The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner's challenge to the grading of his dental manual skills examination should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, Jorge Jose Velis, sat for the dentistry manual skills examination pursuant to Section 466.006(3)(c)3, Florida Statutes (1991), in November 1991. After receiving notification that he failed to achieve a passing score on the examination, petitioner challenged respondent's grading of three procedures, number 2, 7 and 8. The respondent sustained petitioner's challenge to the grading of procedure number 7 and had such procedure regraded, but such regrading failed to raise the overall grade awarded for the procedure. Respondent denied petitioner's challenge to the grading of procedures 2 and 8. In turn, petitioner filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to contest the respondent's grading of procedures number 7 and 8. The examination procedure During the course of the examination at issue in this proceeding, the candidates were called upon to exhibit manual skills by performing various procedures on a laboratory model. The quality of the candidate's performance was then 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 particular procedure. In scoring, a grade of "0" represented a complete failure, a grade of "3" represented a minimally acceptable dental procedure, and a grade of "5" represented outstanding dental procedure. See Rule 21G-2.013, Florida Administrative Code. Each of the examiners who participated in both the original grading of petitioner's model and the regrade had been licensed by the Florida Board of Dentistry for at least five years, and had participated in a day-long standardization training session the day before the examination was offered. Based on their previous performance as graders and their performance at the November 1991 examination, these examiners demonstrated a statistically acceptable grade variation range. Petitioner's examination results and review. Petitioner received a final grade of 2.97 on the examination, which was below the minimum passing grade of 3.0. Pertinent to this case, respondent received a grade of 2.66 for procedure 7, based on scores of 1, 3 and 4 from the individual examiners, and a grade of 2.66 for procedures 8, based on scores of 3, 1 and 4 from the individual examiners. Dr. Theodor Simkin, the respondent's consultant, upon petitioner's request for a regrade, examined petitioner's models and the evaluations of the examiners with regard to procedures number 7 and 8. In Dr. Simkin's opinion, which is credited, the original grade of 1 assigned to procedure 7 did not conform with the grading criteria since petitioner's error was not serious enough to warrant a grade of one. Accordingly, Dr. Simkin recommended a regrade of procedure number 7. With regard to procedure number 8, Dr. Simkin did not recommend a regrade because in his opinion, which is credited, the low grade of 1 was warranted because of a sever undercut made by petitioner on the tooth which would prevent any crown made up for the tooth from fitting properly. Accordingly, the assignment of a failing grade of 1 for procedure number 8 was appropriate under the grading criteria. Based on Dr. Simkin's conclusions, petitioner's procedure number 7 was regraded. In such regrading, petitioner's model was hand-delivered by a Department of Professional Regulations representative to three examiners, different from the original examiners, but all of whom participated in the standardization and grading of the November 1991 examination. In the regrade, petitioner received scores of 3, 3 and 2, for an average or final grade of 2.66, the same failing score he had previously received. The scores assigned by the examiners on regrading were, however, rendered in conformance with the grading criteria, and were an appropriate reflection of petitioner's performance. Here, the proof demonstrates that the regrade of procedure number 7 and the original grading of procedure number 8 were rendered in accordance with the grading criteria, and that petitioner's final grade of 2.97 was appropriately derived. Accordingly, petitioner failed to attain a minimum passing grade on the examination.
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 23rd day of December 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 December 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1 & 2. Unnecessary detail. Addressed in paragraph 5. Addressed in paragraph 10. Addressed in paragraphs 2 and 5-8. Rejected as argument or addressed in paragraph 12. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1 & 2. Addressed in paragraphs 1 and 10. 3. Addressed in paragraphs 3 and 5. 4-9. Addressed in paragraphs 5-8, otherwise unnecessary detail. 11-12. Addressed in paragraphs 3 & 4, otherwise unnecessary detail. 13. Addressed in paragraph 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Jose I. Perez, Esquire Grove 2000 Building Suite 100-D 2000 South Dixie Highway Miami, Florida 33133 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner successfully completed the clinical portion of the December 1997 dental hygiene examination.
Findings Of Fact In December 1997, Brandy Kern was a candidate for the dental hygiene examination (Examination). Ms. Kern had completed her dental hygiene studies at the University of Pittsburgh on or about April 29, 1995. She was an excellent student. Prior to making application for the Examination, Ms. Kern had obtained experience in dental hygiene by working as a dental hygienist in at least three dental offices over at least a two-year period in the State of Pennsylvania. Her employers, who were dentists, gave Ms. Kern very positive recommendations. Ms. Kern successfully completed all portions of the Examination, except for the scaling/calculus removal portion of the clinical part of the Examination. As a result, Ms. Kern did not successfully complete the overall Examination. The clinical examination consists of three parts: scaling and calculus removal, polishing, and root planing. The overall score for the clinical examination is determined from all three portions. Scaling and calculus removal counts as 70 per cent of the clinical examination; polishing as 10 percent; and root planing as 20 per cent. Each dental hygiene candidate is graded by three examiners. The clinical portion of Ms. Kern's examination was scored by three examiners. The examiners were 197, 243, and 320. Each examiner is a dental hygienist licensed in the State of Florida and is an experienced dental hygienist. An examiner must be recommended by an existing examiner or by a member of the Board of Dentistry (Board), have no complaints against their license, and be actively practicing. To become an examiner, an application must be completed and submitted to an examination committee of the Board. The committee reviews the application and, if approved, the applicant is placed in a pool of examiners. Before every examination, each examiner is trained in evaluating a procedure to make sure that it is properly performed. The Department of Health (Department) conducts a 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 and are appointed by the Board of Dentistry (Board). To further their training, after the examiners receive their verbal training, the examiners are shown slides of teeth which do not meet the clinical criteria of the examination. To make sure that the examiners have been able to internalize the criteria, following the standardization, the examiners, themselves, are given an examination. Included in the examination is a hands-on clinical, where mannequins are used and the examiners check for errors on the mannequins. After the examiners complete their examination, the Bureau of Testing evaluates the examiners to determine whether the examiners are acceptable to use for the Examination. Subsequent to the Examination, the examiners are scored by the Bureau of Testing. The scoring is based on an examiner's performance wherein the Bureau of Testing examines how every examiner grades with every other examiner to make sure that the examiners are grading with reliability. This review is based on corroborated errors found by an examiner, not on the average errors found by an examiner. The average errors found by an examiner are irrelevant to the examiner's performance in that one examiner may have graded candidates who made numerous errors, while another examiner may have graded candidates who made very few errors. For the Examination, candidates are required to bring human patients on whom the candidates perform the dental procedures. Each examiner grades the Examination independently. The examiners do not confer with each other while scoring the Examination. 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 by a licensed dental hygienist. When the candidate completes the procedures, a proctor accompanies the patient to another clinic where the examiners are located, and the examiners grade the procedures performed by the candidates. For the scaling/calculus removal portion of the Examination, the grading criteria is that complete removal of all supra and sub-marginal calculus from each tooth, without laceration to the surrounding tissue, is required. If the tooth is not clean and/or if there is damage to the surrounding tissue, the candidate is considered to have made one (1) error. Pursuant to Board rule, each tooth is judged as a whole. Even if a candidate makes three mistakes in performing the procedure on each tooth, e.g., calculus could be above the gum, calculus could be below the gum, and/or the gum could be lacerated, only one (1) error is counted against the candidate. The examiners do not document what error was committed by the candidate, i.e., whether the error is a calculus error or a laceration error. In grading the scaling/calculus removal portion of the Examination, a grade of five is the highest grade that a candidate can receive. A five is given if there are zero to three errors found. A grade of four is given if there are four errors found. A grade of three, which is considered to be minimally competent, is given if there are five errors found. A grade of two is given if there are six errors found. A grade of one is given if there are seven errors found, and a grade of zero is given if eight or more errors are found. For an error to be counted against a candidate, at least two of the three examiners must corroborate the error, i.e., at least two of the examiners must find the error. For Ms. Kern's clinical examination, she was scored by examiners 197, 243, and 320. All three examiners participated in the standardization training and were considered qualified to act as examiners for the Examination. Ms. Kern's examination was double-blind graded. Each examiner independently graded her examination. Examiner 197 found one error. Both examiners 243 and 320 found seven errors each. Examiners 243 and 320 agreed on six of seven teeth on which errors were found. Consequently, Ms. Kern was considered to have committed six errors. A post-examination review of the examiners was conducted. Examiners 243 and 320 were found to be reliable in their scoring. However, examiner 197 was found to be unreliable in his scoring. Examiner 197 was not used again for the Examination. The scoring of six errors made by Ms. Kern on the scaling/calculus removal portion of the Examination is not arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion. The scoring process is not devoid of logic and reason. However, because examiners do not document the type of error committed by a candidate, a candidate has no way of knowing what detail of a procedure was improperly performed. The candidate only knows that a procedure, as a whole, was improperly performed. Consequently, a candidate who desires to re-take the Examination has no idea what procedure needs improvement by the candidate in order to prepare for a re-taking of the Examination.
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 Brandy Kern's examination challenge to the clinical portion of the dental hygienist licensure examination administered in December 1997. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Roberts and His Background Dr. Steven Roberts is a dentist licensed to practice in the State of New York. He attended the United States Military Academy and received his undergraduate degree in 1970. He graduated from the New York University College of Dentistry in 1978, and practiced dentistry in New York, New York from 1978- 1987. To be licensed in New York, Dr. Roberts passed the national boards and the northeast regional board examination. During the course of his practice in New York, Dr. Roberts never received a complaint or had a claim for malpractice made or filed against him. Clinical Examinations Dr. Roberts took the Florida clinical dental examinations in June of 1986, January of 1987, and June of 1987. His grade on the June of 1987, examination is the subject of this proceeding. Dr. Roberts has successfully passed the written examination and the diagnostic examination required for licensure by Section 466.066(4)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes. Dr. Roberts' score for the June of 1987, clinical dental examination was 1.95; the minimum passing score is 3.00. The procedures tested during the June 1987, Clinical Dental Examination and Dr. Roberts' scores were as follows: The Procedure The Score The Revised Score Periodontal 1.67 Amalgam Cavity Preparation 1.67 Amalgam Cavity Restoration 3.00 Composite Preparation .67 Composite Restoration .33 Posterior Endodontics 2.00 3.66 Cast Preparation 2.67 3.00 Pin Amalgam Preparation 1.00 Pin Amalgam Restoration 1.67 Denture 3.63 Total Score 1.95 2.15 Dr. Roberts made a timely request to review his grade, and filed objections to his grades; a regrading procedure resulted in the regrading of his scores for posterior endodontics and cast restoration as set forth above. Each of the procedures tested in the clinical dental examination is scored by three different examiners. For each procedure examiners record their scores on separate 8 1/2" X 11" sheets. Each sheet has a matrix of circles which are blackened with a pencil so that they can be machine scored. On each sheet the candidate's identification number and the examiner's identification number are recorded along with the number for the procedure involved and the candidate's grade. On the sheet for each procedure the criteria for successful performance of the procedure are printed, along with preprinted comments which the examiners may use to explain the reason for the grade assigned. These comments relate to the criteria being examined. The following grades may be assigned by examiners: Complete failure Unacceptable dental procedure Below minimum acceptable dental procedure 3- Minimum acceptable dental procedure 4- Better than minimal acceptable dental procedure 5- Outstanding dental procedure An examiner is not required to mark a comment if the grade assigned is 5, a comment is marked for any grade below 5. Each procedure is graded in a holistic manner. Grades assigned by each of the three examiners for a procedure are averaged; the averaged scores for each procedure are then weighted and the weighted scores are summed to provide the overall clinical grade. By averaging the scores of three examiners for each procedure, variation from examiner to examiner is minimized. The examiners are experienced Florida dentists selected by the Board of Dentistry. An examiner must have at least five years of experience as a dentist and be an active practitioner. Potential examiners attend a standardization training exercise. This training is required by Section 466.006(4)(d), Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to instruct examiners in examination procedures and the criteria to be applied in grading. Through the training the examiner group as a whole arrives at a consensus opinion about the level of grading, so that candidates' scores on the examination will be valid and reliable. The training attempts to focus on each examiner's subjective, internalized evaluation criteria, so that they can be modified, as necessary, to reflect the consensus of all graders. A standardizer explains grading criteria to the potential examiners, and discusses various divisions among schools of thought and training on the procedures which will be the subject of the examination. The standardizer uses dental exhibits from prior dental exams as examples, and identifies grades and errors on the exhibits so that the graders learn and can adhere to uniform grading standards. The training focuses on three problems which professional literature has identified in evaluation: errors of central tendency, proximity errors, and bias a priori. Errors of central tendency result when graders are uncertain of criteria, hesitate to give extreme judgments, even in appropriate cases, and thus tend to improperly grade near the average. Proximity error is a type of halo effect which is applicable in grading of mannequin exhibits. The examiner grades all of the mannequin exhibits for each candidate at one time. If the first example of the candidate's work is especially good, and deserves a grade of 5, the grader may tend to transfer a generally positive attitude towards the next example of the candidate's work and assign a grade which may not be based solely upon the merits of that second piece of work. The same process can improperly depress the grades on subsequent mannequins if the first example of a candidate's work is poor. Bias a priori is the tendency to grade harshly or leniently based upon the examiner's knowledge of the use that will be made of the grade, rather than only on the quality of the work graded. After an 8 to 12 hour standardization training session, the Department administers an examination to those who have been trained. Those with the highest scores become the examiners, i.e., dentists who will grade candidates' work, while those with the lower scores in the training session become monitors, who supervise the candidates in their work on mannequins or on patients, but who do not actually grade student work. There is, however, no minimum score which a dentist who attends the standardization session must obtain in order to be an examiner rather than a monitor. This results, in part, from the limited pool of dentists who participate in the examination processes as monitors or examiners. For the 1987 clinical dental examination 31 dentists accepted selection by the Board and attended the standardization session, 20 were then selected as examiners and 11 became monitors for the examination. None of the dentists who attended the standardization session were dismissed by Department of Professional Regulation from further service at the examination session. The process by which the Department selected the examiners for the 1987 clinical dental exam was neither arbitrary nor capricious, but comports with Rule 21G- 2.020(4), Florida Administrative Code. The standardization training and examination of dentists to determine who will serve as examiners and monitors does not provide any bright line for distinguishing among potential examiners those who will make the most assiduous effort to apply the grading criteria explained in the training session versus those who retain an innate sense of a passing work based on what the examiner considers acceptable work in his own practice. The effort to convey to examiners the standard of "minimum competency" has imperfect success, but the Department's training is appropriate. Out-of-State Candidates' Scores 11. There is a substantial difference in the failure rates for out-of- state candidates and for in-state candidates on the clinical dental examinations. In the June of 1987, exam 82.5% of the candidates who graduated from the only in-state dental school, the University of Florida, passed the entire examination, while 54.2% of the out-of-state graduates passed, and only 37.8% of candidates from foreign schools were successful. Overall, 86.5% of the candidates passed the written portion of the examination, 93.5% the portion on oral diagnosis, but only 63.3% the clinical portion of the examination. Dr. Roberts has failed to prove that the lower pass rate for out-of- state candidates is the result of any sort of conscious effort on the part of examiners to be more stringent in grading out-of- state candidates. Dr. Kennedy's testimony indicated only that the data bear more analysis, not that they prove improper grading. Procedures Performed on Mannequins The Board of Dentistry tests between 600 and 700 dental candidates per year. It is extremely difficult for the candidates to find patients who have exactly the problem which is to be tested and bring them to the examination to work on. Some portions of the clinical dental examination, therefore, are not performed on patients, but on cast models of human teeth which resemble dentures, and which are known as mannequins. This is expressly authorized by Section 466.006(4)(a), Florida Statutes. The notice to appear which candidates receive approximately 30 days before the examination informs them of the types of mannequins which will be used in the examination. Before that time, however, dental supply companies obtain lists of those eligible to take the examination, and contact the candidates in an attempt to sell them the mannequins. Candidates must bring mannequins with them to the examination and can purchase additional mannequins for practice. Testing with mannequins is also more efficient because with live patients, the student must be graded at the time of the examination, while a model can be retained and graded a day or two later. The decision of the Board to have certain procedures performed on mannequins, so that each candidate would be graded on exactly the same procedure, is reasonable. The Board had also considered having students perform all test procedures on extracted human teeth, but there are not a sufficient number of all natural teeth available, given the number of students who are tested, both for the examination itself and for practice. The Board determined that it would be better to use mannequins for some of the procedures tested in the examination because they are readily available and students can purchase extra copies for practice. For certain procedures, such as endodontics, specific natural teeth (such as first bicuspids) are often extracted and so are generally available; for procedures performed on those teeth, it is possible to have candidates work on human teeth. By contrast, testing procedures performed on teeth such as incisors is not practicable. It is impossible to obtain enough incisors in good condition, without restorations and chips, for use during an examination. The statute governing the dental examination does require that one restoration performed by candidates must be done on a live patient, and for the June 1987, clinical dental examination that procedure was a class 2 amalgam restoration. The Board directed by rule that mannequins be utilized for five test procedures: the pin amalgam preparation and restoration, Rule 21G-2.013(3)(d), Florida Administrative Code; the endodontic procedure, Rule 21G-2.013(3)(e) Florida Administrative Code; the posterior tooth preparation for a cast restoration, Rule 21G-013(3)(f), Florida Administrative Code, the class III acid etch composite preparation and class IV acid etch composite restoration, Rule 21G-2.013(3)(g), Florida Administrative Code. Performing these procedures on mannequins is not exactly the same as performing procedures on human teeth in a patient. In view of the difficulty involved in finding patients whose teeth present virgin lesions, so that each candidate would be tested on exactly the same problem, the difficulty in grading a large number of procedures performed on live patients, and the difficulty in obtaining a large number of human teeth necessary for testing and for practice, the Board's decision to use the mannequins for these procedures is reasonable. The Legislature recognized this in Section 466.006(4)(b), Florida Statutes, which prescribes that the clinical dental examination shall include restorations "performed on mannequins, live patients, or both. At least one restoration shall be on a live patient." The Board was within its authority when it determined the procedures to be performed on mannequins. Violation of Blind Grading The dental examiners who grade the work of candidates grade blindly, i.e., they do not know which candidate's work they are grading. The Clinical Monitor and Examiner Instruction Manual for the June of 1987, examination makes this clear. At page 24 paragraph 3 the Manual states Examiners are requested to disqualify themselves at anytime they are presented with models or patients treated by a dentist who they know personally or with whom they have had professional contact. All examiners are requested to give department staff the name of any examination candidate who is personally known to them to be taking the exam. The department staff will assist the examiners in avoiding any work performed by the candidates they know. Rationale: Allegations have been made about examiners who knew candidates taking the exam even though the examiners only see candidate numbers. Monitors and Examiners are strongly urged to avoid discussion with candidates about the examination. Even conversation about non-examination related matters can be misinterpreted by other candidates as an unfair privileged communication. Despite this admonition, one of the examiners, Dr. Cohen, who knew Dr. Roberts, graded the work of Dr. Roberts. Dr. Cohen met Dr. Roberts the first time Dr. Roberts took the Florida Clinical Dental Examination in June of 1986. Dr. Roberts had with him a bag which would have identified him as a student from New York University, where Dr. Cohen had taught. Dr. Cohen came over to Dr. Roberts, introduced himself, gave Dr. Roberts his card, (exhibit 44) and invited Dr. Cohen to his hotel room where they discussed practicing dentistry in Florida. In 1986 Dr. Cohen was associated with another dentist, Gerald P. Gultz, who had recently moved to Florida from New York. Dr. Gultz had also been a part-time clinical assistant professor of dentistry at New York University College of Dentistry. After Dr. Cohen returned from the June 1986, administration of the clinical dental examination, he had a conversation with Dr. Gultz in which Dr. Cohen asked Gultz if he knew Dr. Roberts, and commented on Dr. Roberts performance on the clinical examination. Dr. Cohen said Dr. Roberts had done terribly, and Dr. Cohen believed that Dr. Roberts would never get his license to practice in Florida. (Tr. 5/26/88 at 73). Dr. Roberts saw Dr. Cohen at the January of 1987, clinical dental examination, but they did not speak. In June of 1987, Dr. Cohen also spoke briefly to the wife of Dr. Gerald Gultz, Lauren Gultz, saying that he would be seeing Dr. Roberts at the June of 1987, clinical dental examination, which was coming up. He told Mrs. Gultz that Dr. Roberts was a poor practitioner, and that he did not think he would pass the examination. At the June 1987, exam, Dr. Roberts' periodontal patient was his uncle, Mr. Finkelstein. Dr. Cohen was one of the examiners who reviewed Mr. Finkelstein to determine whether his condition was appropriate to serve as a patient for Dr. Roberts on the periodontal portion of the examination. Dr. Cohen had a conversation with Mr. Finkelstein in which he told him "tell your dentist to do a good job". Because Mr. Finkelstein had stated that his dentist was a graduate from N. Y. U. Dental School, Mr. Finkelstein was convinced that Dr. Cohen knew exactly who the dental candidate who would work on Dr. Finkelstein was -- Dr. Roberts. After accepting Mr. Finkelstein as an appropriate periodontal patient, Dr. Cohen also served as a grader on the periodontal procedure performed on Mr. Finkelstein. After grading the work which Dr. Roberts had done, Dr. Cohen told Mr. Finkelstein to tell his dentist that Dr. Cohen would see him later in the hotel where they were staying. At the hotel, Dr. Cohen talked to Dr. Roberts about the dental examination, that he himself had to take the examination three times, although he considered himself to be a superior dentist, and that Dr. Cohen could help Dr. Roberts with his grades but that he could never grade Dr. Roberts more that one grade higher than any of the other examiners. Dr. Cohen served as an examiner (i.e. grader) for Dr. Roberts on six of the nine procedures tested. There were: procedure number 1, the periodontal evaluation where he assigned a failing grade of 2; procedure number 4, the class III composite preparation, where he assigned a failing grade of 1; procedure number 5, the class IV composite restoration, where he assigned a failing grade of 1; procedure number 6, the endodontic evaluation, where he assigned a passing grade of 3; procedure number 7, the preparation for a cast restoration, where he assigned a passing grade of 3; and procedure number 8, the pin amalgam preparation, where he assigned a failing grade of 1. This failure of blind grading is a serious irregularity in the evaluation of Dr. Roberts' performance on the 1987 clinical dental examination, given his prior negative comments about Dr. Roberts before the examination. By ignoring those scores, Dr. Roberts would be evaluated only by two examiners, on all the procedures for which Dr. Cohen gave a grade. This would mean that his scores would not be comparable with those of any other candidate, for his grade on each procedure would not be the result of blind grading by three independent examiners. Dr. Roberts' Challenges to Grades Assigned by Other Examiners The full nine procedures evaluated in the 1987 dental clinical examination and Dr. Roberts' grades were: A periodontal exercise performed on a live patient, Mr. Finkelstein, which involved the scaling of five teeth both above and below the gum and stain removal. Dr. Roberts was assigned scores of 1, 2, and 2 by the examiners (one grade of 2 was assigned by Dr. Cohen) An amalgam cavity preparation, performed on a live patient, Elizabeth Cox, which is the preparation of a tooth for filling. When the preparation is completed a proctor escorts the patient to the three examiners who independently grade this part. After grading, the patient returns to the candidate who completes the filling of the tooth (the restoration) which is subsequently graded independently by three examiners. Dr. Roberts was assigned grades of 1, 1, and 3 for the preparation (none of these grades were assigned by Dr. Cohen). A final amalgam restoration, which is the filling of the tooth prepared in the prior procedure. Dr. Roberts received grades of 3, 3, and 3 on this procedure (none of the grades were assigned by Dr. Cohen). A class III composite preparation, which is preformed on a model, not a live patient. This involves removing decay and shaping a tooth to hold a class III filling, i.e., one located on the side surface of an incisor. Dr. Roberts received scores of 1, 0, and 1 (Dr. Cohen assigned one of the grades of 1) A class IV composite restoration, which is performed on a model, not a live patient. This involves restoring a fractured tooth with a composite restoration material. On this procedure Dr. Roberts received scores of 0, 0, and 1 (Dr. Cohen assigned the grade of 1). An endodontic evaluation performed on a posterior tooth, which is performed on a mannequin, and involves the opening of a molar, and identification of the canals in the tooth in preparation for a root canal procedure. Originally Dr. Roberts received grades of 3, 3, and 0 (one of the grades of 3 was assigned by Dr. Cohen). Dr. Roberts work was regraded by three new examiners and the grades of the original examiners were discarded. Dr. Roberts ultimately received a grade of 3.67 on the endodontic portion of the examination A preparation of a posterior tooth for a cast restoration, which is performed on a mannequin. It involves preparing a tooth to receive a crown. Dr. Roberts' original grades were 2, 3, and 3 (Dr. Cohen had assigned a grade of 3 on this procedure). On review, Dr. Roberts' was regraded by three new examiners, and the original grades were discarded. Dr. Roberts received a final grade of 3 on this portion of the examination. A pin amalgam preparation, which is performed on a model, not on a live patient. This involves the preparation of a tooth to hold an amalgam filling by inserting a pin into a portion of the tooth, which serves to anchor the filling. Dr. Roberts was assigned grades of 2, 0, and 1 on this procedure (Dr. Cohen assigned the grade of 1). Pin amalgam final restoration, which is performed on a model. It involves filling a tooth with amalgam filling material. Dr. Roberts was assigned grades of 2, 1, and 2 on this procedure (Dr. Cohen assigned one of the grades of 2). Due to the involvement of Dr. Cohen in so many of the procedures involved here, Dr. Roberts performance on the June of 1987, clinical dental examination was not fairly evaluated. A fair evaluation cannot be provided after the fact by merely dropping Dr. Cohen's grades, because Dr. Roberts' performance would not be subject to the independent evaluation of three examiners. Dr. Roberts relies, to a large extent, on the testimony of Dr. Gultz as the basis for regrading his procedures to a passing grade of 3, or better. The testimony of Dr. Gultz does not, however, show that he has ever participated in the standardization exercises for examiners at Florida clinical dental examinations. Dr. Gultz experience as a clinical professor of dentistry at New York University provides a substantial basis for his evaluation of dental procedures. The difficulty, however, is that as with any qualified examiner, his evaluations will be based on internalized standards which are personal to him. There is no way to know whether Dr. Gultz standards for adequate performance are equivalent to those which the standardization training produces among examiners at the standardization exercise before a clinical dental examination. The standardization process "attempts to bring all examiners to the same level of grading, so that each [examiner] is grading in a valid and reliable manner." Clinical Monitor and Examiner Instruction Manual, June of 1987, at page 42. The Florida dental clinical examination uses a holistic grading method. Each score sheet which an examiner fills out has on it the criteria to be applied in evaluating the candidates performance on that procedure. They all contain a statement which reads: It is the intent of the Board that each of the criteria are to be accorded equal importance in grading. Equal importance does not mean that each criteria has a numerical or point value, but means that any one of the criteria, if missed to a severe enough degree so as to render the completed procedure potentially useless or harmful to the patient in the judgment of the examiner, could result in a failing grade on the procedure. The criteria do not have any assigned numerical or point value, but are to be utilized in making a holistic evaluation of the procedure. Each grading sheet also points out to the examiner certain critical factors which, if present, require a grade of 0 for the procedure. The standardization in grading which the Board diligently attempts to achieve through the standardization training and the standardization testing of examiners done at the close of the training is elusive at best. Nonetheless, in the absence of showing that Dr. Gultz standards of evaluation are equivalent to those of an examiner trained at a standardization session, it is impossible to know whether his standards of evaluation are more rigorous or less rigorous than those reflected by the grades assigned to other candidates by the corps of examiners which evaluated the work of candidates at the June of 1987, clinical dental examination. The same is true with respect to the testimony of Dr. Simkins, the expert for the Board in this proceeding. No useful purpose would be served in attempting to choose between the testimony of Dr. Gultz, on the one hand, and the testimony of Dr. Simkins and of the other examiners who testified by deposition in this proceeding. If this were to be done, all the hearing officer would have determined is whose testimony about the appropriate grade to be assigned for each procedure is more believable. On this record it would be impossible to make a further finding about whether that more believable testimony reflects a scoring standard more stringent, less stringent or the same as that generally applied to all candidates by the corps of examiners in the June of 1987, clinical dental examination.
Recommendation It is recommended that the results of the clinical dental examination which Dr. Roberts took in June of 1987, be found invalid, and that he be permitted to take the next clinical dental examination offered by the Department of Professional Regulation at no cost to him. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of December, 1989. 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 8th day of December, 1989.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether Joseph M. Pelle, the Petitioner should be issued a dental teaching permit in conjunction with his duties as Dean of the Jacksonville University Dental School of Orthodontists (dental school) in accordance with the authority cited and treated below.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is Dr. Joseph M. Pelle. His business address is 2800 University Boulevard North, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, Florida. The Petitioner is not licensed to practice dentistry in Florida, but is licensed in three other states. His licensure is current and in good standing in those states. The Respondent is the Florida Board of Dentistry (Board). It is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure standards and practice standards for those engaged in the practice of dentistry in all its facets in the State of Florida. Its authority includes the authority, under the law cited below, to issue teaching permits in limited circumstances for professionals engaged in the teaching of clinical aspects of dentistry, at accredited institutions, offering advanced education to post-graduate dentists in Florida. The Petitioner filed an application for a teaching permit pursuant to Section 466.002, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B5-7.005, with the Respondent Board. The application is dated March 25, 2003. The teaching permit was proposed to be used at the Jacksonville University Dental School of Orthodontists in Jacksonville, Florida (Dental School). On June 25, 2003, the Board entered an order denying the application for the teaching permit. The Petitioner is the Dean of the Dental School of Orthodontics. The Petitioner is not currently licensed as a dentist in the State of Florida, but is licensed in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio with all those licenses being in good standing. The Petitioner has practiced orthodontics since 1971, and has been the chairman of dental programs at the University of Pittsburgh and at West Virginia University. He has a board specialty from the American Board of Orthodontics. Jacksonville University is a private, non-profit, accredited, liberal arts university in Jacksonville, Florida, that confers degrees at the undergraduate and graduate levels. It also offers advanced professional education programs. The Dental School of Orthodontics offers advanced education in orthodontics to post-graduate dentists that have already completed their dental program to receive the DMD or DDS degree. The dental school currently has four full-time faculty, eleven part-time faculty, and adjuncts, both outside and inside the Jacksonville University. There are fourteen students currently enrolled in the program. The advanced program offered consists of approximately 3700 hours of formal intense instruction over a twenty-four month period. The program results in conferring a certificate of advanced education in orthodontics on successful students. The Petitioner's duties as Dean of the Dental School of Orthodontics, are divided between administrative and teaching duties. Approximately 75 percent of his duties are attributable to administrative matters and 25 percent to teaching. If the teaching permit is issued, the Petitioner will participate in clinical instruction at the Dental School of Orthodontics. The accreditation body for dental programs in the United States is the Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association (the Commission). The Commission is a specialized programmatic accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education. It conducts all aspects of the accreditation process for the more than 1300 programs for dental, allied dental, and advanced dental education in the Untied States. The accreditation is for the program itself, and not for the sponsoring institution. The Petitioner, on behalf of the Dental School of Orthodontics, applied to the Commission for accreditation and personally participated in the accreditation review process. The Commission's accreditation standards are set forth in a document entitled "Accreditation Standards for Advanced Specialty Education Programs in Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics" that was introduced in Petitioner's Exhibit Two in evidence. The accreditation process requires compliance with six standards contained in that document. The standards address institutional commitment and program effectiveness, the program director and teaching staff, the facilities and resources, the curriculum and program duration, the advanced education student selection, and research. The Commission concluded that the Dental School of Orthodontics is in compliance with all accreditation standards. See Petitioner's Exhibit Four in evidence. The curriculum for the Dental School was developed in accordance with the self-study guide of the Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association. As a result of the accreditation process and evaluation, the Commission sent a letter dated August 5, 2003, to David L. Harlow, President of Jacksonville University, containing the following passage: The program in orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics is accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation [and has been granted the accreditation status of 'initial accreditation.'] The Commission is a specialized accrediting body recognized by the United States Department of Education. That letter from the Commission also contains the following passage: Based upon all the information presented, the Commission concluded that the program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standards, including Standard 1-1 regarding financial support from entities outside of the institution. Accordingly, the Commission adopted a resolution changing the accreditation classification of the educational program from 'preliminary provisional approval' to 'initial accreditation.' No additional information is requested at this time. See Petitioner's Exhibit Four in evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit Three consists of the listing of from the American Dental Association of all Florida programs currently accredited by the Commission. The School of Orthodontics is included on that list. The Petitioner has never failed the Florida Dental Licensure Examination. The Petitioner is also a full-time faculty member at the Dental School of Orthodontics at Jacksonville University. The Petitioner has agreed not to engage in the practice of dentistry pursuant to the teaching permit if it is issued, except under the programs of the Dental School of Orthodontics. The Petitioner has also agreed that if the teaching permit is issued, all records pertaining to the teaching practice shall be subject to review and available to the Board of Dentistry. The Petitioner has also agreed that if the teaching permit is issued, information requested by the Board of Dentistry will be submitted for the purpose of allowing the Board to evaluate compliance with applicable laws regulating the practice of dentistry. The Petitioner has provided proof of current CPR certification to the Board of Dentistry. The Board of Dentistry does not issue or grant accreditation to dental programs in the State of Florida. Rather, the Board defers to the Commission as to its accreditation decisions. As shown by Respondent's Composite Exhibit One in evidence (letter of May 12, 2003, from attorney Bruce D. Lamb to the Executive Director of the Board of Dentistry) the Commission voted to discontinue awarding preliminary provisional approval status as to accreditation. According to that letter the United States Department of Education does not consider preliminary provisional approval to constitute accreditation. In fact, the Commission Communications Update of Fall 2002 indicates that the Commission has a firm policy that a program is strongly encouraged not to enroll students/residents until "initial accreditation" status has been obtained. If a program enrolled students or residents without first having been granted "initial accreditation" status, the Commission will notify all students or residents enrolled of the possible ramifications of enrollment in a program operating without accreditation. Thus, at least implicitly, the Commission and the U.S. Department of Education considers "initial accreditation" status, conversely, to constitute accreditation, at least for purposes of admission of students and residents to such a program.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order determining that the Petitioner is in compliance with the above- referenced statute and Rule, relating to the issuance of a teaching permit and that the application of the Petitioner for the teaching permit at issue be granted. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence Curtin, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0810 Ann Cocheu, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has applied to be licensed as a cosmetologist by the Board of Cosmetology of the State of Florida. In pursuit of her application she took the practical examination given by the Department of Professional Regulation, in Winter Haven on June 10, 1982. She received a grade of 66.5 on that portion of the examination. A passing grade is 75.0 or above. Petitioner did pass the written portion of the examination. Because the grade for the written portion is not averaged with the grade for the practical exam, it is irrelevant here. Ms. Forchion's only experience or expertise in the field of cosmetology comes from her study in a half-year course given at Orange County Vocational Technical School. Ms. Forchion contests the following grades received on the indicated portions of the practical examination: Shampooing 3.0 of a maximum 5.0 Permanent waving 12.0 of a maximum 20.0 Bleaching 11.0 of a maximum 20.0 Tinting 13.5 of a maximum 15.0 At the final hearing Ms. Forchion testified that she performed all the procedures properly for each of the areas examined. She did not however, know what the grading criteria to be used by the examiners were. For this reason she was unable to say that her performance met the standards established by the Board of Cosmetology for passing grades. Ms. Forchion's only standards for judging her own work came from her instruction at school. Respondent presented testimony from two of the examiners who were present at the time and place of Petitioner's examination. They had no recollection of Petitioner's performance on the practical exam and therefore were unable to provide testimony about the adequacy or inadequacy of her performance. During the shampooing portion of the examination, there was a deficiency in water pressure. The individual examination stations are apparently supplied by a common water main. When all of the examinees attempted to use water at the same time, the supply was inadequate. The Department of Professional Regulation employee supervising the examination asked the examinees to turn their water off in order to allow the pressure to return. This was unnerving to Petitioner because the examination was timed. In spite of the paucity of pressure she was able to complete the shampooing to her satisfaction and she did not claim that the lack of water resulted in an unacceptable performance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Cosmetology enter a Final Order denying the application of Shirley J. Forchion for licensure as a cosmetologist because she failed to successfully pass the practical portion of the cosmetology examination as required by Section 477.019(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1981). DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Shirley J. Forchion 3000 Orange Court Apartment 85 Orlando, Florida 32805 M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Florida Board of Cosmetology 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION SHIRLEY J. FORCHION, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-2352 DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Respondent. /
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceedings concern whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive a passing score on the December 1999 dental licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Carlo Coiana, was an unsuccessful candidate for the December 1999 dental licensure examination. He failed to pass several procedures of that licensure examination, according to the Department's graders and grading method. The December 1999 dental licensure examination consisted of two parts: (1) The clinical, and (2) The laws and rules section. The clinical portion consists of nine different procedures of which the Petitioner challenged six. The Department, in is scoring method, selects three examiners to grade each candidate's performance. The average of the three scores from each examiner, produces the overall grade for that procedure. Rather than having only one examiner score, the Department allows for three examiner scores because this provides a more fair, reliable indication of the candidate's competency and true score. Each examiner must be a licensed dentist for a minimum of five years and have no complaints or negative actions on his or her licensure record. Each examiner must also attend and successfully complete a standardization session which trains each examiner to use the same internal grading criteria. The examiners who graded the Petitioner's examination successfully completed the standardization session and training. During the administration of the dental examination the Department requires the use of monitors who are also licensed dentists. The monitor's role is to preserve and secure the integrity of the examination. The monitor also gives instructions to each candidate as to what to expect. The monitor has no part in the grading of the candidate's performance on the examination but acts as a messenger between the candidate and the examiner since there is a "double-blind" grading of the examination. The Petitioner contested the score he received on the Class II Composite Restoration on a model. The Class II Composite Restoration Portion of the examination is a procedure involving restoring a cavity (Class II) preparation with a tooth-colored filling. The procedure was done by the Petitioner with a comment by the examiners that there was a discrepancy in the resulting shape of the tooth and proper contact to the adjacent tooth. There was also a marginal discrepancy and a "gingival overhang." The margin is where the tooth and filling meet and there was a discrepancy felt there, a bump or a catch when the junction of the two surfaces should be smooth. A gingival overhang is in the area between the tooth where a non- smooth transition between the filling and the tooth is detected. This can be a damning area which will collect plaque and lead to re-current decay. The Respondent's expert, Dr. John Joffre, concurred with the overall findings of the examiners and felt that this procedure should not be accorded a passing score but rather the score accorded by the examiners. The Petitioner also contested the score for procedure number four of the examination, the Endodontic procedure. The Endodontic procedure of the examination is referred to as a "root canal." This procedure involves removal of the nerve and blood vessels inside a tooth in order to clean out that area. It then requires the shaping of the canal and, finally, filling it with an inert material to rid the body of the infected area in question. This procedure is performed on an extracted tooth. The minimum of the working length the Department required in order to receive a passing score for the filled material in the tooth in question was two millimeters. The Petitioner's expert had the working length of the filled area in the root canal or Endodontic procedure done by the Petitioner measured. It measured closer to three millimeters which is totally unacceptable according to Dr. Joffre. Even in accordance with the literature that the Petitioner relied upon in this case it is not provided that three millimeters short of the working length is an accepted working length, which is why the Petitioner received less than a passing score. All three examiners and the expert witness Dr. John Joffre were in agreement about this scoring. Three millimeters short of the required working length will cause the procedure to definitely fail sometime in the future and renders the procedure useless. An Endodontically treated tooth that is three millimeters short will fail clinically, and that justifies a failing grade on this procedure. The next procedure contested by the Petitioner as to score was the Amalgam Restoration done with a model. This procedure is similar to the Class II Composite Restoration. However, the difference between the two procedures is that the Amalgam is referred to as a silver filling containing mercury, silver, etc., as opposed to the Composite material in the above- referenced procedure which is a "tooth-colored" restoration. Although the Composite and the Amalgam serve the same function, they require different tasks and different procedures on how they are to be handled in their installation in the mouth. The major problem found with the Petitioner's performance on this procedure concerned an overhang. As referenced above, a gingival overhang at the margin of where the filling and the tooth meet results in a less than smooth transition and can be an area where food accumulates and decay can start anew. All three examiners also noted a problem with the proximal contour of the Amalgam restoration which has to do with the shape of the filling in terms of how it meets the tooth next to it. The testimony of Dr. Joffre, which is accepted, shows that the examiners comments and grades and Dr. Joffre's opinion itself justifies the scoring on this procedure. Dr. Joffre agrees with the examiners' scoring. The last procedures in question are called the "Patient Amalgam." These procedures, two and three, involve cutting of the tooth before the filling is actually placed into it ("cutting the box"). Procedure three is the actual filling, involving scoring what the filling is like after the filling procedure is completed. The criticism found by both examiner 304 and 346, as to the first part of the procedure, the cutting part, was ". . .did not break the gingival contact, subject to recurrent decay." The gingival contact down in the box cut for the filling must be cut deep enough to reach the point where there is a separation between the edge of the box and the adjacent tooth. Halfway down the tooth, towards the gum, the teeth are still touching. As one progresses further down toward the gum, the teeth separate because they naturally get narrower toward the gum line. A dentist needs to cut the box that the filling should be placed in down far enough toward the gum line so that he gets to the point where the teeth are no longer touching. Both dentists 306 and 346, examiners, found that he did not cut the box low enough so that he "didn't break gingival floor contact with the molar" (meaning the adjacent tooth). Thus, these examiners gave the Petitioner the lowest grade of "one" on that part of the procedure. The filling or restoration portion of the procedure failed. The filling was not adequately carved or shaped so that it was protruding too high above the adjacent tooth surfaces. This caused the patient to break the filling very shortly after it was finished and he was biting downward and putting pressure on it. Indeed it broke while the third examiner was examining the procedure. The reason why the fracture in the filling occurred was because it protruded too high. The Petitioner did not adequately reduce the size or height of the filling, so when the teeth came together the tooth below it or above it was hitting too hard against that one spot and caused the metal to break before the patient, on whom the procedure was done, ever left the building. The Respondent's expert, Dr. Joffre, who agreed with examiners comments and score, found that the Petitioner had failed to properly perform these procedures and that his score had been appropriately arrived at by the examiners. The Petitioner contested the score he received on the Fixed Partial Denture Procedure. The Department ultimately conceded that he should be awarded additional points on that procedure, however, even with the additional points awarded the Petitioner still failed to score adequately on the overall examination for passage, although he came close, with a score of 2.92 out of a minimal score of 3.00 required for passage of the examination.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition challenging to the grades assigned the Petitioner for the December 1999 Dental Licensure Examination and finding that the Petitioner failed to pass that examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlo Coiana N1 Via Delle Coccinelle Cagliari, Italy 09134 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health Office of the General Counsel 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Theodore M. Henderson, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Frank A. Velez, Jr., D.D.S. has been registered with the Florida State Board of Dentistry since 1967. His latest address on file with the Board is 4640 Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando, Florida. The records of the Board show no licensed hygienist with the same address as Velez or that any licensed personnel are employed by Velez. In November, 1973 Mrs. Margaret B. Laursen went to Dr. Velez for professional services. Velez performed a root canal and took impressions for a partial plate. When the patient returned for the bridge work to be inserted in her mouth Velez removed a tooth before putting in the plate. When the plate was inserted it did not fit and despite several visits to Dr. Velez for adjustment, the plate could not be worn because of the pain and discomfort caused with the plate in place. Finally, in August, 1974, she went to Dr. Barnes. Upon examination Dr. Barnes observed a large root tip which had been left in the cavity from which the tooth was extracted. This root tip was visible without x- ray. The root tip that had been removed and the x-ray showing the root tip were admitted into evidence as Exhibits 5 and 6. After extracting the root tip and adjusting the partial plate Dr. Barnes could not make the partial plate fit, largely because an extension had been added to the plate to take care of the space caused by the extraction of the molar from which the root tip had been left. Dr. Barnes further found that the crown which had been placed on the tooth used to anchor the partial plate had been cracked and the plate could not be securely attached thereto. Since the partial was sitting on top of the root tip at the time it was being fitted by Dr. Velez, the pain would not allow the partial to fit comfortably. Mrs. Estella Livermore saw a brochure from Dr. Velez on a bulletin board in the trailer park where she resided. Therein it said that he would make a full set of upper and lower dentures for $98. Needing dentures she visited Velez in January, 1976. Upon arrival she talked to Velez and the secretary who showed her two sets of teeth; one the $98 set and the deluxe version at $150. As a result of the conversation she authorized Velez to make her a $150 set. At this time Mrs. Livermore had been wearing dentures for about 30 years. On her initial visit impressions were taken and about a week later she went back when the plates were ready. When the new dentures were placed in her mouth she couldn't eat, drink, or talk with them. At Velez's insistence she tried to wear them, but couldn't even drink water with the teeth in. After complaining to Velez he stated that he would make another set. When the other set was prepared they appeared to fit worse than the first set. They were impossible to wear. She called Velez and he stated he couldn't do anything about it. Telephone calls to his office were answered by a recording. Subsequently, she and her husband went by his office to wait him out. When he appeared he was angry because she had not called for an appointment and wanted to know if she wanted him to take some material off the plates. When Mrs. Livermore replied that she didn't know, he took the teeth into his lab for a short while and when he returned shoved them in her mouth and escorted her out. His nurse told her if she came back he would charge her $10 per visit. The teeth still could not be used by Mrs. Livermore and when she complained to the dental society she was referred to Dr. Waldheim, Assistant Secretary Treasurer of the State Board of Dentistry. In February, l976 Dr. Waldheim examined Mrs. Livermore and found the dentures to be oversized with a poor occlusion. The dentures were inadequate for the patient and could not be adjusted to fit. Mrs. Georgia McCampbell visited Dr. Velez in late November, 1975 to have teeth pulled and dentures made. He took impressions of her teeth and approximately one week later when she returned several teeth were extracted and both upper and lower dentures were inserted. The lowers fit badly and would not stay in place. Her next appointment was one week later. During this period of time the dentures were burning and hurting very badly and when she went back for her appointment she did not see Dr. Velez, but was seen only by an assistant. By this time her gums inflamed and abscessed. She told the assistant she had an appointment with Dr. Velez, but was advised that since she was late for her appointment with Velez she could not see him. One of the assistants attempted to fit the dentures by putting them in, but they were hurting too much for her to wear. A few days later she went to Dr. Ford. When Dr. Ford examined Mrs. McCampbell he found the incision extended from second molar to second molar across the lower front part of her jaw. The wound was open and the jawbone was exposed. A pus-like material was observed in the gum. Her temperature was slightly elevated at 99.2 F. He treated her with antibiotics. Mrs. McCampbell advised Dr. Ford that she had teeth removed ten days before and had been back on three occasions but was unable to see the dentist. She could only see a dental assistant. Dr. Ford expressed the opinion that where six or eight teeth in a row are removed sutures would normally be indicated. Three days later upon her return she was beginning to heal and he removed some bone fragments from the jaw. The incision made when the teeth were removed healed in about three weeks. His examination of the dentures that had been made for Mrs. McCampbell showed they were too large and the jaw would not properly close with the dentures in the mouth. Dr. George A. Woodruff, D.O.S., in Titusville knew Dr. Velez when he was practicing in Titusville some two and a half to three years ago and had patients in common with Velez. One of these patients, Sue Flenniken, visited his office in May, 1972 with gum abscess. She advised him that Velez had proposed to treat her with a root canal. In Dr. Woodruff's opinion a root canal would not have helped in her case, as the gum was abscessed. Some two months later the tooth flared up again and extraction was required. Another client shared with Dr. Velez was one Hazel Todd. She was experiencing problems with a Velez-constructed bridge held by three teeth on which root canals had been done by Dr. Velez. Upon examination Dr. Woodruff found the root canal treatment inadequate. One was underfilled just short of the tip of the root, the other two overfilled with the filling sticking out of the end of the root. This was clearly visible in the x-ray. Dr. Woodruff opined, that the three root canals done at the same time on three teeth in a row was contraindicated. Normally when a patient has sensitivity in an area proper treatment would be to narrow down the sensitivity and then do a root canal on the tooth most suspect to see if that cured the problem before proceeding to treat the other teeth. Mrs. Amelia Thomas visited Dr. Velez in June, l976 for replacement dentures. After she paid half of the quoted price a dental assistant took the impressions from which the new dentures were made. On this visit Dr. Velez did not take any impressions. When she returned a week or ten days later to pick up the teeth she was advised that she had to pay the balance of the amount owed on the teeth prior to having the teeth fitted. When she questioned paying for the teeth before trying them Dr. Velez told her abruptly that is the way that he did it. After she made the balance of the payment the teeth were tried in her mouth. They did not fit well and she could not bite comfortably. Velez took part of the material off the teeth and told her to try them out and come back a week or so later for an adjustment. Although she tried to wear the teeth she couldn't talk or eat with them. She considered they were too large and her jaws would not properly close. When she went back to Dr. Velez with her complaint he told her that he had made the teeth to fit and that she was going to have to wear them. She offered to pay him more if he would make another set that did fit but he declined. Velez then brought in another man who checked her teeth and took them out to the lab to work on. About an hour later Velez advised her that he would make her another set of plates and he took impressions to do so. He also asked for her old plate to be left there for a couple of days which she declined to do because she felt she could not get along without them. She did not return for the second set of teeth because she had become uneasy about the work Dr. Velez had done and stopped payment on her second check. Mrs. Thomas has worn dentures for approximately 40 years and this is the first time a dentist had asked her to leave her old dentures for a pattern. Alfred W. Langley saw Dr. Velez in January, 1976 to have a set of dentures made. Dr. Velez took the impressions and when Langley returned approximately one week later for fitting, the teeth fit so badly that Velez would not let Langley out of the office with them. Velez took a second set of impressions but when Langley returned those teeth fit no better and a third impression was taken. When the third set of teeth was made, Langley took those home with him but they did not fit. They wouldn't stay in place and he could not talk with them. Subsequently he visited the consumer protection agency and obtained a letter from the dental board and from the consumer protection agency. When he confronted Dr. Velez with these letters Velez returned the money he had paid for the teeth. These letters from Dr. Waldheim and from the State Attorney's office were received into evidence as Exhibits 7 and 8. Mrs. Louise Rodgers visited Dr. Velez in February, 1976 experiencing problems with her teeth. Another dentist had wanted to do root canals on some twenty-odd teeth but she didn't feel she could afford the approximately $4,000 she had been advised that treatment would cost. She visited Dr. Velez to see if extraction and dentures would be cheaper. Dr. Velez took x-rays and impressions prior to extracting the teeth. On March 4, 1976 Dr. Velez extracted 23 teeth and put in the plates that he had constructed from the earlier impressions. She immediately inquired if the upper plate was supposed to be as loose as the one in her mouth appeared to be. Under instructions she kept the plate in all afternoon but had to hold her finger on the plate for 3 or 4 hours until the swelling was sufficient to hold the plate in place. Later when she took them out to clean her mouth she couldn't get the plate back in because of the large bone in the way. The following Monday she called the office and was advised to come in on the 11th, some 7 days after the extractions. Dr. Velez was not there and one of the girls in the office tried to put the teeth in but couldn't. Mrs. Rodgers returned the following day and saw Dr. Velez who removed the bone fragment that was in the way. He tried to put the teeth back in but there was too much swelling and the upper part of the jaw was very irritated. When she returned on the 18th of March her gums were still tender but there was no longer any bleeding. On that visit Dr. Velez did some grinding on the teeth so they could be put in her mouth; however, they would not stay in place. Velez advised her to get something gummy and sticky to hold them in. She tried to wear the teeth but they felt too big and would not stay up. She went back on the 23rd of March complaining about her teeth not staying up. She was advised she had to get used to them but he would remake them if she would pay an additional fee of $78. When she called on April 22nd and asked to talk to Dr. Velez the girl said he was extremely busy and couldn't come to the phone. The receptionist advised that she would make her another appointment but she should wait for three weeks. During this time she was still trying to wear the dentures but couldn't eat with them, talk with them, and the uppers kept falling down. When she did return for her final appointment he advised she was just going to have to wear them until she could get used to them. After complaining to the Dental Board Mrs. Rodgers was advised to visit Dr. Waldheim. When Dr. Waldheim examined Mrs. Rodgers in June, 1976 he found that her gums had healed but the teeth did not fit. The occlusial relationship was badly off and the teeth could not be adjusted to fit. Dr. Waldheim further opined that extracting 23 teeth at one time and not seeing the patient until 10 days thereafter was very poor dental practice. In his opinion the patient should always be seen the following day if as many as 23 teeth were extracted. Mrs. Sarah Gier visited Dr. Velez in February, 1976 to have new dentures made. Velez advised her that she could have the $98 set or the $150 deluxe set, but that the $150 teeth were worth approximately $600. She selected the $150 set. At this visit Dr. Velez took impressions and when she returned on February 19 for the teeth the upper dentures appeared all right. Dr. Velez acknowledged that the bottom dentures were wrong and would have to be made over. He then took impressions for the lower plate but when she returned for them they didn't fit. Dr. Velez instructed her to try and wear them. She tried but couldn't wear them because they hurt too badly. When she returned on March 1, a boy in the office removed her teeth, took them back to the lab to work on them. When he returned they still did not fit and he made a second adjustment. When Dr. Velez appeared he advised her that she would probably have to use powder and that it may be several weeks before she would get used to the teeth. Inasmuch as each visit was now costing $10 she didn't feel that she could make more visits. On March 4th Mrs. Gier called and asked for her money back. Initially the receptionist said all right, but called back and advised that Dr. Velez had changed his mind and could not give her money back. Subsequently when she and her husband stopped by to see Velez he told her if she didn't leave he would call the police. Later she visited Dr. Waldheim, to whom she had been referred by the Dental Board. Dr. Waldheim found the dentures did not fit as they were too large and the jaws could not close to their natural position. Using the witness as a model Dr. Waldheim had her insert the teeth at the hearing. It was clearly evident that the jaws were extended by the teeth and the lips would not close. In Dr. Waldheim's opinion those teeth could never be made to fit. In February, 1976 Mr. Joseph Marrone visited Dr. Velez to have dentures made. He had heard that Dr. Velez was reasonable and the next door neighbor had recommended Dr. Velez. He had a partial plate held by three teeth on the, bottom that needed to be pulled. When Dr. Velez examined him Marrone was advised it would be better to pull the bottom and top teeth and make a full set of dentures. On the first visit Dr. Velez made impressions for the lower plate. On Mr. Marrone's second visit the lower plate was ready and was placed in his mouth. Although the receptionist told him not to take them out they hurt so badly that he had to. When he returned a few days later two girls in the office examined his teeth and made adjustments on them. However, the teeth never fit and were causing bruises and sores in the gums. He could not eat with them. Thereafter Dr. Velez made a second full set of teeth, but they too did not fit. After several adjustments were made Velez advised this would be the last time he could adjust them and if they didn't work he could do nothing more about it. Mr. Marrone then asked him to return his money `and he would go to a dentist who could prepare him a set of dentures he could wear. When Marrone subsequently complained to the dental board he was referred to Dr. Waldheim. Dr. Waldheim's examination of the dentures showed the lower plate extended and it could not be corrected to fit. Mr. Marrone was then referred to another dentist who was able to adjust the upper plate that had been made by Dr. Velez to fit but it was necessary to make a new lower plate for Mr. Marrone. With respect to the various patients of Dr. Velez that had been seen by Dr. Waldheim due to improperly fitting dentures, Dr. Waldheim expressed the opinion that the most probable cause of the ill-fitting dentures was in the manner in which the impressions were taken or in the material used in taking the impressions. If improper impression material was used it could have changed from the time the impression was taken until the time it was used for the mold for the dentures. None of the dentures made for the patients of Dr. Velez that were seen by Dr. Waldheim could have been adjusted so they would fit. Connie Bragdon and Marie Minzenberger worked in Dr. Velez's office in 1975 and 1976. Both had received training from Dr. Velez, both worked as Dr. Velez's assistants, both took impressions from which dentures were made, and both adjusted dentures. They were instructed to give a copy of the letter, admitted into evidence as Exhibit 9, to all patients. These letters contained a map showing the location of the office on the back and advised the prices that the doctor charged for various services. Letters similar to those in Exhibits 2, 4 and 9 were mailed to patients who called and requested information. Rebecca Velez, wife of Dr. Velez, testified over the objection of the attorney for Respondent, who objected on grounds of the husband and wife privilege. Mrs. Velez had worked in the office for approximately one and one half years in 1975 to early 1976. She too had received no previous training. She acknowledged that Exhibits 2 and 4 were very similar to those that were in the office and were given to all patients who visited the office. Dr. Henry Gagliardi, D.D.S. is a dental educator who established a dental hygiene school at the Florida Junior College in Jacksonville. Dr. Gagliardi defined a dental auxiliary as an individual working with or for a dentist. This person can be either a dental assistant or a hygienist; however, the latter requires a license and two years training. A dental assistant may be employed with no preparation or training. A hygienist can scale teeth, use instruments in the mouth, and take impressions. A person not licensed by the dental board may not legally take impressions from which a prosthetic device will be made, but they may take impressions for diagnostic purposes only. A dental assistant may not alter a prosthetic appliance (denture). If an extension on a prosthetic device causes problems to the patient the diagnosis and correction of this problem must be done by a dentist. Since the determination of the accuracy of the bite on a prosthetic device is very important, this is another task that must be done by the dentist and not by an auxiliarist. Dentures are often placed into the oral cavity immediately after extraction and when so done they act as a splint until the cavities heal. In the normal process gums will shrink following extraction of teeth and thereafter the dentures will require adjustment. Improperly fitting dentures can cause lack of equilibrium in the jaws, sore gums, and sores in the mouth. In December, 1973 Mrs. Norma Laursen, daughter-in-law of Margaret B. Laursen, visited Dr. Velez on an emergency basis to have a broken tooth repaired. Dr. Velez was unable to take her case at that time. Several months later she and her husband received an envelope in the mail containing a letter which was introduced into evidence as Exhibit 2. The introduction of Exhibit 2 was objected to on the grounds that there was no evidence that it was signed by Dr. Velez or sent by Dr. Velez. Ruling on this motion was deferred at that time. Since subsequent exhibits indicate that this letter was one of many of a similar kind that were distributed to various individuals, the objection is overruled and Exhibit 2 is admitted into evidence. Robert E. Laursen corroborated the testimony of his wife, Norma. James E. Stone, of Titusville visited Dr. Velez while Velez was practicing in Titusville some two and one half to three years ago. He had chipped a tooth over the week-end and went in to see Dr. Velez for emergency repairs on a following Monday. Dr. Velez took x-rays, filed the tooth down, and advised Mr. Stone that in the future he may need a root canal. Dr. Velez was never his family dentist. Some months later he received in the mail a letter which was offered into evidence as Exhibit 4. Mrs. Stone corroborated the testimony of Mr. Stone with respect to the receipt of Exhibit 4 in the mail. Exhibit 4 was objected to on the same grounds as Exhibit 2 and at the time the ruling on the objection was deferred. For the same reasons given above, Exhibit 4 is now admitted into evidence. Six witnesses, Susan Weiler, Daryl DeVevc, Gustav Jicha, Daisy Smith, Robert B. Smith, and Janice Sidley testified on behalf of Dr. Velez. All had received treatment from Dr. Velez and considered him to be an excellent dentist who did very fine work for each of them. Some had experienced difficulties with dentures made by other dentists, but those prepared by Dr. Velez were excellent. A series of commendatory letters addressed to Dr. Velez were admitted into evidence as Exhibit 13. Attached thereto is an affidavit signed by some 57 former patients to the effect that Dr. Velez had performed dental work on them and they were completely satisfied with his service, his professional conduct and competence as a dentist. Copies of various certificates held by Dr. Velez were admitted into evidence as Composite Exhibit 14.
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 consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be awarded a passing grade on the clinical portion of the dental licensing examination given on December 12 through 14, 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Dentistry was responsible for the licensing of dentists in this state and the regulation of the dental profession. Petitioner is a graduate of the University of Florida School of Dentistry and was eligible to sit for the examination for licensure as a dentist in Florida. Petitioner previously has taken and passed the written portion of the dental examination. He has taken the clinical portion of the examination twice and has received a failing grade each time. He is eligible to take the clinical portion alone for a third time, but must do so within a period of 13 months of taking it the second time or must take both the written and oral portions again. Dr. Scheutz first took the examination in June 1996. He received a passing grade in each of those examination portions which dealt with Florida laws and rules and with oral diagnosis. However, he received a grade of 2.31 on the clinical examination portion of the examination, and a passing grade was 3.0. Thereafter, in December 1996 he again took the clinical portion and this time received a grade of 2.71, still below the 3.0 passing grade. Dr. Theodor Simkin is a licensed dentist and consultant to the Board of Dentistry, who has been in the private practice of dentistry since 1950 and in Florida since 1975. He has been involved in the development, administration, and grading of the dental examination in Florida since 1979 and was a supervisor for the December 1996 examination. He is familiar with the standards applied in the clinical portion of the examination and how the examination is given and graded. Petitioner has challenged the grade he received on five separate procedures he performed during the December 1996 examination. The procedures chosen for accomplishment during the examination are not unusual procedures, but are common problems seen on a routine basis by a practicing dentist. Dr. Simkin reviewed the mannequin on which Petitioner did his work and which he presented to the examiners for grading. One of the grades challenged related to a "composite restoration" (Clinical D) for which Petitioner received a grade of 0. In this procedure the candidate is presented with a tooth on a mannequin. The candidate is instructed to cut off a corner of the tooth and then restore that corner with an amalgam restoration. The examiners are not present when the procedure is accomplished, but grade the procedure after completion. Instruction on the procedure is given to the candidate by a monitor who is present in the room but who does not grade the work done. The examination process is accomplished using the candidate number, not the candidate name, so that examiners do not know whose work at which they are looking. Once the procedure is done by the candidate, the mold is packed in the candidate's presence and is then held in the custody of the Board of Dentistry until examined independently by each of three examiners. Once graded, it is then shipped to Tallahassee and kept in a vault until needed, as here, for review by Dr. Simkin and others. Ordinarily, even if dropped, a model will not break. In the instant case, Petitioner performed the procedure on an upper right central incisor. The right corner of the tooth, approximately one-third of the tooth, was cut off and the candidate was instructed to rebuild it with a composite material. When the examiners evaluated Petitioner's work, they found that the filling was not bonded to the tooth and was loose. The loose restoration would be useless to the patient, whereas a properly done restoration should last for at least several years. On a human, the stresses applied to a tooth repair are significant, and the repair must be sufficient to withstand them. Notwithstanding Petitioner's claim that the tooth used was an artificial tooth to which the filling material does not easily bond, Dr. Simkin asserts that the bonding which occurs with a plastic tooth is different from that which occurs in a real tooth but the material can bond to the plastic tooth. He knows of no other complaints by other candidates at this examination of not being able to complete the restoration because the materials would not bond. Petitioner admits that when he did the procedure during the June 1996 examination, the tooth bonded correctly. In light of all the evidence regarding this point, it is found that Petitioner's claim is without merit. Petitioner also challenges his score of 2.0 received for his work on an "amalgam cavity preparation" (Clinical B). This composite score was based on a 2.0 awarded by each of the three examiners. An amalgam preparation is what is done to the tooth to get it ready for filling. In this case, an actual patient, supplied by the examines, had a cavity which was reviewed by the examiners. Once the patient was accepted by the examiners, the candidate then cleaned out the cavity and got it ready for filling. Dr. Simkin's review of the documentation prepared in regard to this candidate's performance of this procedure, in his opinion, supports the grades given by the examiners. Here, Petitioner sent the examiners a note as to what he proposed to do with his patient. Petitioner sought to deviate from a normal preparation due to the location of the caries, and the monitor agreed, as did the examiners. Thereafter, the candidate did the procedure. All three examiners graded his work against his proposal and gave him a failing grade. The examiners determined that his work on this patient merited only a grade of 2.0 because, according to two examiners, the margin of the filling was not separated from the next tooth as required. As to the "posterior endodonture procedure" (Clinical M), Petitioner received an overall score of 1.3. In this procedure, the candidate is required to bring in an extracted tooth which is mounted in an acrylic block. The candidate is to remove the nerve and diseased tissue, clean the cavity, file it, fill the canals, and seal the tooth. This is known as a root canal. In grading a candidate's work, the examiners look to see that the canal is properly cleaned out, is filled properly and sealed with a surface that is slightly shorter than the apex (highest point) of the tooth. On the x-ray taken of Petitioner's sample, it is obvious, according to Dr. Simkin, that one canal is at or short of the apex, but the other is long, and this is considered unacceptable treatment. Even Petitioner agrees. Petitioner received grades of 3.0, 2.0 and 1.0 for an overall failing grade of 2.0 on the "prep. cast restoration" (Clinical F). In this instance, the procedure called for the candidate to install a gold onlay. Normally the surface to which the onlay is to be placed is reduced slightly below the abutting face. Here, though one side was acceptable, Petitioner reduced too much on the other side without reason. Petitioner claims, however, that only one of the three examiners indicated excessive reduction. That determination calls for a very subjective opinion. He cannot understand how the propriety of reduction can be determined without looking into the mouth of a patient. However, Petitioner has presented no evidence in support of his opinion. The fifth challenge relates to the grade Petitioner received in the "pin amalgam pre. procedure" (Clinical G). This involves a situation where one cusp has been removed, and in order to hold a restoration, Repin must be placed in the solid portion of the tooth. The examiners determined that Petitioner's occlusal was too shallow at 1 mm, when it should have gone down 1~ to 2 mm. This, the examiners considered, would not give enough strength to hold the amalgam properly without risk of fracture. Dr. Simkins is of the opinion that Petitioner was subjected to a standardized test which was graded fairly. It would so appear and Petitioner introduced no evidence to the contrary. Ms. Carnes, a psychometrician and an expert in testing and test development who trains examiners to ensure they are consistent in their evaluations, agrees with Dr. Simkins' appraisal. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation tries to insure through its standardization efforts that the approach to grading of each examiner is consistent and that all examiners are grading with the same set of criteria. This was done in preparation for the December 1996 dental examination and a check done after the examination showed it was graded this way. Petitioner cites by way of explanation, if not excuse, that during his senior year in dental school, he was badly injured in an automobile accident and required stitches and several weeks of physical therapy for, among other injuries, a herniated disc. When he recovered sufficiently, he finished his course work and sat for the dental examination in June 1996, passing two of three sections, but not the clinical portion. Dr. Scheutz took the clinical portion of the examination again in December 1996 and again failed to earn a passing score. In his opinion, his knowledge has improved over time, but his procedural skills have diminished over the months due to his injuries. He contends he has work in dentistry he can do which will make accommodations for his physical condition, but does not believe he should have to wait another six months to take the examination again, especially since he would have to again take the entire examination, including those portions he has already passed since at that time more than 13 months from his last examination would have passed. Petitioner contends the clinical testing portion of the examination is too subjective to be valid. He wants to close this chapter in his life, but does not want to deal any more with the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge and sustaining the award of a failing grade on the clinical portion of the dental examination taken by the Petitioner on December 12 through 14, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Eric J. Scheutz, pro se 332 Whispering Oaks Court Sarasota, Florida 34232 Karel Baarelag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33906-0127 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
