Findings Of Fact The Respondent, at all times material hereto, has been a dentist licensed in the State of Florida, holding license number DN 0005029. He is engaged in the practice of dentistry in Pensacola, specializing in orthodontics. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure status, admission to practice and practice standards in the State of Florida. During the period from September 1980 until July 1981, Ms. Wendy Ling became a patient of the Respondent and went to the Respondent's office on a number of occasions during that period of time to receive dental treatment. During the course of her dental treatment involving installation, fitting and maintenance of braces, she became somewhat dissatisfied with the Respondent's services, claiming that he should have spent more time personally with her when she was in his office. Because of her dissatisfaction, she sought the services of another orthodontist, Dr. Trum. When she left the care of Dr. Tarwick and sought the services of Dr. Trum, she owed Dr. Tarwick $140 for services already rendered her for dental care. When Dr. Trum assumed responsibility for her care, he informed her that he would need copies of her dental records. Shortly thereafter, either Dr. Trum, a person in his office or Ms. Ling called Dr. Tarwick's office to seek the records. Dr. Tarwick's financial secretary responded that $140 was still owed on her bill from Dr. Tarwick. Dr. Tarwick refused to forward her records until her bill was paid. She continued to refuse to pay her outstanding bill and the doctor filed a civil action against her in county court and prevailed. The court found that she owed the sum in question but the Respondent accorded she and her husband, a doctor, "professional courtesy" and agreed to discharge the debt for the sum of $80. During the time when he had refused to forward her records prior to her paying her outstanding bill, she complained to the Petitioner regarding this situation. A representative of the Department of Professional Regulation contacted the Respondent and informed him of the legal requirement that he forward records regardless of whether an outstanding bill was due. The Respondent professed ignorance of that provision of the law, was apologetic and hastened to forward her records contending, as he did at the hearing, that he was unaware that it was illegal to withhold forwarding of the dental records pending payment of an outstanding bill for services rendered. Upon forwarding the record to Ms. Ling's new orthodontist, the Respondent charged her a duplication fee of $50 for this service. This resulted in the other count in the Administrative Complaint regarding the reasonableness of the $50 fee for duplication and forwarding of records. The Respondent established without question at the hearing that it cost in excess of $110 to duplicate such records, excluding the Respondent's own time involved. The records are not merely paper reports that must be xeroxed, they include molds and casts of the complaining witness' mouth and/or gums and teeth. Duplication of all these portions of her records is necessary because the professional association, to which the Respondent must belong, requires that he keep a complete set of records for all patients. It was thus unequivocally established that the Respondent's fee for this duplication and record forwarding was less than half of what it actually cost his office to perform. The Respondent quite candidly expressed to the Department of Professional Regulation his ignorance of the legal provision that he not withhold forwarding of records pending payment of outstanding fees and clearly informed the Department, before the Administrative Complaint was ever filed, that he did not dispute that allegation and that he would move quickly to correct the mistake, which he did. Thus, the Respondent went to the hearing in the belief that the only dispute with the Petitioner was the question of the reasonableness of the duplication and forwarding fee for the records. The Petitioner was on notice that the Respondent did not dispute the charge in Count I. At the hearing, however, the Petitioner voluntarily dismissed the count concerning the question of the reasonableness of the duplication and forwarding fee (paragraphs 12 and 13 of Count II of the Administrative Complaint). It is thus obvious that the only true dispute concerning which the hearing was convened was the question of the reasonableness of the duplication and forwarding fee since the department was already aware that the Respondent did not contest Count I concerning the issue of withholding the transfer of patient records pending payment of outstanding fees for services rendered. The Petitioner, however, did not voluntarily dismiss Count II and thus obviate the necessity of a hearing even though it was informed of Respondent's basis for the fee and the necessity for a large expenditure to bring in Witness Benz, who established its reasonableness, and even though it arrived at the decision to dismiss the charge in Count II some days prior to hearing. Therefore, believing that the department was proceeding against him in good faith on the question of reasonableness of the duplication fee, the Respondent hired an accountant to do a cost study of such duplication efforts by his office, whereupon aimed at a figure in excess of $110 for the performance of that service. The Respondent thus expended a substantial amount of money ($1,000) in paying the expert witness to prepare for, attend and testify at the hearing and was not informed by the department that it had chosen prior to the hearing to voluntarily dismiss that count until the convening of the hearing with the previously necessary witness already present. Both the testimony of Dr. Tarwick and the President of the Florida Association of Orthodontists established that it is customary in the profession to withhold duplication and transference of patient records until all fees have been paid and both expressed surprise that this might be illegal. Letters from other orthodontists in other cities were admitted by agreement establishing that this is indeed customary in the profession and not merely an isolated example of aberrant behavior by Dr. Tarwick. Further, it was established by Dr. Tarwick that, given that Ms. Ling's treatment contract ran through October 1982, the slight delay caused in transferring her records to her new doctor, Dr. Trum, caused no adverse effects on her course of treatment and the correction of her dental problem. Dr. Tarwick was unaware that he was violating the statute under which he was charged and did not intentionally do so. In all his conversations with counsel for the department, Mr. Carpino, the only dispute discussed between them concerned the $50 fee. It was the Respondent's belief that he had fully and early informed the department that he did not dispute the charge concerning the withholding of dental records in return for the payment of the outstanding fee.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the evidence in the record, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That, in view of the technical, isolated and inadvertent violation of the above authority by the Respondent, which he corrected as soon as he became aware of the violation, a minimal penalty consisting of a private written reprimand should be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Edward Moore, Jr., Esquire Sherrill, Moore and Hill Post Office Box 1792 Pensacola, Florida 32598 Fred Varn, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the grounds that the Respondent has violated several statutory provisions by repairing dentures in a licensed dental lab without having obtained the required work order from a licensed dentist.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, the following facts are found: At all times relevant and material to this case, the Respondent, Magnolia Iole, held license number DL 0002153 issued by the Department of Professional Regulation, which licensed her to operate as a dental laboratory in the State of Florida. At all times relevant and material to this case, the Respondent's dental laboratory was operated at 201 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, under the business name of All Emergency Denture Service. On April 11, 1990, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation took a broken denture to the Respondent's dental laboratory and asked to have it repaired. The broken denture was a woman's denture that had been obtained by one of the other Department investigators from a local dentist's office. The investigator who presented the broken denture for repair had not seen any dentist regarding the broken denture, nor did the investigator have any work order from a dentist for the repair. On April 11, 1990, an employee of the Respondent's dental laboratory agreed to repair the broken denture that was brought in by the Department investigator. The employee said that the repair would cost $50.00, and that the denture would be ready later than same day. Later that same day two Department investigators returned to the Respondent's dental laboratory, where they met the same employee who had agreed to repair the broken denture. The employee told the investigator who had brought the denture that it would be ready in a few minutes. A few minutes later the employee of Respondent's dental laboratory handed the repaired denture to the investigator who had brought it in earlier the same day. At that time the previously broken denture was completely repaired. Although the Respondent, Magnolia Iole, was not observed on the dental laboratory premises during the events of April 11, 1990, described above, she was aware that such events were taking place, because during a telephone conversation on April 12, 1990, Magnolia Iole admitted to a Department investigator that she had been taking repair work without work orders because she needed the money. A work order for denture repair is an order from a licensed dentist to a dental laboratory directing that certain repair services be performed. The work order is, essentially, a prescription for the performance of specific services. A dental laboratory is not permitted to perform a repair of an intra- oral dental appliance without a work order signed by a licensed dentist. A dental laboratory that repairs a denture without a work order issued by a licensed dentist is engaged in the unauthorized practice of dentistry. Denture repair under such circumstances also constitutes the acceptance and performance of professional responsibilities which the dental laboratory licensee is not competent to perform. Denture repair without a work order issued by a licensed dentist, even when the repairs are excellently accomplished, can prevent the discovery of emerging dental problems and cause them to go untreated to the harm of the patient.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent has violated Sections 466.028(1)(z) and 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative penalty consisting of a six month suspension of the Respondent's license, to be followed by a one year period of probation during which the Respondent shall be required to advise the Board quarterly of all work performed by the Respondent's dental laboratory and shall comply with all statutory and rule provisions governing the activities of dental laboratories. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon Coun~y, Florida, this 21st day of May, 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 21st day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Ms. Magnolia T. Iole 531 Northwest 39th Street Oakland Park, Florida 33309 Mr. William Buckhalt, Executive Director Florida Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Section 466.24(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Albert Leo Vollmer is registered as a dentist with the Florida State Board of Dentistry, license no. 1437, and practices dentistry at Satellite Beach, Florida (Testimony of Mullins). On July 19, 1973, Allen M. Dingman made application to the Veterans Administration for medical benefits consisting of dental treatment (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Authorization was given by the Veterans Administration for the requested treatment and Mr. Dingman sought the services of the Respondent. Respondent submitted a treatment plan to the Veterans Administration which was approved. Respondent thereafter provided dental services to Mr. Dingman and, in October, 1973, billed the Veterans Administration for the completed treatment. On October 18, 1973, payment in the amount of $503.00 was approved and paid to the Respondent by the Veterans Administration. This included payment for providing a 3/4 crown on tooth 20 in the amount of $115.00, a full gold crown on tooth 19 for $110.00, and a gold pontic on tooth number 18 for $90.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). In April, 1974, Mr. Dingman visited Dr. Robert B. Downey, D.D.S., concerning a bridge which Respondent had provided him to replace the second molar (tooth number 18), which bridge Dingman had subsequently lost. He asked Dr. Downey what the cost would be to remedy his problem and informed him that the Veterans Administration had paid for the other work. Dr. Downey thereupon contacted the Veterans Administration concerning the prior treatment (Testimony of Dingman, Downey). Approximately a year later, Mr. Dingman was examined by Dr. Fred C. Nichols, D.D.S., of the Veterans Administration, who found that Dingman did not have gold crowns on teeth number 19 and 20, nor a gold pontic to replace tooth number 18. Mr. Dingman showed Dr. Nichols a cast metal frame work which had once been intended as a unilateral mandibular partial denture to replace tooth number 18 (Testimony of Nichols; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5). The Veterans Administration, by letter of May 19, 1975, advised the Respondent that he would be billed for $315.00 representing the work which had not been performed. Respondent advised the VA that Mr. Dingman had objected to crown preparations and that he had therefore prepared a cantilever bridge which had been too bulky and thereafter another bridge was made at his expense which was apparently acceptable. The Veterans Administration reasserted its claim for $315.00 and Respondent, by letter of July 14, 1975, sought a credit for the work which he had performed, and by a further letter of August 12, 1975 advised that, although all of his records concerning Mr. Dingman could not be found, he estimated the cost of his actual work to be $207.90, and sought credit therefor (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6). Respondent testified that although his original plan was to provide fixed bridge work for Mr. Dingman, upon reflection and after noting that the patient was a hypersensitive person who objected to having the necessary preparatory work that would be required for crowns, he decided to attempt to preserve the natural teeth if possible and not to "abort" them. He further testified that although he had requested his office assistant to prepare an amended VA form for the patient to reflect his decision to do a different type of work, he did not follow-up to see if it was sent in to the Veterans Administration. He further maintained that his office assistant had done poor work, that he did not pay much attention to the paper work in the office and, although he usually reviewed applications for treatment such as Exhibit 4 by "implicit faith", he would usually "skip-read" these forms and sign them without completely checking the details thereon. He stated that his accounts were in a mess during this period and that this was the reason the dental laboratory records concerning Mr. Dingman were unavailable and why he had since hired accountants to do his bookkeeping work. His present assistant supported the fact that when she was first employed about a year and a half ago, Respondent's records were sloppy and that it was her custom to prepare various forms for the Respondent's signature. Mr. Dingman denied that he had ever told the Respondent that he was afraid to have his teeth cut into, or that he was hypersensitive in nature (Testimony of Vollmer, Mander, Person, Dingman) Dr. Daniel Beirne, a physician of Indian Harbor Beach, testified that he had common patients with the Respondent, and that the Respondent had an excellent reputation for truth and veracity in the community. Dr. Downey testified to the Respondent's bad reputation as a dentist, as did Dr. Carroll D. House, a member of the Brevard Dental Society Grievance Committee (Testimony of Burre, Downey, House). Respondent's license to practice dentistry was suspended in 1958 for a period of three months for an advertising violation with the proviso that the suspension was suspended for a period of one year upon certain conditions. His license was again suspended for a period of six months in 1960 for advertising violations (Petitioner's Exhibits 7 & 8)
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether disciplinary action should be imposed against the licensure of Douglas R. Shanklin, M.D., the Respondent, for allegedly falsely testifying that he had not been issued a "Letter of Guidance", in violation of Section 458.331(1)(k), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent was a physician licensed in the State of Florida. He holds license number ME0009372. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure status and related practice standards of physicians in Florida, including making investigations and bringing Administrative Complaints against those physicians, in their licensure status, believed to be departing from those practice standards. On January 8, 1993, the Respondent testified as a defense witness, by deposition, in a medical malpractice case. The case style was Faircloth v. Coastal Empire Pathology Services, P.C., et al. The trial occurred in Savannah, Georgia. During his deposition, the Respondent was asked three times, by opposing counsel, if he had ever been issued a Letter of Guidance by any state licensing agency. The Respondent stated three times that, indeed, he had not. In fact, on May 15, 1984, a Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Medical Examiners in Florida considered a complaint against the Respondent. The Probable Cause Panel made a determination that while probable cause existed to believe that the Respondent had violated the provisions of the Medical Practice Act, the complaint should be dismissed with a Letter of Guidance. The Board stated in its Order that: Probable cause exists to believe that subject has violated the provisions of the Medical Practice Act. In light of the circumstances presented, however, this case should be and the same is hereby dismissed with a letter of guidance to subject. Thereafter, an undated letter was sent to and received by the Respondent. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2 in evidence. The Closing Order was never mailed to, nor received, by the Respondent. The Respondent was unaware of the Closing Order until March of 1993, when the investigation in this case was commenced and at which time he was first supplied a copy of that Closing Order of the Board's Probable Cause Panel. The Petitioner's Exhibit 2 in evidence, the undated letter, is not entitled or otherwise delineated as a "Letter of Guidance" and at no place in the letter is the word "guide" or "guidance" used. Consequently, at the time the Respondent received the letter, which is Exhibit 2, he did not understand or perceive it to be a Letter of Guidance but, rather, understood it to be a letter of closing indicating that he had prevailed in the complaint case. On January 8, 1993, when the Respondent testified at the deposition referenced above, he did not have in mind, nor did he remember, the undated letter. On January 8, 1993, when he testified at that deposition that he had not been issued the Letter of Guidance, he believed he was answering those questions truthfully. He did not know or understand that he had been issued a Letter of Guidance. On January 8, 1993, when he testified at the deposition, he did not testify falsely, because he had not been given the Closing Order at the time that the undated letter (Exhibit 2) was received. He thus did not understand that undated letter to be a Letter of Guidance from the then Department of Professional Regulation. He was never served a copy of the actual Closing Order which might have explained the situation to him. Consequently, he had a genuine, good-faith belief that he had not been issued a Letter of Guidance. Because his belief was genuine and he had no specific intent to tell a false story in those particulars, he made no false or fraudulent representation and committed no deception in conjunction with his answers to those questions at his deposition.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence or record, the candor and credibility of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent not guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(k), Florida Statutes, and that the Complaint be dismissed in its entirely. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 3rd day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-5903 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-3. Accepted. 4-6. Rejected, as not entirely in accord with the greater weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-11. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven Rothenburg, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 9125 Bay Plaza Boulevard Suite 210 Tampa, FL 33619 Larry G. Turner, Esquire Post Office Box 508 Gainesville, FL 32602 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Tom Wallace, Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303
