Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, a candidate for licensure as a dentist, was administered the state Dental Examination in June 1988. A part of the exam, the clinical portion, requires that each candidate perform specified procedures on a human patient. The exam procedures are performed in a clinical setting. A floor monitor is present during the examination. After each procedure is performed, the monitor escorts the patient to a grading room. In the grading room, three examiners separately and independently review each candidate's performance. The examiners generally do not discuss or otherwise communicate their opinions or the grades awarded other than to note such on the grading sheet completed by each examiner. The examiners are Florida-licensed practicing dentists. Prior to the examination, the examiners participate in a training session designed to provide a standardized, uniform reference for grading the results of a candidate's performance on the clinical exam. Each examiner awards a numerical grade between 0 and 5 for each procedure. The grade for each procedure reflects an evaluation of the whole of a candidate's performance. Comments are made by each examiner on the grading sheet, either through marking in a computer-scored portion on the sheet, or by written notes outside the computer-scored area. The criteria for each possible grade is as follows: 0--complete failure 1--unacceptable dental procedure 2--below minimal acceptable dental procedure 3--minimal acceptable dental procedure 4--better than minimal acceptable dental procedure 5--outstanding dental procedure The three scores awarded by the examiners are averaged to provide the grade for each procedure. Each candidate is identified on the grading sheet by number so as to prevent an examiner from knowing the identity of the individual candidate being reviewed. Each examiner is also identified by number. Examiners are assigned to grade a candidate through a random selection process. The test monitor is responsible for collecting the grading sheets after each examiner has completed the review. After the grading process is complete, the patient is returned to the clinic for performance of the next procedure. The grading process is repeated for each step. The Petitioner challenges the scores awarded to two of the ten procedures performed as part of the clinical exam. Procedure number two on the exam, the amalgam cavity prep, provides for the preparation of a decayed tooth for filling. Procedure number three, the final amalgam restoration, provides for the filling of the prepared cavity. The two procedures account for 20% of the total points on the clinical examination, divided between procedure two (two-thirds) and procedure three (one-third). On procedure number two, the Petitioner received a grade of 3 from examiner 133, a grade of 4 from examiner 194, and a grade of 0 from examiner 192. Examiner 192 noted that caries remained present in the prepared tooth cavity. Neither examiner 133 nor examiner 194 noted remaining caries, although both identified other areas of concern regarding the candidate's performance. According to the examination rules of the Department, a grade of 0 is mandatory if caries remain after completion of the procedure. There was no evidence to indicate that the review and scoring by examiner 192 was erroneous, beyond the fact that other examiners did not note remaining caries. It is possible, according to expert testimony, for one examiner to identify remaining caries which other examiners fail to discover. The remaining decay can be dislodged by one examiner in reviewing the procedure and therefore not visible to subsequent examiners, or the decay, loosened by the procedure, can be otherwise displaced within the patient's mouth between examinations. On procedure number three, the candidate received a grade of 3 from examiner 101, a grade of 4 from examiner 052, and a 0 from examiner 192. Examiner 192 noted that the functional anatomy, proximal contour, and margin of the amalgam restoration were deficient, further noting that a cervical shoulder existed and that the prepared area was not filled. The evidence did not indicate that the grade awarded by examiner 192 for procedure number three was erroneous or mistaken. According to the evidence, including expert testimony based upon a review of x-rays taken subsequent to completion of the procedure, the grade awarded by examiner 192 was appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of dentistry enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grading of the two clinical procedures on the June 1988 dental examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 7th day of July, APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-0588 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected. The evidence did not establish that procedure number two is weighted more than all other procedures, but did indicate that procedures performed within the oral cavity are more heavily weighted that procedures performed outside the cavity. Procedures two and three are both performed within the oral cavity. Procedure two is, and, totaled, constitute 20% of the clinical examination. Procedure two provides two-thirds of the 20%, with procedure three providing one-third of the 20%. Rejected, restatement of testimony. The appropriate criteria for the 0-5 grade scale is as stated in Rule 21G-2.013 Florida Administrative Code. Rejected, not supported by weight of evidence. Both examiners noted comments on the grading sheet, either through marking within computer-scored area or by writing additional comments on the grading sheet. Rejected. The evidence did not indicate that it was "customary" for examiners to pass notes through monitors to the candidate. The witness testified that, on occasion, he had passed notes to monitors when he gave a score below three on the referenced procedures. However, there is apparently no requirement that examiners inform candidates, through monitors, of problems which are found during the grading of the candidate's work. Rejected, irrelevant. There is no requirement that the candidate should have been informed of the acceptability of his work or of his scores during the procedure. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. The fact that one examiner identifies specific problem areas which are not identified by other examiners does not indicate that the scores are erroneous or that the standardization process undergone by the examiners was deficient. Rejected, conclusion of law. 14-15. Rejected, goes to weight accorded testimony of referenced witnesses. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4. Rejected, irrelevant. 9. Rejected, as to characterization of Petitioner's testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: James Sweeting, III, Esquire 2111 East Michigan Street, Suite 210 Orlando, Florida 32806 E. Harper Field, Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
Findings Of Fact During the summer of 1982, Petitioner, Habib H. Ghahremannezhad, of Thibodaux, Louisiana, sent a letter to the Respondent requesting information on the requirements to take the Florida dental examination. He had been advised by a representative of the American Dental Association that foreign dentists could take the examination. 1/ In response to his letter, the Respondent sent him the required application forms, which had a submission deadline in late September, 1982. Petitioner submitted them on time as required; and just a few weeks before the examination, in November, 1982, he received further instructions from Respondent which included the requirement that he, the candidate, bring with him to the examination a stipulated number of real human teeth in what could be described as perfect shape. Teeth of this nature are difficult to get; and though Petitioner called many practicing dentists in the area where he lived and also contacted the local dental school, he was unable to procure the appropriately preserved teeth within the short period of time between his receipt of notification of the requirement and the test. As a result, he was required to purchase a human skull from a medical supply house, from which he extracted the required teeth. These skulls are prepared for use by medical students and are dried out. The teeth in them, therefore, are brittle and fragile. Though he stored them in a glycerine/water solution up to the examination, this could not and did not restore already dehydrated, dead, brittle teeth to their former condition. The appropriate teeth would have been freshly extracted and thereafter stored in a mixture of glycerine and water which would have preserved their resiliency and rendered them not brittle and subject to easy breakage. There was no evidence presented, however, to show that Petitioner received his instructions any later than other candidates who suffered under the same handicaps as he in procuring appropriate teeth. In fact, he admits he was not singled out for late instructions, and the other candidates had the same problems. The mannequin examination consisted of at least nine different procedures. Each procedure was performed by the candidate with a monitor in the area. When the procedures were completed, they were thereafter graded anonymously (each procedure model was marked only with the candidate's examination number, not the name) by three separate examiners who independently, out of the presence of each other (and who were also identified only by a number), assigned a numerical grade to each procedure based on criteria set out on a prepared grading sheet. Under the rules for this examination, a grade of 3.0 out of a range from 0 to 5 is required to achieve a passing score. Respondent achieved a grade of 2.71, which was a failing grade and which was arrived at by averaging the three grades for each procedure, adding these nine averages and dividing by nine. Petitioner scored, as follows: (a) Procedure 01 Examiner 003 - 2 Examiner 071 - 3 average 2.67 Examiner 072 - 3 (b) Procedure 02 Examiner 072 - 3 Examiner 071 - 3 average 3.0 Examiner 008 - 3 (c) Procedure 03 Examiner 072 - 1 Examiner 071 - 1 average 0.67 Examiner 008 - 0 (d) Procedure 04 Examiner 008 - 2 Examiner 071 - 1 average 2.0 Examiner 072 - 3 (e) Procedure 05 Examiner 072 - 4 Examiner ,071 - 4 average 4.0 Examiner 008 - 4 (f) Procedure 06 Examiner 059 - 5 Examiner 066 - 3 average 4.33 Examiner 037 - 5 (g) Procedure 07 Examiner 059 - 3 Examiner 066 - 3 average 3.67 Examiner 037 - 5 (h) Procedure 08 Examiner 059 - 3 Examiner 066 - 4 average 4.0 Examiner 037 - 5 (i) Procedure 09 Examiner 059 - 0 Examiner 066 - 0 average 0.33 Examiner 037 - 1 Petitioner makes numerous allegations regarding the fairness of the examination and what he considers to be discrimination against foreign dental students. He produced, however, no evidence save his own opinion to support these claims except in the case of the instructions (Petitioner's Exhibit 1), which, on Page 3 at Paragraph 7, state that a candidate who fails this examination two times will not be eligible to take the remaining examinations for licensure "except for a candidate who graduated from the University of Havana prior to 1962, who may take [this] examination an unlimited number of times." Petitioner claims this provision discriminates against foreign dentists. If any discrimination is shown, it is clearly reverse discrimination in favor of older Cuban dentists, a decision which is an approved policy of the Respondent. Consequently, there is no showing whatever that Petitioner was in any way discriminated against. Petitioner also contests, however, the grades given him on Procedures 3 and 9. Procedure 3 was a "Dental Class III preparation for a composite restoration on a maxillary central incisor." Here, the tooth Petitioner had for preparation was one of those fragile teeth which had dried out and was brittle. As a result, the tooth broke as he was working on it. At this point, he showed his problem to the monitor, who advised him to include that area in the preparation. He did that, as instructed, and received a low grade on his procedure, which he contends was the fault of the instructions given him by the examiner. Procedure 3 was designed to test the candidate's ability to demonstrate an acceptable preparation to Respondent's standards. This preparation would be a minimal preparation which would be for a very small cavity. Petitioner was graded low on this procedure by all three examiners, who each made additional handwritten comments on the form. All comments related to excessive depth of the preparation, which is not related to the width and size of the preparation. These latter conditions could, indeed, be related to the instructions of the monitor and, if they were the only comments, might justify adjustment. However, Petitioner made his preparation too deep, in fact exposing the pulp (nerve) of the tooth. This defect is not related to the size of the preparation as increased by the instructions of the monitor to include the area in the preparation. By itself, pulpal exposure is sufficient to cause a grade of 0 for this procedure. Here, the groove was so deep and so grossly oversized it went beyond any tolerance which might be given for a situation where, like here, the examinee has no idea, because of the dead tooth and no X rays, how close to the surface the pulp is. Further, two of the three grade sheets bear the notation "SMN," which means "saw monitor's notes." This indicates that before awarding a grade, these two examiners were aware of the problem that Petitioner had and that the monitor had advised him to include the break area in the procedure. Even after making allowances for that, two of the examiners graded Petitioner's work as "1," and the other gave him "0." These grades are consistent and within normal deviation, and all are failing grades. In light of this, one cannot conclude the rating for this procedure was improper so as to merit upward adjustment. As to Procedure 9, this was to prepare a "wax-up for a cast-gold bridge on the above [formerly] prepared teeth. . ." Petitioner contends he did as directed, completed the procedure, and turned it in. In an actual clinical situation, this work would not be done in the mouth of the patient, but for examination purposes, the candidates were directed to make the wax pattern directly in the model-- a far more difficult and rarely done procedure. However, the grading criteria take into consideration the conditions under which the examinee has to work in determining a pass or fail grade. This procedure has been changed with the 1983 examination. Candidates will no longer be required to work under this previous, more difficult method. After Petitioner completed the procedure, he turned it in and left. When the first examiner looked at the device prepared by Petitioner and attempted to take it apart, he broke it. Petitioner was awarded a grade of 0 by two examiners and a "1" by the third. He contends that since his wax model was broken by the first examiner, this was not his fault, and he should not have been given failing grades. He states that when he handed the pattern in, it was intact and, contra to claims of the examiner, he does not believe the pattern broke as a result of the area of cohesion being too small, as this item was graded as passing in the prior procedure. In addition, Petitioner contends that even if the wax cohesion was insufficient, this still does not justify a "0," since there were at least three other major areas which should be considered. However, review of the grading sheets, at least for Examiners 059 and 037, shows that numerous other deficiencies were found in Petitioner's procedure here, aliunde the wax cohesion and breakage, and these other deficiencies would justify a failing grade--even a "0." In the area of the broken wax pattern, however, examiners are indoctrinated as to all procedures to be tested the day before the examination and go over them thoroughly in advance. As to wax patterns, they are told at this time that the pattern may be removed, but only using "utmost care." Here, the candidate is asked to make a wax pattern for a 3/4 crown for one tooth, the back attachment to be waxed to a full crown. The stability of the pattern to withstand withdrawal is related to how well the procedure is waxed. In the opinion of Dr. Agnini, the Respondent's expert, sufficient wax could have been inserted to strengthen the wax pattern as it was being built under exam conditions. The examiner's (059) comments were that he broke the pattern and that the attachment was poor. It was the poor attachment that caused the device to break. Review showed that it was insufficiently waxed (See sheet for 059, Comment 5d.), and this did not meet the criteria. Respondent's witness concedes the possibility that the wax pattern breaking influenced in a negative fashion the judgment of the graders. However, as previously found, there were several other identified deficiencies on this procedure, and the low grades awarded rate to the procedure in its entirety--not solely to the fracture. There is no showing this procedure was unfairly or improperly graded. Although the examiners are not told how to withdraw the pattern during the standardization briefing other than to do it carefully, all examiners are licensed dentists and should know how to remove a wax pattern.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Board of Dentistry finding that Petitioner has failed to achieve a passing score on the December, 1982, Dental Mannequin Examination and upholding the grade awarded to him on that examination. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of November, 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 November, 1983.
The Issue The issue is whether Ms. Gioia is eligible for re-examination of her clinical dental skills after having failed the clinical dental examination three times. She seeks to be re-examined without completing either a one year general practice residency or a minimum of one academic year of undergraduate clinical course work in dentistry at a dental school approved by the American Dental Association, Commission on Dental Accreditation.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Gioia first attempted the clinical dental licensure examination in June, 1987. On June 11, 1987, during the periodontal portion of the examination, Ms. Gioia was found to be in possession of a periodontal chart, which a monitor regarded as unauthorized written material for an examination candidate to have. The monitor made a report of an irregularity during the examination. On September 3, 1987, Ms. Gioia received from the Board of Dentistry a notice that she had failed to obtain a passing score on the June, 1987, clinical dental licensure examination, and that the Board had been presented with evidence that during the examination she had unauthorized written material in her possession, viz., a periodontal chart, which constituted a violation of Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21-11.007(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and that she would not be permitted to be re- examined until she completed a two credit hour college level course in ethics. The letter also notified her that: You may seek review of the above, by filing a petition with the Executive Director of the Board within twenty-one (21) days of your receipt of this notice. You may request a formal proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, or informal proceedings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. If you request formal proceedings, the petition must contain the information required by Rule 28-5.201, Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Gioia then retained counsel, Kenneth Muszynski, and requested an informal hearing on September 28, 1987. The matter came before the Board of Dentistry on July 23, 1988, at its meeting in Tallahassee. According to the Final Order entered by the Board on October 14, 1988, (Board Exhibit 3) the Board found: . . . based upon [Ms. Gioia's] testimony relating to her possession of the periodontal chart, the Board determines that [her] possession of the periodontal chart did not constitute any intentional violation of examination rules or an attempt to obtain a license by fraud and ordered that she: . . . be certified for licensure without restriction upon her successful completion of the licensure examination. That Final Order effectively rescinded the requirement that she take an ethics course before she could be examined a second time. No appeal from that Final Order was ever taken. There is no indication in the evidence that Ms. Gioia ever challenged the finding made in the Board's September 3, 1987, letter that she had failed to obtain a passing score on the clinical dental examination given in June, 1987. Rather, she had challenged the allegation of misconduct which had resulted in a restriction on her ability to take the examination again. Ms. Gioia took the clinical dental examination for a second time in December of 1987, and did not obtain a passing score. She took the clinical dental examination for a third time in June of 1988, and again failed to receive a passing score. As a result, she received a letter on August 5, 1988, from the Board of Dentistry which states, in pertinent part: Pursuant to Florida Statutes 466.006(4)(b)5., . . . "If [an] applicant fails to pass the clinical examination in three attempts, he shall not be eligible for re-examination unless he completes additional education requirements established by the Board." Therefore, you are not eligible to sit for the Florida Dental Examination until you complete a one year general practice residency or a minimum of one academic year of undergraduate clinical coursework in dentistry at a dental school approved by the American Dental Association, Commission on Dental Accreditation. This letter prompted Ms. Gioia to request a review of her score on the June, 1988, clinical dental examination. After the review, Ms. Gioia was informed that the review did not result in an alteration of her grade, and if she wished to initiate a formal administrative hearing to challenge her grade she must do so within 30 days from the date of that October 4, 1988, letter. A petition for formal administrative hearing was filed, again by Kenneth Muszynski, on her behalf on November 14, 1988, which instituted this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the petition for formal hearing filed by Ms. Gioia which contended that her score on the clinical dental examination in June, 1987, should not be counted due to monitoring misconduct which unsettled her, and ordering that she not be certified to re-take the clinical dental examination until she completes the education requirements imposed in Rule 21G-2.021(2), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 23rd day of August, 1990. Copies furnished: Vytas Urba, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 D. Carlton Enfinger, Esquire Barrett, Bajoczky, Hoffman and Harper 131 North Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1501 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1501 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a graduate of a dental college in India, which is not accredited by the American Dental Association, and has had postgraduate training in New York and Ireland. Petitioner was a candidate for licensure by examination to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. The dental mannequin examination, which is at issue here, consists of nine (9) procedures, each of which is graded separately. Petitioner took the dental mannequin examination at the December, 1983, administration, which was his second attempt, and obtained a total overall grade for the dental mannequin examination of 2.06. An overall grade average of 3.0 is required to pass the mannequin examination. The grading scale as established by Rule 21G-2.13, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) is as follow: O - Complete failure - Unacceptable dental procedure - Below minimal acceptable dental procedure - Minimal acceptable dental procedure - Better than minimally acceptable dental procedure - Outstanding dental procedure Examiners for the dental examination are currently licensed dentists in the State of Florida who have been trained and standardized by Respondent, with training sessions taking place prior to each administration of the examination. During the standardization exercise, the examiners grade identical procedures and then discuss any grade variance and attempt to eliminate any discrepancies and interpretations of the grading criteria. Each examination is graded on the above scale by three separate examiners. They are identified only by examiner number on the grade sheet and do not confer with each other or the candidate regarding the score given on any of the graded procedures. Petitioner has challenged the overall examination which he believes was unfairly graded. In support of his argument, he relies mainly on differences in the scores assigned by the three examiners as well as their varying comments on the grade sheets. Specifically, Petitioner challenged procedures 02 through 08. In addition to the grades assigned by the three examiners who are licensed Florida dentists, Respondent presented the testimony of its consultant, Dr. Simkin, who is also a licensed Florida dentist and an experienced examiner. Petitioner presented his own testimony on each procedure and that of Dr. Lee and Dr. Rosen, who are both experienced dentists. Dr. Lee is licensed in Florida, but Dr. Rosen is not. The testimony of Doctors Simkin and Lee supported the evaluations given by the examiners, with the exception of the one high grade given on procedure 02 (discussed below) which was an error in Petitioner's favor. Dr. Muskar and Dr. Rosen generally conceded the deficiencies noted by the examiners and the other witnesses, but felt these deficiencies were not sufficiently serious to warrant the failing or minimum passing scores assigned. Procedure 02 is the distal occlusal amalgam preparation on a maxillary second bicuspid. The prepared was found to have the sides drilled too deeply, the top was too shallow, and the break in contact between the teeth was too wide, so that there was some doubt as to whether the filling would be retained. The examiners gave the candidate a 3, 3, and 2, and correctly determined that there were problems with the outline form, the depth, retention and a failure to cut the preparation into the dentin. On procedure 03, which is the distal class III preparation for a complete restoration on a maxillary central incisor, the evaluation of two of the examiners that there was no contact made between the teeth involved was correct. This is required of the candidate in the preparation of the denture form for this procedure. The examiner who assigned a grade of 5 was mistaken, but this grade was included in Respondent's overall score. On procedure 04, which is the class III composite restoration of the distal of a maxillary lateral incisor, the examiners awarded 2, 2, and 1 (all failing grades). The restorative material did not duplicate the anatomy of the natural tooth, there not being a flush finish of all margins with the natural tooth structure and the final finish not showing high polish and correct anatomical contour. On procedure 05, completed endodontic therapy using gutta percha in a maxillary lateral incisor, the x-ray (Respondent's Exhibit #3) revealed that the apex of the tooth root was not sealed against fluids in the bone and that there was approximately a one millimeter over-extension of the filling material. The examiners awarded failing grades of 2, 1, and 1, and found there was not proper apical extension in all canals, the gutta percha was not well condensed and adequate filling was not demonstrated by canal width. On procedure 06, distal occlusal restoration on a tooth previously prepared and provided by Respondent, the examiners awarded grades of 1, 2, and 3, noting that there were problems with the functional anatomy, the proximal contour contact and the margin flush with cavo-surface margin. On procedure 07, 3/4 crown preparation on a maxillary second bicuspid, grades of 3, 3, and 4 were awarded which are consistent, and the written comments supported the passing grades awarded. On procedure 08, full crown preparation on a maxillary second molar, failing grades of 1, 1, and 1, were awarded with problems noted in the occlusal reduction, the axial reduction, and the ability of the crown to draw from the gingival margin. The grades awarded for this procedure were identical, the comments supported those grades and inspection of the exhibits confirmed comments and the grades.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying the petition. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 21st day of December, 1984.
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 the Petitioner earned a passing grade on the May, 1986, dental mannequin examination?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner took the May, 1986, State of Florida dental mannequin examination. In August, 1986, the Petitioner was notified that she had failed the dental mannequin examination. She was awarded an overall score for the 9 procedures of the examination which were graded, of 2.80. A score of 3.00 is the minimum passing score for this examination. The Petitioner was also sent a document which informed her that she could request a copy of the grade sheets completed by the examiners who graded her exam and that she could request a face-to-face meeting to discuss her grades or she could send written objections which would be considered in reviewing her score. The Petitioner's scores for each of the 9 procedures were as follows: Procedure Average Score 1 3.33 2 4.00 3 3.33 4 3.00 5 1.33 6 3.33 7 3.00 8 2.66 9 1.00 By letter dated August 8, 1986, the Petitioner requested that the individual examiners' grade sheets for each of the procedures be sent to her. On August 22, 1986, the Petitioner requested the grade sheets by telephone. By letter dated September 3, 1986, the Petitioner again requested that her grade sheets be sent to her and requested that an appointment be scheduled for her to meet with the Respondent's consultant to review her May, 1986 dental mannequin examination scores. The Petitioner believed that she was required to attend a face-to-face meeting with the Respondent's consultant who reviewed objections to the results of the May, 1986 dental mannequin examination. Because of the Petitioner's difficulty understanding English, she did not understand that she could send written objections in lieu of actually attending a review session with the Respondent's consultant. By letter dated September 8, 1986, the Petitioner was sent the grade sheets she had requested. By letter dated September 11, 1986, the Petitioner was notified that an appointment for September 26, 1986, had been scheduled for the Petitioner to meet with the Respondent's consultant to review her May, 1986 dental mannequin examination scores or, in the alternative, for the Petitioner's written objections to be considered. By letter dated September 17, 1986, the Petitioner submitted written objections to the Respondent. The Respondent acknowledged receipt of the Petitioner's written objections on September 24, 1986. On September 26, 1986, the Petitioner met with Sue Ellen Hamilton, D.D.S, the Respondent's consultant. As a result of this meeting and the Petitioner's written objections, Dr. Hamilton recommended that procedures 1 and be regraded. The Petitioner requested a response to her written objections from the Respondent by letter dated November 11, 1986. The Respondent informed the Petitioner by letter dated November 18, 1986, that the results of the regrade of procedures 1 and 2 had resulted in a decrease in her overall score from 2.80 to 2.60. In particular, the Petitioner was awarded a score of 3.00 for procedure 1 and a score of 2.66 for procedure 2. By letter dated December 16, 1986, the Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing. The Respondent receives 100 to 200 objections to the results of dental mannequin examinations which must be processed. Due to the volume of objections received by the Respondent, and the procedures which the Respondent must follow to review objections, it takes 2 and 1/2 to 3 months to review a candidate's objections. The time which it took the Respondent to review the Petitioner's objections was reasonable. The State of Florida dental mannequin examination is a practical examination designed to test several specified clinical skills. Each of 9 separate procedures are separately graded. Each of the procedures are graded by different examiners. Each examiner grades a procedure independently. A grade of from 0 to 5 is assigned by each examiner. The final score for each procedure is determined by averaging the 3 grades given to that procedure by the 3 examiners. The final score for the 9 procedures is a weighted average of the sum of the 9 scores. Examiners are experienced Florida dentists selected by the Board of Dentistry. They must have at least 5 years of experience as a dentist. Examiners receive 8 to 12 hours of training prior to participating in an examination. The training, referred to as a "standardization exercise," involves review of the criteria by which each procedure is required by rule to be judged. Some of the dentists who take the standardization exercise who are not designated as examiners act as monitors. Monitors are present during the examination. They are instructed not to assist candidates during the examination and candidates are told that monitors are not there to assist them. If a candidate wishes to note a problem, they are instructed to do so and the monitors acknowledge that a problem has been noted by the candidate. Monitors do not, however, confirm that a problem exists and candidates are so informed before the examination. Application of the grading criteria is not a mathematically precise exercise. There is no mathematical formula for deducting any specific number of points or fractions of a point for shortcomings in a candidate's performance. Examiners use an holistic approach to grade each procedure. Examiners record the grade they award to a procedure on a form. If a failing score is given on a procedure, the examiner is required to include on the form written comments sufficient to justify the failing grade. These comments do not have to include everything the examiner thinks is wrong with the procedure, but must include enough to justify a failing grade. No information concerning the Petitioner's identity was disclosed to the examiners during the examination. The Petitioner was assigned an identification number which was recorded on her work and her grade sheets. The examiners did not, however, see the Petitioner or know anything about her. The examination was conducted in a laboratory, the Petitioner's work was placed in a box by a monitor and the box was taken to another room by a monitor where it was graded. If a regrade is recommended by a consultant, as was done in this case, the procedures for which a regrade is recommended must be sent to 3 different examiners throughout the State. These new examiners regrade the procedure and return their results to the Respondent. The regraders do not know the identity of the candidate being regraded. The average grade given to the Petitioner for her performance on the dental mannequin examination of May, 1986, was fair and reasonable for her performance on each of the procedures. Procedure number 5 is a endodontic procedure--instrumenting of the canal of a tooth that has been infected, so that the canal can be drained of matter which might become infected and the ultimate filling of the tooth. In layman's terms, the procedure is the performance of a root canal. Ideally, the canal should be cleared to within 5 millimeters from the apex of the tooth. The tooth on which the Petitioner performed this procedure was only cleared to within 2.5 millimeters from the apex. This is unacceptable. The passage did not go any further because ledging had occurred. Ledging was caused by the Petitioner and occurred when the instruments used to clear the canal went out of the canal at an angle into the tooth. When this occurs the problem usually cannot be corrected and the portion of the canal below the ledging cannot be cleared. When the Petitioner experienced the ledging, she believed that the canal had an obstruction in it. The x-rays of the tooth, however, showed the ledging and that there was no obstruction in the canal. The Petitioner asked a monitor to verify that she had encountered an obstruction. Monitors are instructed not to assist or approve in any way a candidate's work. The Petitioner was told this before the examination. The monitor, therefore, did not and could not verify that there was an obstruction in the tooth the Petitioner was working with. Once the Petitioner experienced a problem with the tooth, it was her responsibility to deal with it in the best manner possible. Again, the Petitioner was confused as to the function of the monitor because of her language problem.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry issue a final order concluding that the Petitioner's grade on the May, 1986, dental mannequin examination was a failing grade. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 22nd day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0208 The Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Proposed Finding of Paragraph Number in Recommended Order Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection (A) 2-14. 1 4. 2 5. 3 6-7. 4 9. 5 9-13. Not a proposed finding of fact. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. Irrelevant. 10-13 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. (B)-(B)(2) Not supported by the weight of the evidence. (B)(3) 21. To the extent that this paragraph suggests that the Respondent's witness denied the truth to protect the Respondent, this proposed finding of fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. (C)(1)-(6) Not supported by the weight of the evidence. (D)(1)-(4) Irrelevant and not a proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Bao-Kiem Dam 4581 Charnock Drive Irvine, California 92714 Chester G. Senf, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Pat Guilford, Executive Director Board of Dentistry 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner successfully completed the December 1999 dental licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been given a temporary permit to practice dentistry due to his being a resident in training. In December 1999, Petitioner took the dental licensure Examination. He successfully completed the Laws and Rules part of the Examination having received a score of 78.00, where a minimum score of 75.00 was required to pass that part. Petitioner failed to successfully complete the Clinical part of the Examination having received a score of 2.89, where a minimum score of 3.00 was required to pass the Clinical part. As a result, Petitioner failed to successfully complete the overall Examination. On the Periodontal section of the Clinical part, Petitioner received a score of 1.66. He challenges this score. Each candidate is graded by three examiners. Each examiner is a dentist who is licensed in the State of Florida, with a minimum of five active years' experience, and who, among other things, has no complaints or negative actions against his/her license. Before every examination, each examiner is trained in evaluating a procedure to make sure that the procedure is properly performed. The Department of Health (Department) conducts training in which each examiner is trained to grade using the same internal criteria. Such training results in a standardization of grading criteria. In this training process, the examiners are trained by assistant examiner supervisors on the different criteria that are used during the examination. The assistant examiner supervisors are dentists licensed in the State of Florida. To further their training, the examiners after receiving verbal training are shown slides of teeth which do not meet the clinical criteria of the examination. Following the standardization, to make sure that the examiners have been able to internalize the criteria, the examiners, themselves, are given an examination. Included in the examination is a hands-on clinical, where models are used and the examiners check for errors on the models. The examiners are evaluated on how they perform when they grade the models, to make sure that the examiners are grading the candidates the same, using the same criteria, and with reliability. Each examiner grades the examination independently. The examiners do not confer with each other while scoring the examination. The examiners do not have contact with the candidates. As to grading, the average of the three grades from the examiners produces the overall grade for the exercise performed by the candidate. Having three examiners grading provides a more reliable indication of the candidate's competency and true grade. Furthermore, the examination is double-blind graded, which is a grading process in which the candidates have no contact with the examiners. The candidates are located in one clinic and perform the dental procedures on their human patient. The clinic is monitored. When the candidate completes the procedures, a proctor accompanies the human patient to another clinic where the examiners are located, and the examiners grade the procedures performed by the candidates. Monitors are used by the Department at the examination. The role of a monitor is to preserve and secure the integrity of the examination. The monitor, among other things, gives instructions to the candidates, answers questions of the candidates, and acts as a messenger between the candidate and the examiner. Monitors also ensure that candidates do not have contact with the examiners. For the Periodontal section, a candidate, as Petitioner, performs a periodontal exercise on a human patient who is chosen by the candidate. The human patient must also be approved by the Department in accordance with criteria specified by rule.2 The criteria includes a requirement that the human patient must have a minimum of five teeth, each of which must have pockets of a minimum of four mm in depth with sub-gingival calculus. Petitioner chose his human patient. The Department approved Petitioner's human patient. Petitioner's human patient was a periodontally involved patient. Petitioner performed the periodontal exercise on his human patient. Petitioner's exercise was graded by three examiners, i.e., Examiners 131, 346, and 264. All three examiners participated in and successfully completed the standardization training, and it is inferred that they were considered qualified to act as examiners for the Examination. Petitioner's examination was double-blind graded. Each examiner independently graded Petitioner's examination. Examiner 131 found no errors and awarded Petitioner a grade of five (5). Examiner 346 found gross mutilation of the human patient's soft tissue of areas 26, 27, and 28, and awarded Petitioner a grade of zero (0). Examiner 264 also found gross mutilation of the human patient's soft tissue of areas 26, 27, and 28, and awarded Petitioner a grade of zero (0). The criteria for the Periodontal exercise mandates a grade of zero (0) where there is gross mutilation of gingival tissue.3 Consequently, Examiners 346 and 264 had no choice but to award Petitioner a grade of zero (0). After the grading, both graders who found gross mutilation of gingival tissue made written comments, regarding the tissue mutilation, on the Examiner-To-Monitor Instructions form. Examiner 264's comment was "Please have candidate place perio pak, area 26, 27, 28" and was not intended to be instructions to Petitioner but was directed to follow-up work or to attention that the human patient may need afterwards. The Examiner-To-Monitor Instructions form, with the written comments, was provided to the monitor who related the comments to Petitioner. The monitor did not allow Petitioner to view the written comments. The monitor informed Petitioner that further work needed to be done as to the human patient. The monitor indicated on the Examiner-To-Monitor Instructions form that Examiner 264's comment was related to Petitioner by the monitor writing "Candidate complied with" and writing and circling his assigned monitor number. The monitor writing "Candidate complied with" meant only that the monitor informed Petitioner that further work needed to be done, not that the Petitioner correctly performed the procedure. No evidence was presented that Petitioner sutured the human patient or that he placed a perio pak on the affected tissue of areas 26, 27, and 28. The evidence shows that the monitor only related to Petitioner that further work needed to be done without the monitor specifying what needed to be done. Moreover, the evidence shows that the monitor did not indicate that Petitioner had done what was requested of him. A candidate is not informed of his/her performance by the examiner because there is no contact between the examiner and the candidate. Additionally, such notification at the Examination site is not done because it is believed to have the effect of alarming the candidate and raising the candidate's anxiety level. The human patient was not informed that there was mutilation of soft tissue as a result of the periodontal exercise. Before an individual is accepted by the Department as a patient, the individual must complete and sign a "Patient Disclosure Statement and Express Assumption of Risk" form. This form, among other things, relieves the Department of any responsibility for poor work done by a candidate or for notifying the human patient of any poor work done by the candidate and places the responsibility on the human patient to have a licensed dentist check the work done by the candidate. The grading of Petitioner's Periodontal exercise is not arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion. The grading process is not devoid of logic and reason.
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 Rami Ghurani's examination challenge to the periodontal section of the clinical part of the dental licensure examination administered in December 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, Richard Alan Cohen, sat for the dental licensure examination in December 1992 and received an overall score of 2.98 for the clinical portion of that examination. The minimal passing score for the clinical portion of the examination was 3.0. After receiving notification that he failed to achieve a passing score on the examination, petitioner challenged respondent's grading of three procedures, number 01, 05 and 06. Respondent rejected petitioner's challenge, and petitioner filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to contest respondent's grading of those procedures. At hearing, petitioner abandoned his challenge to the grading of procedures 01 and 05. The examination procedure During the course of the examination at issue, the candidates were called upon to exhibit, with regard to procedure 06, certain manual skills relevant to an endodonic procedure. Specifically, the candidate was required to prepare a tooth, which had been extracted and mounted in a mold, for what is commonly called a "root canal." Preparing for the procedure included the cleaning and shaping of the interior of both root canals from each apex (the tip of the root) up to the access area near the crown (top) of the tooth. Thereafter, sealant was to be sprayed into the canal, and gutta percha condensed (compressed) in the canal until it was completely filled. The goal of the procedure was to get a seal within one half to one millimeter of the apex, and to fill the canal so there were no voids. The quality of a candidate's performance on the procedure was graded by three examiners who assigned grades of 0 to 5 based on their assessment of the candidate's performance. The scores assigned were then averaged to derive the score achieved by the candidate on the procedure. In scoring, a grade of "0" represented a complete failure, a grade of "3" represented a minimally acceptable dental procedure, a grade of "4" represented a better than minimally acceptable dental procedure, and a grade of "5" represented an outstanding dental procedure. See, Rule 61F5-2.013, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's examination results Petitioner received a grade of 3.66 for procedure 06, based on scores of 3, 3, and 5 from the individual examiners. Although a passing score on procedure 06, petitioner's overall score on the clinical part of the examination was 2.98; a score below the minimum 3.00 required to pass that portion of the examination. According to the grade sheets, the two examiners who assigned petitioner a grade of 3 observed that petitioner failed to properly fill the canal spaces with gutta percha. In the opinion of the one examiner who testified at the hearing, such observation was based on his examination of an x-ray (petitioner's exhibit 1D) which reflected that the canal was filled beyond the apex and there appeared to be some spacing between the wall of the canal and the filling material. A review of the examination results At hearing, the proof demonstrated that the quality of petitioner's performance on that portion of procedure 06 pertinent to this case is aptly reflected on the x-ray marked as petitioner's exhibit 1D. That x-ray reflects, with regard to one of the canals petitioner filled, what is either a void or filling material beyond the apex of the root. Either event evidences a failure to properly fill the canal space, and warrants a grade of less than 5. Here, petitioner contends he should be awarded a grade of 4 for the procedure. The proof fails, however, to support his contention. If the image reflected by the x-ray is gutta percha beyond the apex, petitioner's performance on the procedure would not meet minimally acceptable dental standards and would merit a failing grade. If on the other hand, the material extending beyond the apex is sealant or the image reflected by the x-ray is a void, the procedure was acceptable, but warranted a grade of less than 5. Under such circumstances, it is concluded that the proof fails to demonstrate that the grades of 3 accorded petitioner were baseless, lacking in reason or that in deriving such grades the examiners departed from the essential requirements of law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the subject petition. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of February 1994. Hearings 1550 Hearings 1994. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 22nd day of February
The Issue Whether or not on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent, James P. Haas, was offering to practice dentistry, and indeed practicing dentistry at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center, in violation of Sections 466.24(3)(n) and 466.36, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent, James P. Haas, maintained a telephone listing whereby he offered to practice dentistry as D.A.D. Denture Center at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, and whether or not he continues to maintain said listing, in violation of Sections 466.24(3)(g) and 466.27(5), Florida Statutes. Whether or not since January 1, 1978, or prior to that date, one Bernie Morlock has been employed by the Respondent, James P. Haas, to perform dental services at a time when the said Bernie Morlock was not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene in the State of Florida. Further, whether or not Bernie Morlock, while employed by the Respondent, practiced dentistry as defined in Section 466.04, Florida Statutes, to the extent of: Taking impressions of the human teeth and jaws. Placing dentures and dental appliances in patients' mouths and adjusting or attempting to adjust same. Diagnosing or professing to diagnose the physical condition of the teeth and jaws of patients. Finally, whether or not the Respondent knowingly allowed the practice of dentistry by Bernie Morlock in violation of Section 466.02, Florida Statutes, and in further violation of Section 466.24(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes. Whether or not since January 1, 1978, or prior to that date, the Respondent, James P. Haas, has employed unlicensed personnel to perform dental services for patients, to-wit: orthodontic treatment, which services constitute the practice of dentistry under Section 466.04, Florida Statutes. Further, whether or not if these services were performed by unlicensed persons, were they performed with the full knowledge and consent of the Respondent, thereby constituting a violation on the part of the Respondent of Sections 466.24(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes. (The Amended Accusation which charges the Respondent contained a certain Count III; however, no testimony was offered in support of that allegation and at the conclusion of the formal hearing, the Petitioner, through its counsel, voluntarily withdrew that count from consideration. This voluntary dismissal was unopposed by the Respondent.)
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, Division of Professions, Board of Dentistry, is an agency of the state created for the purposes of protecting the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the State of Florida, to the extent that practice of dentistry in the state and dental hygiene are subject to the regulation and control of the Petitioner in the public interest. The authority for such regulation is set forth in Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and those rules of the Florida Administrative Code related thereto. The Respondent, James P. Haas, is licensed by the Florida State Board of Dentistry to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. The Petitioner, by an Amended Accusation, has charged the Respondent, James P. Haas, with various violations of provisions of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and the Respondent has requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, which request has been granted and a hearing held on February 15 and 16, 1979. The first of the allegations states that on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent was offering to practice dentistry and indeed practicing dentistry at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center. The facts reveal that Dr. Haas made an arrangement with an organization known as Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., of Harredsberg, Kentucky, wherein he agreed to coordinate the placement of advertisements for the benefit of that corporation and in turn the corporation agreed to refer patients to Dr. Haas for his treatment. The advertising spoken of consisted of an ad in the Winter Park, Florida, telephone directory yellow pages and certain newspaper advertising through the Orlando Sentinel of Orlando, Florida. The advertising in the telephone directory was placed in the fall of 1977 and a copy of that yellow page advertising may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence contains a copy of the format for the telephone yellow page advertising, as contemplated by Dr. Haas through his agreement with Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., of Harredsberg, Kentucky. The listing of the telephone number was of the number in Harredsberg, Kentucky, and those individuals at that number in turn made the referrals to Dr. Haas's office located at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida. An example of the newspaper advertising may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence at page 161-I, a copy of the Sentinal Star Progress Edition of December 18, 1977. In that advertising the same number is given as indicated in the aforementioned telephone telephone ad, with the difference being that Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., is given as the trade name as opposed to D.A.D. Denture Center, which was found in the telephone advertisement. Dr. Haas maintained a separate checking account for D.A.D. Denture Center, the name of his affiliation with Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc. The payments for services made by those patients referred through the D.A.D. Denture Center process, were placed into the D.A.D. Denture Center operating account of Dr. Haas. Those persons authorized to make withdrawals from that account were Dr. Haas and his employee, Bernie Morlock, and checks were drawn from that account under the authority of Dr. Haas. The overall income and expanses of D.A.D. Denture Center, operated by Dr. Haas, and of his general practice in the name of James P. Haas-sole proprietor, were combined and were under the control and authority of Dr. Haas. The dental office located in Longwood, Florida, was identified as the office of James P. Haas, D.D.S., and also by a placard indicating the office to be a D.A.D. Denture Center. Finally, those patients who called for service under D.A.D. Denture Center were charged by different fee structure and were listed in a separate appointment book, than that appointment hook for the Respondent through his general practice, James P. Haas, D.D.S. The Respondent was knowledgeable of the arrangement to treat patients under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center at the address in Longwood, Florida, and in fact practiced dentistry under that assumed name and at that location as alleged in Count I of the Amended Accusation. This constituted a violation of Section 466.36, Florida Statutes, which states: "Practicing dentistry under assumed name; penalties.-- On and after the passage of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to practice or offer to practice dentistry under any name except his or her own proper name, which shall be the name used in his or her license certificate granted to him or her as a dentist as provided in this chapter, and unlawful to use the name of any company, association, corporation, clinic, trade name, or business name in connection with the practice of dentistry as defined in this chapter, provided, nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent two or more licensed dentists from associating to- gether for the practice of dentistry, each in his or her own proper name. The violation of any of the provisions of this section by any dentist shall subject such dentist to suspen- sion or revocation of his or her license." The advertisement placed in the Winter Park, Florida, telephone directory, which is sham as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence, was placed with the knowledge of the Respondent and with the intention by the Respondent that the advertisement be made. This advertisement pertained to the 1978 telephone directory for Winter Park, Florida. Under these facts, the Petitioner has charged the Respondent with a violation of Section 466.27(5), Florida Statutes. That provision reads: "466.27(5) Telephone listings shall be con- fined to the local telephone directories. Such listings shall be limited to the den- tist's name, dental degree, 'D.D.S.' or 'D.M.D.,' using the abbreviation only, the word 'dentist,' 'dentistry,' or 'general dentistry,' any specialty as approved by the board to which the dentist confines his practice exclusively, office location, resi- dence and office telephone numbers, and residence address and may include his member- ship in a local dental society if in accord with local customs." A review of the language of this section, in view of the fact that the advertising in the telephone directory inured to the benefit of the Respondent by the process of the referral system spoken of above, demonstrates that the telephone listing was for the benefit of Dr. Haas and was not in keeping with the requirements of this subsection. This constituted advertising professional services and the practice of dentistry in a manner not expressly authorized by Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and was therefore in violation of Section 466.24(3)(g), Florida Statutes. One of the employees of the Respondent who worked in the office at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, was Bernie Morlock. Morlock was not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene in the State of Florida at any time relevant to the allegations in the Amended Accusation. Nonetheless, Morlock practiced dentistry as defined by Section 466.04, Florida Statutes, and did so in the office of the Respondent in Longwood, Florida, with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent. The arrangement which was condoned by the Respondent allowed for Morlock to have patients scheduled for him for the purpose of the preparation of dentures through the referral system, D.A.D. Denture Center, which was part of Dr. Haas's Longwood, Florida, office. (An example of the written schedules may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence.) Dr. Haas had instructed that these patients be scheduled to be seen by Bernie Morlock. Some of these patients were being seen by Dr. Haas's office for the first time and were attended by Bernie Morlock from this initial visit to the conclusion of the case, at which time the patients were given their dentures. Morlock's involvement with patients included diagnosis of the physical condition of the teeth and jaws of the patients; taking impressions of patients' teeth, both algenate and working model impressions; the placement of dentures and other dental appliances in the patients' mouths and the adjustment to those dentures and dental appliances, and the discussion of the case with the patient. Most of the work that Morlock did was done at a time when Dr. Haas was not in attendance in the aforementioned office and was done without supervision from any licensed dentist. This process undertaxen by Bernie Morlock happened on numerous occasions. The patients were considered to be Morlock's patients and the patients only saw licensed dentists for the purpose of extracting teeth or other dental procedures unconnected with the fabrication and try-in and adjustment to the dentures. These actions on the part of Bernie Morlock took place during the time period alleged in Count IV of the Amended Accusation. By allowing Bernie Morlock to attend patients in the fashion that Morlock did, the Respondent was willfully negligent in the practice of dentistry within the moaning of Section 466.24(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and in addition was guilty of a violation of Section 466.24(e), Florida Statutes, which states: "Employing or permitting any unlicensed per- son or persons to perform any work in his office which would constitute the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene, except a dental auxiliary pursuant to the provisions of this chapter." During the period of time alleged in Count V of the Amended Accusation, the Respondent employed dental hygienists Vic Simmons and Mary Simmons at his office in Longwood, Florida. Although they wore dental hygienists, these individuals were not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene within the State of Florida. Notwithstanding this absence of a license, the Simmonses practiced dentistry in the Longwood office within the meaning of Section 466.04, Florida Statutes. This included having certain schedules set for them as indicated by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. This is an example of the schedule for the Simmonses under the title, "Ortho". This scheduling was with the knowledge of Dr. Haas, who had arranged for the Simmonses to come and treat orthodontic patients in his office. The Simmonses came to the location of the Respondent's office two days a month, of which Dr. Haas was in the Longwood office one of those days. These orthodontic patients would be seen initially by Dr. Haas and then treated for their condition by the Simmonses. Some of the patients first seen by the Simmonses arrived at the office without any form of braces in the mouth of the patient. The procedures that the Simmonses then performed were done without supervision by a licensed dentist. By that it is meant that the Simmonses were performing the dental services without the licensed dentist being in the room. The Simmonses, in the pursuit of orthodontic dental practice, placed bands and changed beads, cemented hands and placed arch wires; all with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent. Under the circumstances involved in the employment of the Simmonses, it has been demonstrated that the Respondent is guilty of willful negligence in the practice of dentistry as prescribed in Section 466.24(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is also guilty of a violation of Section 466.24(3)(e), Florida Statutes, in that he employed and permitted unlicensed persons to perform work in his office which would constitute the practice of dentistry. The proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation offered by the parties have been revied prior to the rendition of this Recommended Order. To the extent that the proposals conform to the findings herein, they have been utilized in developing the Recommended Order. To the extent that the proposals are inconsistent with the findings herein, they are rejected.
