contact is checked visually and by running a piece of dental floss between the teeth to see if there is resistance. Examiners 290 and 299 would have been required to give the Petitioner a grade of 0 on Procedure 03 if they had found a lack of contact. The findings of examiners 290 and 299 during their review of the Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03 were inconsistent with the findings of examiner 176 (lack of contact) during his review of the Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03. The inconsistency between the findings of examiners 290 and 299 and the findings of examiner 176 during their review of the Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03 were statistically unusual. Respondent performed Procedure 03 on the patient Desiree Peacock. Following the exam, Peacock used dental floss on the affected area and she believed she felt resistance. Although the grading on Procedure 03 of the clinical portion of the examination is inconsistent, the Respondent followed its standard testing procedures for the December 1997 dental examination. The evidence is insufficient to prove that the Respondent's examiner acted arbitrarily or capriciously or with an abuse of discretion in refusing to give the Petitioner a passing grade on procedure 03 of the clinical examination.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grade assigned her for the clinical portion of the December 1997 dental licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Anne Williamson, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Neda Raeisian 2161 Lake Debra Drive Apartment 1726 Orlando, Florida 32835 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 466.028(1)(j), (l), (m), (n), (u), and (y), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 466, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Michael Freedman (Dr. Freedman), is and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed dentist in the state of Florida, having been issued license number DN0010221. From June, 1988 through February, 1989, Dr. Freedman billed Medicare and received compensation for dental treatment of three elderly patients, L.S., E.K., and K.K., who resided in a nursing home, Meadowbrook Manor of Boca Cove (Meadowbrook). Patient L.S. At all material times to this proceeding, L.S. was a 93- year-old female who suffered from Alzheimer's disease. At the time of Dr. Freedman's treatment of L.S., Ms. Aurelia DaPra acted as L.S.'s legal guardian. She was also L.S.'s close personal friend and visited L.S. on a daily basis. During these visits Ms. DaPra would attend to L.S.'s personal needs. On or about July 7, 1988, patient L.S. was presented to Dr. Freedman for a consultation at the nursing home where L.S. resided. Dr. Freedman's examination revealed edentulism and/or prosthetic related problems. His recommendations included further diagnostic investigations, surgical procedures, and rehabilitative measures. Dr. Freedman billed $173.00 and was subsequently paid $107.84 by Medicare for services rendered. The "Next Patient Appointment/Service Record" contained in Dr. Freedman's records indicate that dental X-rays were taken of L.S. on July 25, 1988. On July 25, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for office services for L.S. On August 8, 1988, Dr. Freedman gave telephone orders to the staff at Meadowbrook to premedicate L.S. prior to Dr. Freedman's visit on the next day. On August 9, 1988, Dr. Freedman visited L.S. Other than rendering an X-ray report, the records do not indicate any other service performed by Dr. Freedman on that date. On August 9, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $225.00 and was subsequently paid $108.80 by Medicare for X-rays and supplies for L.S. The Medicare category under which supplies are billed is entitled "supplies/prosthesis." Dr. Freedman's customary practice was to make the X-rays at the nursing home using a mobile X-ray machine and to develop the films in his office the next day. He rendered an X-ray report on the dental X-rays of L.S. on August 9, 1988. On August 17, 1988, Dr. Freedman visited L.S. and did a behavior adjustment evaluation. Premedication was given to L.S. on site. On August 17, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for office services for L.S. On August 26, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for office services for L.S. The dental records of L.S. do not indicate that any service was provided to L.S. on August 26, 1988. Based on the unrebutted evidence presented at the final hearing, no services were provided to L.S. by Dr. Freedman on August 26, 1988. Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 for office services on September 2, 1988, and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for such services. The records of Dr. Freedman include a draft letter to Dr. Janotta, L.S.'s physician, stating that L.S. needed to have intrabony lesions removed and would require premedication to facilitate the procedure. Notes in his records indicate that by September 18, 1988, Dr. Freedman had not heard from Dr. Janotta. Dr. Freedman billed $72.70 for supplies for L.S. on November 1, 1988, and was subsequently paid $43.88 by Medicare. On November 1, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $374.00 and was subsequently paid $160.00 by Medicare for surgery on L.S. On November 1, 1988, Dr. Freedman performed a debridement procedure on L.S., which was surgical in nature and was not a routine cleaning of the teeth. Another behavior management evaluation was done on L.S. on November 1, 1988. On January 13, 1989, Dr. Freedman billed $133.00 and was subsequently paid $69.60 by Medicare for X-rays and supplies for L.S. Dr. Freedman's records did not indicate that any services were provided to L.S. on that date. Based on the unrebutted evidence presented at the final hearing, no services were provided to L.S. by Dr. Freedman on January 13, 1989. Dr. Janotta's progress notes concerning L.S. indicate that he was contacted by Dr. Freedman on February 5, 1989. On the same date, Dr. Janotta ordered that L.S.'s legal guardian be contacted to get L.S.'s private dentist to look at L.S.'s dental problems. After Ms. DaPra was informed that Dr. Janotta had left orders that L.S. should see a dentist, she told the nurse that she did not want Dr. Freedman to be used as the dentist. On January 26, 1989, Dr. Freedman's office called Dr. Janotta's office and stated that Dr. Freedman intended to do some minor dental work on L.S. and inquired whether the dental work should be done and whether L.S. should be premedicated. On February 10, 1989, Dr. Freedman billed $52.00 and was subsequently paid $22.72 by Medicare for office services for L.S. Dr. Freedman's records do not indicate that any services were performed for L.S. on that date. Based on the unrebutted evidence presented at the final hearing, no services were performed for L.S. by Dr. Freedman on February 10, 1989. On February 13, 1989, Dr. Hagquist, a dentist, did an oral exam of L.S. and concluded that several of her teeth needed to be extracted. On February 28, 1989, Dr. Hagquist extracted six of L.S.'s teeth. On December 13, 1990, L.S. was examined by Dr. Robert W. Williams, Petitioner's dental expert. Dr. Williams' examination revealed a completely mutilated dentition with serious carious breakdown and several teeth in poor repair. He further discovered gross calcus and debris present with chronic gingival irritation, inflammation, and periodontal breakdown. No evidence was presented as to what dental care L.S. received from February 14, 1989 to December 13, 1990. Patient E.K. At all times material to this proceeding, E.K. was an 84-year-old female who suffered from Alzheimer's disease. On June 6, 1988, patient E.K. was presented to Dr. Freedman for consultation at the nursing home where she resided. Dr. Freedman billed $173.00 and was subsequently paid $107.84 by Medicare for services rendered on June 6, 1988. On July 12, 1988, Dr. Freedman made dental X-rays of E.K. The dental records do not contain either the x-rays or a report on the findings of the x-rays. On July 12, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $238.00 and was subsequently paid $134.08 by Medicare for X-rays and supplies for patient E.K. Dr. Freedman's records indicate that on August 9, 1988, Dr. Freedman gave some medication as part of a procedure performed on E.K. in the maxilla area. The records do not indicate exactly what the procedure was; however based on the testimony of Dr. Bayloff, Respondent's expert witness, the procedure was not a routine cleaning. On August 9, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $33.75 and was subsequently paid $10.72 by Medicare for supplies for patient E.K. According to Dr. Freedman's "Tissue Repair/Debridement/ Treatment Report", on November 1, 1988, Dr. Freedman performed the following on E.K. in the mandible area: "brush", "dentifrice," and "dentition." No evidence was presented to establish whether this procedure would not qualify as surgery for purposes of payment from Medicare. On November 1, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $33.75 and was subsequently paid $14.00 by Medicare for supplies for patient E.K. The procedure performed on November 1 did require the use of some supplies. On November 1, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $200.00 and was subsequently paid $80.00 by Medicare for surgery on patient E.K. Patient K.K. K.K. is an 85-year-old male who has been described as mentally alert, physically impaired as to sight, and well aware of his surroundings. On June 13, 1988, patient K.K. was presented to Dr. Freedman for a consultation at the nursing home where K.K. resided. Dr. Freedman made a preliminary evaluation. Dr. Freedman billed $173.00 and was subsequently paid $107.84 by Medicare for consultation services rendered to K.K. on August 13, 1988. It appears that the date which appeared on the Medicare payment report was a scrivener's error and should have read June 13, 1988. On June 20, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for office services for K.K. This billing was for a trip by one of Dr. Freedman's staff to Meadowbrook to copy parts of K.K.'s records. On July 12, 1988, Dr. Freedman made dental X-rays of K.K. and rendered an X-ray report. On July 12, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $283.00 and was subsequently paid $134.08 by Medicare for X-rays and supplies for patient K.K. On July 29, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for office services for patient K.K. Dr. Freedman's records indicate that his staff called Dr. McKay to inquire whether K.K. needed to have premedication prior to minor oral surgery and if so, what medication would be needed. MITIGATION Dr. Freedman had practiced dentistry at other nursing homes in the area and had not received any complaints concerning the services that he provided. Between 1985 and 1989, Dr. Freedman developed and maintained a practice exclusively limited to patients requiring special care. The majority of his patients resided in nursing homes or ACLF's and were frail and elderly. He was the Dental Director for 23 long-term care facilities and served 50 other facilities on a more limited basis. At any given time he was serving between 1000 to 2000 patients in a 150 mile area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Dr. Freedman did not violate Sections 466.028(1)(j)(l) and (u), Florida Statutes as alleged in Count I, finding that Dr. Freedman did violate Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), in Count I as it related to the X-rays, dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint, dismissing the portions of Counts I and III alleging a violation of Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), finding that Dr. Freedman did not violate Sections 466.028(1)(m) and (y), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), as alleged in Count III, finding that Dr. Freedman violated Section 466.028(1)(j) and (l), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), as alleged in Count III, imposing a $750 administrative fine and placing Dr. Freedman on probation for one year under the terms and conditions to be set forth by the Board of Dentistry. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-3391 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Accepted except as to a prosthesis. The evidence showed that the Medicare category was supplies/prosthesis. Dr. Freedman was billing for supplies not for a prosthesis. Paragraph 12: Accepted. Paragraph 13: Rejected as to the amount billed. The evidence showed that Dr. Freedman billed $70.00. The remainder is accepted. Paragraph 14: Rejected that he billed for supplies and prosthesis. The records indicate that he billed for office services. Paragraph 15: Rejected that Dr. Freedman billed for a prosthesis. The remainder is accepted. Paragraph 16: Accepted. Paragraphs 17-18: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 19: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. There was no evidence presented to link the blank X-ray with the X-rays that were taken on July 25, 1988. Paragraphs 20-21: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 22: Rejected as to billing for a prosthesis. The remaining is accepted. Paragraph 23: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 24: Accepted. Paragraphs 25-26: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 27: Accepted. Paragraphs 28-30: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 31-32: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 33: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 34: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 35: Rejected. The evidence does not support such an opinion. Paragraphs 36-38: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 39: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 40-41: Accepted. Paragraphs 42-43: Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 44: Accepted. Paragraph 45: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 46-47: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 48-50: Rejected as to the prosthesis. The remainder is accepted. Paragraph 51: Accepted. Paragraph 52: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 53: Rejected. His conclusion is not supported by the evidence presented. Paragraph 54: Rejected as unnecessary and repetitious. Paragraph 55: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 56-57: Rejected as based on hearsay. Paragraph 58: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 59-61: Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraphs 62-66: Accepted. Paragraph 67: Rejected as to prosthesis. The remaining is accepted. Paragraph 68: Accepted. Paragraph 69: Rejected. The evidence established that K.K. was actually seen twice by Dr. Freedman. Paragraph 70: Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: The third sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remaining sentences are rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 2: The first sentence is accepted. The remaining sentences are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 3-10: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 11: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remaining is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 12-13: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 14: The first two sentences are rejected as constituting argument. The remaining is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 15: The third sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. There was no paragraph 16. Paragraph 17: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 18: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 19: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 20-22: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 23: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The last sentence is rejected as immaterial. Paragraph 24: The first two sentences and the last sentence are rejected as constituting argument. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 25: The first and last sentences are rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 26: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 27: The first two sentences are rejected as unnecessary. The third sentence is accepted in substance. Sentences 4-13 and 42 are rejected as immaterial to the issues. Sentences 14, 29, 31, 38, and 40 are rejected as constituting argument. Sentence 15 is accepted in substance. Sentence 16 is rejected as not supported by the evidence presented. Sentences 17-28, 30, 32-37, 39, and 41 are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 28: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 29(1): The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The second sentence is accepted. Sentences 3-8 are rejected as subordinate to the facts found that Dr. Williams was an expert. Sentence 9 is rejected as constituting argument. Sentences 10-13 and 15-18, are accepted in substance. Sentence 14 is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. The remaining sentences are rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 29(2): Rejected as mere recitation of testimony. Paragraph 29(3): Sentences 1-11 are rejected as mere recitation of testimony. The remaining is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 30: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found and as constituting argument. Paragraph 31: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 32: The last two sentences are rejected as constituting argument. The remainder is rejected as mere recitation of testimony and subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 33: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 34: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 35: Sentences 1, 2 6, 7, 12, 13, 56 are rejected as unnecessary. Sentences 3-5, 10, 23, 24, 32, 35, 36, 37, 52, 55, 58 and 59 are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Sentences 8, 9, 11, 28, 30, 51, 71, 72 are rejected as constituting argument. Sentences 14-22, 25-27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 39-50, 53, 54, 60-63 are accepted in substance. Sentence 38 is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Sentence 57 is not a complete sentence. Sentences 64-70 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 29 (Keene pg. 15 of PRO): The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. Sentence 2(1) is accepted in substance. Sentence 2(2) is rejected as based on hearsay. Sentence 2(3) is accepted in substance. Sentence 2(4) is rejected to the extent that the opinion was not supported by the evidence. Sentence 3 is rejected to the extent the opinion is not supported by the record. Paragraph 30 (pg. 15 PRO): Sentences 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected as based on hearsay. Sentences 4 and 27 are rejected as constituting argument. Sentences 7-10, 15, 23, and 24,are accepted in substance. Sentences 11-13 and 16 are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Sentences 14, 17, 41, 42, are rejected as unnecessary. Sentences 18-22, 28-40, and 43 are accepted in substance to the extent that X-rays were made. Sentences 25 and 26 are rejected as not credible given that Dr. Freedman was able to produce the records of the patients at issue. The testimony at the hearing dealt with his inablity to produce copies of the Medicare forms that he received from Medicare. Paragraph 31 (pg. 16 PRO): The first two sentences are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. The remaining is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 32 (pg. 17 PRO): Sentences 1-10 and 17-19 are rejected as irrelevant. The remaining is accepted in substance. Paragraph 33 (pg. 17 PRO): Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 34 (pg. 18 PRO): Sentences 1-10 are accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 35 (pg. 18 PRO): The last three sentences are rejected as irrelevant. The remainder is accepted in substance to the extent that Dr. Bayloff was qualified as an expert witness. Paragraphs 36 (pg. 19 PRO): Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 37 (pg. 19 PRO): Sentences 1-2 are rejected as unnecessary. Sentences 3-7 are rejected as irrelevant. Sentences 8-10 are accepted in substance to the extent that L.S.'s file did contain adequate records. Sentences 11-14 are accepted to the extent that they apply to the records of L.S. and K.K. but not as to the records of E.K. as it relates to the X- rays. There were no X-rays or X-ray report in E.K.'s file. Paragraph 38 (pg. 19 PRO): Sentences 1-2 are accepted in substance as it pertains to L.S. Sentences 3-4 are rejected as irrelevant. Sentences 5-6 are accepted to the extent that the expert reviewed records which were present. There were no records for treatment of L.S. on August 26, 1988, January 13, 1989, and February 10, 1989. Dr. Bayloff did not render an opinion on whether services were provided on those dates. The remaining is rejected as constituting argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Natalie Duguid, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Michael Freedman 421 Lakeview Drive, Suite 201 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33326 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Agency For Health Care Administration Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency For Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
