The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of misconduct in the practice of dentistry and/or operating a dental office in such a manner that dental treatment provided is below minimum acceptable standards for the community.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Peter Kurachek, Respondent, was licensed as a dentist in Florida and was the owner of American Dental Center, a dental clinic located in Venice, Florida. Commencing in August 1987, Thomas A. Saitta D.D.S., licensed to practice dentistry in Florida, was employed at the American Dental Center as an independent contractor and was so employed at all times relevant hereto. On Friday, April 15, 1988, patient Kim Pierce a/k/a Kim Hendrick entered the American Dental Center complaining of a toothache and was seen by Dr. Saitta. Examination revealed an abscessed tooth for which Dr. Saitta believed root canal therapy was needed. The patient revealed she had no insurance and no money to pay. Nevertheless, Dr. Saitta commenced the root canal, prescribed penicillin for the inflammation, told the patient if the swelling did not subside quickly a serious medical problem would arise and she should then go to the emergency room at the Venice Hospital. The patient Kim Hendrick returned to the dental clinic Saturday, April 16, 1988 and was again seen by Dr. Saitta who gave her a prescription for Keflex for the infection, told her that if the swelling and pain did not subside by evening she should go to the hospital for medical intervention. He also gave her his professional card with his home telephone number she could call for emergency assistance. On the evening of April 16, 1988 at 11:10 p.m. Kim Pierce presented herself at the emergency room at Venice Hospital with a slight temperature, right eye swollen shot and a marked facial cellulitis. The duty emergency room dentist, Dr. John J. Yurosko, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon was called to treat the patient. Dr. Yurosko incised the gum, drained the infected area, advised the patient to continue the Keflex prescribed by Dr. Saitta and to present at his office Monday. After treating the patient Dr. Yurosko telephoned the number for the dental clinic and received no answer. He then, around midnight, from his home called the residence of Respondent whose wife was up and visiting with a neighbor and who answered the telephone. Yurosko asked to speak to Respondent and was told he was in bed asleep. Yurosko asked that Respondent be called to the telephone. When Respondent got on the line Yurosko complained about the patient (Kim) not being able to contact anyone by calling Respondent's office number, as well as Yurosko's failures to get an answer when he called that number. Following his inability to contact the Dental Center and his conversation with the Respondent, Dr. Yurosko, on April 29, 1988, submitted a complaint to the Department of Professional Regulation (Exhibit 4) in which he advised the Department of his involvement with patient Kim Pierce and his inability to contact her treating dentist. During the investigation which followed this complaint the investigator placed several long distance calls from Fort Myers to the number listed for the American Dental Center during the evening hours and received no answer from an answering service or machine. Respondent's witnesses testified that, except for the short period in April when telephone work was being done in the office clinic, the answering machine was operable. Respondent was able to offer no satisfactory explanation for the investigator's failure to receive an answer when the Dental Center's number was dialed during evening hours. During the period around April 15, 1988, work was being performed rerouting telephone lines at American Dental Center and the telephone answering machine was not working. This fact was known to Respondent and other staff members at the dental center. Respondent had directed the other dentists, including Saitta, to be sure they provided the patients treated during this period with the dentist's home telephone number in case emergency treatment was needed. Additional cards were provided the receptionist to give the telephone number of their treating dentist to the patients when they checked out of the dental center.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED: that all charges preferred against Peter Kurachek D.D.S. in the administrative complaint filed July 28, 1989 be dismissed. ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8 day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-0187 Petitioner proposed findings are accepted except the following: 15 Rejected as uncorroborated hearsay. 19-21 Dr. Yurosko was accepted as an expert in dentistry and oral surgery--not in dental office procedures or what constitutes adequate emergency services as that phrase is used in Rule 21G- 17.004 Florida Administrative Code. Accordingly, his interpretation of the rule constitutes a legal opinion rather than a dental opinion and, as much, is entitled to little weight. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Janine Bamping, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Peter Kurachek 3920 Bee Ridge Road Sarasota, FL 34233
Findings Of Fact Dr. Clarence Embry Abell is a licensed dentist, License No. 2471 (Renewal certificate issued September 20, 1974), practicing in the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 466 of the Florida Statutes, at 2306 Orange Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida. (Stipulation, Tr 5). The Board prepared an accusation against Dr. Abell which is dated February 7, 1975. Dr. Abell requested a hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings through a letter dated February 18, 1975. The final hearing was scheduled in accordance with a notice dated May 7, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1 and 2, Notice of Hearing). On December 5, 1973, Rhonda Hall, then 10 years of age, had a toothache. Her mother, Brenda Jean Hall, called several dentist's offices in Fort Pierce, and finally made arrangements to have Rhonda seem by Dr. Abell. Rhonda had no regular dentist in Fort Pierce. Rhonda and her mother arrived at Dr. Abell's office at approximately 9:30 a.m. Dr. Abell's receptionist, Mildred I. Jenkins, directed Rhonda from the reception room into the operatory. Mrs. Hall started to go with Rhonda to the operatory, but was instructed by Mrs. Jenkins to wait in the reception room. Mrs. Jenkins seated Rhonda in the dentist's chair. Dr. Abell asked Rhonda which tooth was giving her trouble. Rhonda showed him. Dr. Abell concluded that she had two abscessed teeth next to each other in her right lower jaw. He injected local anesthetic, and commenced to take an x-ray. The door of the operatory was opened, but Mrs. Jenkins had left the room. Dr. Abell asked Rhonda to bold the x-ray film between her teeth with her forefinger. He took the x-ray. Rhonda Hall testified that after he took the x-ray Dr. Abell jerked the film out of her mouth and hit her. She testified that she saw Dr. Abell's arm and hand pull back and saw his fist coming toward her. Dr. Abell testified that after he took the x-ray Rhonda began to holler. He did not recall her exact words. He testified that he hung the x-ray switch on the unit and walked around behind the dentist's chair to take the film out of Rhonda's mouth. He testified that he turned the x-ray unit downward parallel to the chair and reached to take the film out of her mouth. She spun away and fell back in the chair. He stated that there was a momentary silence, that he took the film from her mouth, and that she then started hollering again. He lowered the chair and was going to ask her to leave when she ran out of the operatory. Dr. Abell testified that he does not restrain children, who are within the age of reason, in order to perform dental work on them. Dr. Abell was firm in his testimony that he did not strike Rhonda Hall. He felt that Rhonda may have struck her head against the x-ray machine when she hollered. He did not see her head strike the machine, but he felt that she was in a position to do that. Other than Dr. Abell and Rhonda Hall, there were no witnesses in the operatory. Having given due regard to the demeanor of the witnesses who testified at the final hearing, and to the competence and credibility of the witnesses, I find that Dr. Abell did not strike Rhonda Hall as alleged. It is apparent that Rhonda Hall sustained an unfortunate, but relatively minor injury to her eye while she was Dr. Abell's patient. This injury, however, was not the result of any action taken by Dr. Abell. It is possible that Rhonda is mistaken about what happened, or that she has placed herself in a position of feeling that she must testify falsely. Although Rhonda and her mother both testified that she was not nervous about going to the dentist, it is evident that at least her mother thought she was. Mrs. Barbara Lanzier was in the reception room when Rhonda was called by Mrs. Jenkins. Mrs. Lanzier testified that after Rhonda left the waiting area, Mrs. Hall stated, "They are going to have trouble with her, they always do. I always go in the room with her." After Rhonda was injured, she ran out of the dentist's office, through the reception room, and outside to her mother's automobile. Her mother brought her back into the office and confronted Dr. Abell. Dr. Abell explained what had happened, and told Mrs. Hall that he did not hit the child. Mrs. Hall then took Rhonda to Dr. Sims, who referred them to an eye specialist. Later that afternoon Mrs. Hall returned to Dr. Abell's office with Rhonda. She again discussed the matter with Dr. Abell. While these discussions were taking place Rhonda moved about the dentist's office, opening drawers and looking at things in the office. At one point she opened a drawer within one foot of where Dr. Abell was sitting. Third conduct, which was witnessed by Dr. Abell and by Mrs. Jenkins, indicates that Rhonda was not particularly afraid of Dr. Abell, despite the fact that he had supposedly hit her with his closed fist only hours earlier. Mrs. Hall denied that Rhonda was opening drawers, or that Rhonda was even with her when she met with Dr. Abell that afternoon. In view of the testimony of Dr. Abell, and his assistant, however, this testimony of Mrs. Hall is not believable. Mrs. Hall testified that she spoke with Mrs. Mattie Turner at the Community Action Organization about Dr. Abell. Dr. Abell does considerable work for children in the Headstart Program managed by the Community Action Organization. Mrs. Hall testified that Mrs. Turner told her over the telephone that she could give her a list of people who could make statements against Dr. Abell. In a later telephone conversation, Mrs. Turner told Mrs. Hall, according to Mrs. Hall, that she would not be able to prepare such a list because of her government position. Mrs. Turner testified at the final hearing that she had only one conversation with Mrs. Hall on the telephone and that she never told Mrs. Hall that she could give her a list of people who had complaints about Dr. Abell. She further testified that she has taken many children to see Dr. Abell, and that she has never had a complaint about his services. Dr. Abell's account of what happened in the operatory with Rhonda Hall, is not corroborated by any direct testimony. After the incident, however, it is apparent that Dr. Abell preceded to treat other patients, and that he did so in a calm, businesslike manner. Such conduct is not compatible with a person who has become so enraged as to strike a young child in the eye with his closed fist, without provacation. Dr. Abell's testimony respecting his normal procedure with uncooperative children and Mrs. Jenkins' testimony with respect to her fifteen years of experience working with Dr. Abell support Dr. Abell's account of the events. Four persons, who as young children had had dental work performed by Dr. Abell, testified as to their experiences. Sarah Nicholson, now twenty-three years old, was a patient in 1961 and 1962. Miss Nicholson testified that Dr. Abell was extremely rough with her. She testified that she was struck, but she does not remember where. On cross-examination, testimony that Miss Nicholson gave in a previous deposition were read to her. She had testified that she was "Slapped possibly - well, alright, we'll go with the technicalities, he was rough like, 'Sit still in the chair.'" She did not remember whether she was hit or slapped, but only that she was struck. Dr. Abell's records do not reflect anything extraordinary in his treatment of Sarah Nicholson. In view of the fact that the supposed incident occurred some thirteen years ago, and the fact that Sarah Nicholson's testimony about the incident is vague at best, the testimony cannot be regarded as competent or relevant. Regina Adams, is nine years old. She was five years old when she visited Dr. Abell in conjunction with the Headstart Program. She did not remember Dr. Abell's name. She testified that the dentist slapped her in the jaw and told her if she did not cry she would get some gum. She testified that the dentist missed with his drill, and that she had to go the doctor that night. The remoteness and vagueness of Regina Adam's testimony renders it incompetent and irrelevant. Regina's sister, Monique, who is now ten years old visited Dr. Abell when she was five or six years old. She did not recognize Dr. Abell at the hearing. She testified that she recalled being struck by Dr. Abell in the chest. She further testified, however, that she was going to state that she was struck in the face, but that at lunch her mother told her she was struck in the chest. In view of the remoteness of this supposed incident, the vagueness of the testimony, and the fact that the memory was gratuitously refreshed by her mother during the course of the hearing, the testimony cannot be regarded as competent or relevant. Andy McClendon, a nine year old, who saw Dr. Abell four or five years ago was called as a witness. He recalled nothing about the visit.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Bassette A. Cayasso, age 46, was born in Nicaragua, where he lived until April, 1983, when he came to the United States and settled in Miami, Florida. The Petitioner graduated from University Nationale de Nicaragua in 1966. He practiced dentistry in Nicaragua for 17 years, and was a resident on the hospital ship SS Hope where he practiced oral surgery. The Petitioner has taken the Florida Dental Mannequin Examination three times, the last time being in May, 1986. He failed this examination each time. The mannequin examination is a dental skills examination wherein the examinee demonstrates his ability to perform various dental procedures on a mannequin. The mannequin is a set of teeth. Graduates of dental colleges or schools which are not accredited by the American Dental Association are required to take and pass this mannequin examination prior to being permitted to take the regular dental examination. The school of dentistry from which the Petitioner graduated is not an accredited institution. On the nine procedures which constituted the May, 1986, mannequin examination, the Petitioner passed four, and failed five. His final composite score was 2.72. A score of 3.00 is necessary in order to pass the examination. The Petitioner presented no evidence from which it might be found that the grades he received on the mine dental procedures were erroneous. The examination was graded by three graders. One grader gave the Petitioner a passing score on all nine procedures, one passed him on five procedures, and one grader passed him on three procedures. All three grade independently, and their scores are averaged to produce one score for each procedure. The procedure scores are then weighed to produce a final overall score. When a review is requested, a reviewer goes over the scores for all procedures to see if the average grade is justified. In the review of the Petitioner's scores, there was found to be no irregularity in the balancing of the Petitioner's scores, and the overall grade was found to be fair and reasonable, thus not warranting a re- grade of any procedure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition of Bassette A. Cayasso for a review of his May, 1986, dental mannequin examination. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 29th day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Bassette A. Cayasso 20236 Southwest 123rd Place Miami, Florida 33177 Chester G. Senf, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire 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 Whether or not on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent, James P. Haas, was offering to practice dentistry, and indeed practicing dentistry at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center, in violation of Sections 466.24(3)(n) and 466.36, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent, James P. Haas, maintained a telephone listing whereby he offered to practice dentistry as D.A.D. Denture Center at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, and whether or not he continues to maintain said listing, in violation of Sections 466.24(3)(g) and 466.27(5), Florida Statutes. Whether or not since January 1, 1978, or prior to that date, one Bernie Morlock has been employed by the Respondent, James P. Haas, to perform dental services at a time when the said Bernie Morlock was not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene in the State of Florida. Further, whether or not Bernie Morlock, while employed by the Respondent, practiced dentistry as defined in Section 466.04, Florida Statutes, to the extent of: Taking impressions of the human teeth and jaws. Placing dentures and dental appliances in patients' mouths and adjusting or attempting to adjust same. Diagnosing or professing to diagnose the physical condition of the teeth and jaws of patients. Finally, whether or not the Respondent knowingly allowed the practice of dentistry by Bernie Morlock in violation of Section 466.02, Florida Statutes, and in further violation of Section 466.24(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes. Whether or not since January 1, 1978, or prior to that date, the Respondent, James P. Haas, has employed unlicensed personnel to perform dental services for patients, to-wit: orthodontic treatment, which services constitute the practice of dentistry under Section 466.04, Florida Statutes. Further, whether or not if these services were performed by unlicensed persons, were they performed with the full knowledge and consent of the Respondent, thereby constituting a violation on the part of the Respondent of Sections 466.24(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes. (The Amended Accusation which charges the Respondent contained a certain Count III; however, no testimony was offered in support of that allegation and at the conclusion of the formal hearing, the Petitioner, through its counsel, voluntarily withdrew that count from consideration. This voluntary dismissal was unopposed by the Respondent.)
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, Division of Professions, Board of Dentistry, is an agency of the state created for the purposes of protecting the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the State of Florida, to the extent that practice of dentistry in the state and dental hygiene are subject to the regulation and control of the Petitioner in the public interest. The authority for such regulation is set forth in Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and those rules of the Florida Administrative Code related thereto. The Respondent, James P. Haas, is licensed by the Florida State Board of Dentistry to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. The Petitioner, by an Amended Accusation, has charged the Respondent, James P. Haas, with various violations of provisions of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and the Respondent has requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, which request has been granted and a hearing held on February 15 and 16, 1979. The first of the allegations states that on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent was offering to practice dentistry and indeed practicing dentistry at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center. The facts reveal that Dr. Haas made an arrangement with an organization known as Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., of Harredsberg, Kentucky, wherein he agreed to coordinate the placement of advertisements for the benefit of that corporation and in turn the corporation agreed to refer patients to Dr. Haas for his treatment. The advertising spoken of consisted of an ad in the Winter Park, Florida, telephone directory yellow pages and certain newspaper advertising through the Orlando Sentinel of Orlando, Florida. The advertising in the telephone directory was placed in the fall of 1977 and a copy of that yellow page advertising may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence contains a copy of the format for the telephone yellow page advertising, as contemplated by Dr. Haas through his agreement with Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., of Harredsberg, Kentucky. The listing of the telephone number was of the number in Harredsberg, Kentucky, and those individuals at that number in turn made the referrals to Dr. Haas's office located at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida. An example of the newspaper advertising may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence at page 161-I, a copy of the Sentinal Star Progress Edition of December 18, 1977. In that advertising the same number is given as indicated in the aforementioned telephone telephone ad, with the difference being that Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., is given as the trade name as opposed to D.A.D. Denture Center, which was found in the telephone advertisement. Dr. Haas maintained a separate checking account for D.A.D. Denture Center, the name of his affiliation with Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc. The payments for services made by those patients referred through the D.A.D. Denture Center process, were placed into the D.A.D. Denture Center operating account of Dr. Haas. Those persons authorized to make withdrawals from that account were Dr. Haas and his employee, Bernie Morlock, and checks were drawn from that account under the authority of Dr. Haas. The overall income and expanses of D.A.D. Denture Center, operated by Dr. Haas, and of his general practice in the name of James P. Haas-sole proprietor, were combined and were under the control and authority of Dr. Haas. The dental office located in Longwood, Florida, was identified as the office of James P. Haas, D.D.S., and also by a placard indicating the office to be a D.A.D. Denture Center. Finally, those patients who called for service under D.A.D. Denture Center were charged by different fee structure and were listed in a separate appointment book, than that appointment hook for the Respondent through his general practice, James P. Haas, D.D.S. The Respondent was knowledgeable of the arrangement to treat patients under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center at the address in Longwood, Florida, and in fact practiced dentistry under that assumed name and at that location as alleged in Count I of the Amended Accusation. This constituted a violation of Section 466.36, Florida Statutes, which states: "Practicing dentistry under assumed name; penalties.-- On and after the passage of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to practice or offer to practice dentistry under any name except his or her own proper name, which shall be the name used in his or her license certificate granted to him or her as a dentist as provided in this chapter, and unlawful to use the name of any company, association, corporation, clinic, trade name, or business name in connection with the practice of dentistry as defined in this chapter, provided, nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent two or more licensed dentists from associating to- gether for the practice of dentistry, each in his or her own proper name. The violation of any of the provisions of this section by any dentist shall subject such dentist to suspen- sion or revocation of his or her license." The advertisement placed in the Winter Park, Florida, telephone directory, which is sham as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence, was placed with the knowledge of the Respondent and with the intention by the Respondent that the advertisement be made. This advertisement pertained to the 1978 telephone directory for Winter Park, Florida. Under these facts, the Petitioner has charged the Respondent with a violation of Section 466.27(5), Florida Statutes. That provision reads: "466.27(5) Telephone listings shall be con- fined to the local telephone directories. Such listings shall be limited to the den- tist's name, dental degree, 'D.D.S.' or 'D.M.D.,' using the abbreviation only, the word 'dentist,' 'dentistry,' or 'general dentistry,' any specialty as approved by the board to which the dentist confines his practice exclusively, office location, resi- dence and office telephone numbers, and residence address and may include his member- ship in a local dental society if in accord with local customs." A review of the language of this section, in view of the fact that the advertising in the telephone directory inured to the benefit of the Respondent by the process of the referral system spoken of above, demonstrates that the telephone listing was for the benefit of Dr. Haas and was not in keeping with the requirements of this subsection. This constituted advertising professional services and the practice of dentistry in a manner not expressly authorized by Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and was therefore in violation of Section 466.24(3)(g), Florida Statutes. One of the employees of the Respondent who worked in the office at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, was Bernie Morlock. Morlock was not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene in the State of Florida at any time relevant to the allegations in the Amended Accusation. Nonetheless, Morlock practiced dentistry as defined by Section 466.04, Florida Statutes, and did so in the office of the Respondent in Longwood, Florida, with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent. The arrangement which was condoned by the Respondent allowed for Morlock to have patients scheduled for him for the purpose of the preparation of dentures through the referral system, D.A.D. Denture Center, which was part of Dr. Haas's Longwood, Florida, office. (An example of the written schedules may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence.) Dr. Haas had instructed that these patients be scheduled to be seen by Bernie Morlock. Some of these patients were being seen by Dr. Haas's office for the first time and were attended by Bernie Morlock from this initial visit to the conclusion of the case, at which time the patients were given their dentures. Morlock's involvement with patients included diagnosis of the physical condition of the teeth and jaws of the patients; taking impressions of patients' teeth, both algenate and working model impressions; the placement of dentures and other dental appliances in the patients' mouths and the adjustment to those dentures and dental appliances, and the discussion of the case with the patient. Most of the work that Morlock did was done at a time when Dr. Haas was not in attendance in the aforementioned office and was done without supervision from any licensed dentist. This process undertaxen by Bernie Morlock happened on numerous occasions. The patients were considered to be Morlock's patients and the patients only saw licensed dentists for the purpose of extracting teeth or other dental procedures unconnected with the fabrication and try-in and adjustment to the dentures. These actions on the part of Bernie Morlock took place during the time period alleged in Count IV of the Amended Accusation. By allowing Bernie Morlock to attend patients in the fashion that Morlock did, the Respondent was willfully negligent in the practice of dentistry within the moaning of Section 466.24(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and in addition was guilty of a violation of Section 466.24(e), Florida Statutes, which states: "Employing or permitting any unlicensed per- son or persons to perform any work in his office which would constitute the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene, except a dental auxiliary pursuant to the provisions of this chapter." During the period of time alleged in Count V of the Amended Accusation, the Respondent employed dental hygienists Vic Simmons and Mary Simmons at his office in Longwood, Florida. Although they wore dental hygienists, these individuals were not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene within the State of Florida. Notwithstanding this absence of a license, the Simmonses practiced dentistry in the Longwood office within the meaning of Section 466.04, Florida Statutes. This included having certain schedules set for them as indicated by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. This is an example of the schedule for the Simmonses under the title, "Ortho". This scheduling was with the knowledge of Dr. Haas, who had arranged for the Simmonses to come and treat orthodontic patients in his office. The Simmonses came to the location of the Respondent's office two days a month, of which Dr. Haas was in the Longwood office one of those days. These orthodontic patients would be seen initially by Dr. Haas and then treated for their condition by the Simmonses. Some of the patients first seen by the Simmonses arrived at the office without any form of braces in the mouth of the patient. The procedures that the Simmonses then performed were done without supervision by a licensed dentist. By that it is meant that the Simmonses were performing the dental services without the licensed dentist being in the room. The Simmonses, in the pursuit of orthodontic dental practice, placed bands and changed beads, cemented hands and placed arch wires; all with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent. Under the circumstances involved in the employment of the Simmonses, it has been demonstrated that the Respondent is guilty of willful negligence in the practice of dentistry as prescribed in Section 466.24(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is also guilty of a violation of Section 466.24(3)(e), Florida Statutes, in that he employed and permitted unlicensed persons to perform work in his office which would constitute the practice of dentistry. The proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation offered by the parties have been revied prior to the rendition of this Recommended Order. To the extent that the proposals conform to the findings herein, they have been utilized in developing the Recommended Order. To the extent that the proposals are inconsistent with the findings herein, they are rejected.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent, Ralph Toombs, committed violations of Chapter 466, F.S., with regard to two dental patients, as alleged in two Administrative Complaints. If the violations are found, some disciplinary action must be recommended.
Findings Of Fact Ralph E. Toombs, D.D.S., is and at all relevant times has been licensed as a dentist in the State of Florida having been issued license number DN 0007026. At all times relevant to the allegations of the two complaints, Dr. Toombs practiced general dentistry in West Palm Beach, Florida, under the group which he owned, the Florida Dental Group. He has since left the West Palm Beach area, and resides in St. Cloud, Osceola County, Florida. In March 1984, patient A.K. was referred to Dr. Toombs for a problem with the joint in her jaw, the temporal mandibular joint (TMJ). She was given a mouth brace, but lost it. She also obtained general dentistry services. After she lost the mouth brace, she moved into orthodontic treatment by an orthodontist, Edward Sheinis, D.D.S., who was employed by the Florida Dental Group. This treatment, including the fitting and adjustment of braces, lasted about a year, until May 1985. At that time Dr. Sheinis left the group and opened his own office in Coral Springs, Florida. When he left, Dr. Sheinis informed his orthodontic patients where he was going. Under his contract with the Florida Dental Group, the patients and their records belonged to the group. His contract expired on May 31, 1985, but Dr. Toombs asked him to leave the day before his final day for treating patients. Dr. Sheinis felt that Dr. Toombs had the idea that he was trying to take patients away. After Dr. Sheinis left, no orthodontist replacement joined the group. Dr. Toombs' office continued making appointments for A.K. and she was treated by him in June, July and August. A. K.'s insurance company had paid for her orthodontic treatment plan in advance. She did not ask for return of the money, but neither was it offered. She did not want to travel to Dr. Sheinis' new office and she also felt that she had already paid the group for the services. She anticipated that a new orthodontist would be hired. Dr. Toombs claimed that the orthodontic patients were given the choice of going with Dr. Sheinis, being referred to another orthodontist, or staying with the group until another orthodontist was found. He claims that in some cases, money was refunded to patients who sought treatment elsewhere. He does not make those claims specifically with regard to A. K. and her testimony that the options and possibility of refund were never discussed with her is credible, consistent, and convincing. The orthodontic treatment rendered by Dr. Toombs to A. K. in June, July and August 1985, was primarily for maintenance, rather than to advance her treatment plan. Ligatures were replaced or re-tied and some parts of the appliances were repaired. A new scheme of elastics was developed in the August appointment, which could have advanced her treatment, but was also only intended for maintenance, according to Dr. Toombs. A September appointment was made, but was cancelled by Dr. Toombs' office and another appointment for October was made. That appointment was also cancelled by Dr. Toombs' office. By September or October the Florida Dental Group was in bankruptcy; the office was closed down and the patient files were in the hands of a trustee. Some records are still inaccessible. A. K. attempted to contact the office, but there was no answer. She heard from a friend that Dr. Toombs had left. She called the American Dental Association and was told they did not know his whereabouts. She then returned for treatment to the dentist who had originally referred her for the TMJ treatment, David Feuer, D.D.S., an orthodontist. A primary purpose of orthodontic treatment is tooth movement. If a patient's treatment is simply maintained, but not advanced for two months, there may not be harm, but minimum acceptable standards of dental practice require that the patient be referred promptly when the treating dentist cannot continue the appropriate treatment plan. The evidence does not clearly establish Dr. Toombs's lack of competence to appropriately continue A. K.'s orthodontic treatment. Therefore, when Dr. Sheinis left, he had the choice of making a referral and transferring the payment, or pursuing the treatment himself. He did neither. By his own admission, in a response to DPR investigator, Charlene Willoughby (Petitioner's Exhibit #7-AK) Dr. Toombs did nothing more than maintain A. K. orthodontically, by changing ligature ties. His attempt at hearing to explain that course as necessary to undo substandard work by Dr. Shienis is unsupported by any competent evidence. Patient S.C. Between approximately February 1984, and October 1985, Ralph Toombs provided dental services to patient, S.C. Those services included, among others not pertinent to this proceeding, the fabrication, fitting, and delivery of a maxillary bridge and lower partial denture. In lay terms, this involved basic full mouth reconstruction. At the time that S.C. began seeing Dr. Toombs he had already had bridge work beginning in 1970. He first saw Dr. Toombs on an emergency basis when he had fractured part of that work. When reconstruction is done, it is necessary to provide a structure to support the bridge, where the existing teeth are incapable of that support on their own. Two methods of support are a post and core, and pins. Pins are used when there is more existing structure; they are screwed into a tooth. The post and core is used generally when teeth have been endodontically treated (root canal therapy). The post is inserted through the central canal area into the tooth. The post provides more stability. A tooth that has been treated endodontically is devitalized, dry and fragile. The use of pins in such teeth is likely to cause crazing (small multiple cracks) or fractures; the support is weakened, and either it fails or causes failure in another site in the structure. In S.C.'s reconstruction, Dr. Toombs extensively used pins in devitalized teeth, in some instances as many as four or five pins in a single tooth. Dr. Toombs installed a bridge, but it cracked, and he replaced it. Later, shortly after Dr. Toombs closed his office in September or October 1985, S.C. returned to his prior dentist, Steven E. Kiltau, DDS, with a complaint that the porcelain had fractured and that his lower bridge work kept falling out. Dr. Kiltau found the bridge work loose and fractured. There were also bulky margins and open margins, or spaces between the original tooth and the crown, allowing the accumulation of food debris. Dr. Kiltau also suspected that some of the pins had perforated the sides of the teeth. Dr. Kiltau and other dentists who treated S.C., both before and after Dr. Toombs, as well as experts retained by Petitioner, attributed the failure of the structure provided by Dr. Toombs to his inappropriate use of pins. The testimony of these witnesses established uneqivocally that this aspect of the treatment violated minimum standards of performance. Petitioner did not, however, establish that the bulky and open margins were caused by Dr. Toombs' negligence. Some evidence of decay was apparent in S.C.'s teeth and the witnesses were reluctant to conclude that this was the result, and not the cause of the margins.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it s hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Dentistry enter a final order, finding Respondent guilty of violations of Sections 466.028(1)(u) and (y), F.S., assessing an administrative fine of $3,000.00, and placing Respondent on probation for two years, with the requirement that he also attend such continuing education courses as the Board finds appropriate. Although this recommended penalty is less than that suggested by counsel for Petitioner, it is still within the guidelines of the Board in Rule 21G-13.005, F.A.C. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner, as to A. K. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 3. and 4. Adopted in Paragraph 6. Adopted in Paragraphs 6 and 7. 7 through 10. Rejected as statements of testimony, rather than findings of fact. 11. Adopted in Paragraph 6. 13. through 15. Rejected as statements of testimony rather than findings of fact. Respondent, as to A. K. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 3. and 4. Rejected as inconsistent with the weight of the evidence. Her continuation was not entirely voluntary; she had paid for the treatment and was not given an alternative. Rejected as unsupported by credible evidence. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in Paragraph 5. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. through 15. Rejected as immaterial. Petitioner, as to S. C. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 10, except that, according to the record, S.C.'s and treatment by Dr. Toombs began in 1984. Adopted in Paragraph 13. through 11. Rejected as statement of testimony, rather than findings of fact. Rejected as immaterial. Other competent evidence established the existence of decay. and 14. Rejected as statements of testimony. Adopted in Paragraph 13. Rejected as a statement of testimony. through 22. Rejected as unnecessary or a statement of testimony. The margins were proven; their cause was not proven. Respondent, as to S. C. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 1. and 4. Adopted in Paragraph 10, except the record establishes that treatment commenced in 1984. 5. through 8. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. Rejected to the extent that the finding implies that failure was not due to Respondent's negligence. Adopted in Paragraph 14. through 19. Rejected as unnecessary. 20. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: John Namey, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1520 East Livington Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Ronald M. Hand, Esquire 241 East Ruby Avenue Waterfront Square, Suite A Kissimmee, Florida 32741 William Buckhalt Executive Director Dept. of Professional Regulation Board of Dentistry 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to certain facts as follows: Dr. Emory T. Cain is currently licensed as a dentist in Florida holding License No. 4260. Dr. Cain is subject to the juris- diction of the Florida State Board of Dentistry under Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Dr. Cain was served a copy of the Accusation filed by the Florida State Board of Dentistry and the Explanation of Rights and Election of Rights form in accordance with Chapters 120 and 466, Florida Statutes. Dr. Cain answered the allegations contained in the Accusation by indicating on the Election of Rights form that the alle- gations contained disputed issues of material fact and that he elected to have a formal hearing before a hearing officer appointed by the Division of Administrative Hearings. Dr. Cain does not wish to contest the allegations set forth in the Accusation and for the purposes of this hearing, said allegations shall be deemed as true. Additionally, there are further facts which are relevant to this proceeding. On or about October, 1975, Dr. Cain had in his employ, Ms. Charlotte Reavis, whose duties were to serve the normal function of a dental hygienist in the office. Ms. Reavis was not a dental hygienist and Dr. Cain was aware of this fact, having utilized Ms. Reavis as a dental assistant for some time prior to October, 1975. Ms. Reavis, in the performance of her duties, frequently scaled patients' teeth although she performed no deep scaling. The scaling included the re- moval of calculus deposits, accretions and stains from the exposed surfaces of the teeth and the gingival sulcus of patients. This practice continued from approximately October, 1975, until the date of receipt of the Accusation by Dr. Cain, except as noted below. This work was performed under the supervision and control of Dr. Cain who had knowledge of same and allowed sane to be per- formed in violation of Sections 466.02 and 466.24, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21G-9, Rules of the Florida State Board of Dentistry. On or about November, 1975, Dr. Cain was notified by Harold Ritter, D.D.S. of Tallahassee, that there was some concern re- garding Dr. Cain's use of unauthorized per- sonnel to scale teeth in his office. Dr. Cain discussed this telephone conversation with his associate, Tom Delopez, D.D.S. and for approximately a month the manner in which Ms. Reavis performed her duties was altered. Also, Dr. Cain initiated efforts to locate a dental hygienist during this time. However, Ms. Reavis thereafter began scaling patients' teeth again. In January, 1976, Dr. Delopez initiated a discussion with Dr. Cain regarding the con- tinued use of Ms. Reavis to scale teeth. Dr. Delopez informed Dr. Cain that this practice was prohibited by law and expressed his opinion that it should be discontinued. Dr. Cain informed Dr. Delopez that Dr. Delopez could scale the teeth of the patients he treated but that Ms. Reavis would continue to clean and scale the teeth of other patients. After approximately one month, Ms. Reavis resumed scaling the teeth of patients treated by Dr. Delopez. Dr. Delopez's association with Dr. Cain terminated during September, 1976. On or about September, 1976, Carl Daffin, D.D.S. became employed by Dr. Cain as an associate. Dr. Cain did not disclose to Dr. Daffin that Ms. Reavis was not a dental hygienist and Ms. Reavis continued to perform the same duties, including the scaling of the teeth of patients, until Dr. Cain's receipt of the Accusation filed in this cause. The facts set forth above do show a vio- lation of Sections 466.02(4) and 466.24(e), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21G-9, Rules of the Florida State Board of Dentistry. The Hearing Officer further finds: The Respondent Dr. Emory Cain enjoys a good reputation among his colleagues and among the medical community in Tallahassee. The consensus of the numerous witnesses produced by the Respondent is that Dr. Cain enjoys a high professional reputation. Dr. Cain also enjoys a reputation as an unselfish contributor to the civic well being of the community. There has been no complaint from the patients of the Respondent that the work done by Charlotte Reavis, a dental assistant employed by the Respondent, that Charlotte Reavis caused injury to a patient. The work done by a dental assistant and the training received by a dental assistant does not equal the work licensed to be done by a dental hygienist and does not equal the amount of training required of a dental hygienist. A deposition of Louis Pesce, D.D.S., taken on behalf of the Florida State Board of Dentistry was received and considered by the Hearing Officer subsequent to the hearing and depositions of Shelley Register, Jo Ann Barnes, and Elizabeth Barber taken at the incident of the Respondent Dr. Emory T. Cain were received subsequent to the hearing. The Respondent Dr. Cain made a minimum effort to find a dental hygienist to work in his office but was satisfied with the work done by the dental assistant, Charlotte Reavis, and continued to use her to perform a procedure lawfully relegated to a dental hygienist, that is the scaling of teeth. The proposed orders of the Petitioner and of the Respondent have been examined and considered in this Recommended Order.
Recommendation Suspend the license of Respondent Cain for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. Michael Huey, Esquire Post Office Box 1794 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Felix A. Johnston, Jr., Esquire 1030 East Lafayette Street, Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated the applicable standard of care in the practice of dentistry in violation of section 466.028(1), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed in each of the consolidated cases; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43, and chapters 456 and 466, Florida Statutes. Stipulated Facts Respondent is a licensed dentist in the state of Florida, having been issued license number DN14223 on or about December 1, 1995. Respondent’s address of record is 530 East Howard Street, Live Oak, Florida 32064. Respondent was licensed to practice dentistry in the state of Florida during all times relevant to the administrative complaints underlying this case. Patient T.C. was a patient of Respondent. Patient S.S. was a patient of Respondent. Patient G.H. was a patient of Respondent. Patient J.D. was a patient of Respondent. Patient J.A.D. was a patient of Respondent. Other Findings of Fact On July 23, 2004, Respondent entered into a Stipulation in Department Case No. 2002-25421 to resolve an Administrative Complaint which alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (z). The Stipulation was adopted by a Final Order, dated January 31, 2005, which constitutes a first offense in these cases as to each of the sections cited. On September 21, 2007, the Department issued a Uniform Non-disciplinary Citation for an alleged violation of section 466.028(1)(n), related to the release of patient dental records. The Department offered no evidence of its disposition and, in any event, since these cases do not involve alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(n), the citation is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B5-13.005(1). On January 19, 2017, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in Case No. 2015-10804 for alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (mm). The Department offered no evidence of its disposition of the Administrative Complaint and, as a result, the Administrative Complaint is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under rule 64B5-13.005(1). On January 19, 2017, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in Case No. 2015-23828 for alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (z). The Department offered no evidence of its disposition of the Administrative Complaint and, as a result, the Administrative Complaint is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under rule 64B5-13.005(1). Case No. 19-2898PL - The T.C. Administrative Complaint Patient T.C. was a patient of Respondent from June 14, 2011, to on or about August 12, 2013. During the period in question, Respondent owned Smile Designs, a dental practice with offices in Jacksonville, Lake City, and Live Oak, Florida. The Department, in the T.C. Administrative Complaint, recognized that “Respondent, along with an associate, [Dr. Morris], are . . . licensed dentists known to work at Respondent’s practice.” The Department’s expert witness, Dr. Brotman, was also aware that Dr. Morris practiced with Respondent. Patient T.C. suffered a stroke in 2009. During the period that she was seen by Respondent, she was in “decent health,” though she was on medication for her post-stroke symptoms, which included a slight problem with aphasia, though she was able to communicate. The stroke and the aphasia are neurological issues, not mental health issues. Patient T.C. was accompanied by her husband, L.C. during her visits to Respondent’s practice. He generally waited in the waiting area during Patient T.C.’s procedures though, as will be discussed herein, he was occasionally brought back to the treatment area. L.C. testified that he had never been advised that Patient T.C. experienced a seizure while under Respondent’s care, and had no recollection of having been told that Patient T.C. ever became unresponsive. Patient T.C. died in 2015. Count I Case No. 19-2898PL, Count I, charges Respondent with failing to immediately refer Patient T.C. to a medical professional or advise Patient T.C. to seek follow-up care for the management of what were believed to be seizures while Patient T.C. was in the dental chair. From Patient T.C.’s initial visit on June 14, 2011, through her visit on September 23, 2011, Patient T.C. was seen at Respondent’s practice on five occasions. Respondent testified that the office was aware of Patient T.C.’s history of seizures because the medical history taken at her first visit listed Diazapam, Levetiracetam, Diovan, and Lyrica as medications being taken by Patient T.C., all of which are seizure medications. Nonetheless, the dental records for the four visits prior to September 23, 2011, provide no indication that Patient T.C. suffered any seizure or period of non- responsiveness during those visits. On September 23, 2011, Patient T.C. presented at Smile Designs for final impressions for crowns on teeth 20, 21, 28, and 29. Respondent testified that she was not the treating dentist on that date. Patient T.C. was given topical anesthetics, and her pulse and blood pressure were checked. The treatment notes then provide, in pertinent part, the following: Patient had seizures on the dental chair - may be due to anxiety. Seizures last 2-3 minutes. No longer. After 30 minutes, patient was calm. Able to proceed with dental procedure . . . . During seizures pt. was responsive; she was able to respond to our commands. The medical records substantiate Respondent’s unrebutted testimony that she was not the treating dentist at the September 23, 2011, appointment. The June 14, July 19, and October 7, 2011, treatment notes made by Respondent all start with “Dr. Gerry,” and are in a notably different style and format from the September 23, 2011, treatment notes. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Dr. Morris, and not Respondent, was the treating dentist when Patient T.C. experienced seizures on September 23, 2011. Much of Dr. Brotman’s testimony as to Respondent’s violation of a standard of care was based on his interpretation that, since the September 23, 2011, notes did not specifically identify the treating dentist (as did the other treatment notes described above), the notes must be presumed to be those of the business owner. Neither Dr. Brotman nor the Department established a statutory or regulatory basis for such a presumption and, in any event, the evidence adduced at hearing clearly rebutted any such presumption. Dr. Brotman testified that if another dentist had been identified in the records as having performed the treatment on September 23, 2011, that may have changed his opinion. The evidence established that Dr. Morris performed the treatment on September 23, 2011. Thus, Dr. Brotman’s opinion that Respondent violated the applicable standard of care was effectively countered. The T.C. Administrative Complaint charged Respondent with failing to comply with the applicable standard of care on September 23, 2011. The Department failed to establish that Respondent was the treating dentist on September 23, 2011, and, in fact, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that she was not. Thus, the Department failed to establish that Respondent violated the standard of care for failing to refer Patient T.C. to an appropriate medical professional for her seizures as alleged in Count I of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. Count II Case No. 19-2898PL, Count II, charges Respondent with delegating the task of intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to a person not qualified by training, experience, or licensure to perform such intraoral repair. July 17, 2012 Repair On July 17, 2012, Patient T.C. presented to Respondent because her lower partial denture was broken and the O-ring was out. The device included a female end within Patient T.C.’s jaw, and a male end with a plastic “gasket” on the denture. Respondent testified that the repair of the partial denture was performed outside of Patient T.C.’s mouth. Then, at the next scheduled visit, the treatment plan was for Respondent to “eval/repair partial denture on lower arch.” Respondent offered unrebutted testimony that “Tia of precision attachments” performed no work in Patient T.C.’s mouth. Dr. Brotman testified that, in his opinion, any repair of a precision attachment must be done by placing the attachment in the patient’s mouth to align with the teeth. However, Dr. Brotman did not know what kind of repair was done on July 17, 2012. He indicated that if a gasket or housing is missing, it can be repaired with an acrylic. Dr. Brotman testified that if acrylic was placed in the denture outside of the patient’s mouth, it would not be a violation of Florida law. The Department failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent delegated the task of adjusting or performing an intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to “Tia” or any other unlicensed person on July 17, 2012, as alleged in Count II of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. June 11, 2013 Repair On June 11, 2013, Patient T.C. presented to Respondent for an evaluation of her lower precision partial denture. Patient T.C. complained that the partial denture did not have the metal housing to connect it with the bridges to its sides. Patient T.C. was a “bruxer,” i.e. she ground her teeth, and had worn out the denture’s metal attachment. Respondent evaluated the situation, and decided to attempt a chairside repair or replacement of the denture’s male attachments. If the chairside repair was unsuccessful, a complete new partial denture would have to be prepared by a dental laboratory. Respondent attempted the chairside repair. Respondent testified that she instructed her dental assistant to add acrylic into the slot where the male attachment was to be placed in the denture. There was no evidence of any kind to suggest that the dental assistant then placed the denture into Patient T.C’s mouth. Because too much acrylic was placed in the denture, it became stuck in Patient T.C.’s mouth. Patient T.C. became understandably upset. Her husband, L.C., was brought into the room, Patient T.C. was administered local anesthesia, and the precision partial denture was removed. Respondent’s testimony regarding the incident was generally consistent with her prior written statement offered in evidence. Dr. Brotman testified that making repairs to a precision denture must be performed by a licensed dentist, except for placing acrylic into the denture outside of the patient’s mouth, which may be done by a non-dentist. The evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent’s dental assistant did anything more than place acrylic into the denture outside of Patient T.C.’s mouth. The Department failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent delegated the task of adjusting or performing an intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to her dental assistant on June 11, 2013, as alleged in Count II of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. Case No. 19-2899PL - The S.S. Administrative Complaint Count I Case No. 19-2899PL, Count I, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(m) by: Failing to keep a written record of Patient S.S.’s medical history; and/or Failing to keep an accurate written record of any consent forms signed by Patient S.S. Count II Case No. 19-2899PL, Count II, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30; Failing to adequately diagnose the condition of the roots of tooth 30; Failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 30 during root canal treatment; Failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment; Failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following changes to the tooth’s margins; and/or Failing to adequately assess and correct the crown on tooth 31 when the fit was compromised. On May 15, 2014, Patient S.S. presented to Respondent for a root canal and crown on tooth 30. Upon examination, Respondent advised Patient S.S. that she also needed a root canal and a crown on tooth 31. Patient S.S. denied that she was required to provide her medical history at the May 15, 2014, office visit, or that she was provided with an informed consent form prior to the root canal on tooth 30. Respondent’s records do not include either a medical history or an informed consent form. However, the records, which were offered as a joint exhibit, were not accompanied by a Certificate of Completeness of Patient Records, including the number of pages provided pursuant to Respondent’s investigatory subpoena, as is routine in cases of this sort, and which was provided with the records of the subsequent dentists involved in Patient S.S.’s care. Many of the records offered in these consolidated cases, including Respondent’s licensure file, include the certification attesting to their completeness. The records for Patient S.S. do not. Petitioner elicited no testimony from Respondent establishing the completeness of the records. The records offered were, by appearance, not complete. Respondent indicated that medical history and consent forms were obtained. Entries in the records introduced in evidence indicate “[m]edical history reviewed with patient” or the like. Entries for May 16, 2014, provide that “[c]rown consent explained and signed by patient” and “root canal consent explained and signed by patient.” The record for June 4, 2014, indicates that “[r]oot canal consent form explained to and signed by patient.” Patient S.S. testified that she had no recollection of having filled out a medical history, or of having signed consent forms after having Respondent’s recommended course of treatment explained to her. However, Patient S.S.’s memory was not clear regarding various aspects of her experience with Respondent and with subsequent providers. Much of her testimony was taken from notes she brought to the hearing, and some was even based on what she read in the Administrative Complaint. Her testimony failed to clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent failed to collect her medical history or consent to treatment. Respondent testified that, at the time Patient S.S. was being seen, her office was in the midst of switching its recordkeeping software and converting records to digital format. The new company botched the transition, and by the time the issue was discovered, many of the records being converted to digital format were lost, in whole or in part. Respondent surmised that, to the extent the records were not in her files provided to the Department, that they were affected by the transition. The greater weight of the evidence suggests that medical history and signed consent forms were provided. Given the issues regarding the records as described by Respondent, and given the Department’s failure to produce a certification or other evidence that the records it was relying on to prove the violation were complete, the Department failed to meet its burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent failed to keep a written record of Patient S.S.’s medical history and signed consent forms. Respondent also testified that the office notes were supplemented with handwritten notations made when a patient returned for a subsequent appointment. Several of Patient S.S.’s printed records carried handwritten notes. Respondent testified that those notes were made at some time in 2014 after Patient S.S.’s first office visit up to the time of her last visit, and were based on further discussion with Patient S.S. However, those records, Joint Exhibit 2, pages 1 through 17, bear either a date or a “print” date of March 12, 2015. Dr. Brotman testified that he knew of no software on the market that would allow contemporaneous handwriting on electronic records. Thus, the evidence is compelling that the handwritten notes were made on or after the March 12, 2015, date on which the records were printed, well after Patient S.S.’s last office visit. A root canal involves removing a tooth’s pulp chamber and nerves from the root canals. The root canals are smoothed out and scraped with a file to help find and remove debris. The canals are widened using sequentially larger files to ensure that bacteria and debris is removed. Once the debris is removed, an inert material (such as gutta percha) is placed into the canals. A “core” is placed on top of the gutta percha, and a crown is placed on top of the core. The risk of reinfection from bacteria entering from the bottom of an underfilled tooth is significantly greater than if the tooth is filled to the apex of the root. Patient S.S. returned to Respondent’s office on May 16, 2014, for the root canal on tooth 30 and crown preparations for teeth 30 and 31, which included bite impressions. Temporary crowns were placed. Respondent’s printed clinical notes for May 16, 2014, gave no indication of any obstruction of the canals, providing only the lengths of the two mesial and two distal root canals. Respondent’s hand-written notes for May 16, 2014 (which, as previously explained, could have been made no earlier than March 12, 2015), stated that the canals were “[s]ealed to as far as the canal is open. The roots are calcification.” Dr. Brotman indicated that the x-rays taken on May 15, 2014, showed evidence of calcification of the roots. However, Dr. Brotman convincingly testified that the x-rays taken during the root canal show working-length files extending to near the apices of the roots. Thus, in his opinion, the canals were sufficiently open to allow for the use of liquid materials to soften the tooth, and larger files to create space to allow for the canals to be filled and sealed to their full lengths. His testimony in that regard is credited. Patient S.S. began having pain after the root canal on tooth 30 and communicated this to Respondent. On June 5, 2014, Patient S.S. presented to Respondent to have the crowns seated for teeth 30 and 31. Patient S.S. complained of sensitivity in tooth 31. The temporary crowns were removed, and tooth 31 was seen to have exhibited a change in color. The area was probed, which caused a reaction from Patient S.S. Respondent examined the tooth, and noted the presence of soft dentin. A root canal of tooth 31 was recommended and performed, which included removal of the decay in the tooth’s dentin at the exterior of the tooth. Respondent’s removal of decay changed the shape of tooth 31, and would have changed the fit of the crown, which was made based on the May 16, 2014, impressions. There were no new impressions for a permanent crown taken for tooth 31 after removal of the decayed dentin. Respondent testified that she could simply retrofill the affected area with a flowable composite, which she believed would be sufficient to allow for an acceptable fit without making new bite impressions and ordering a new crown. There was no persuasive evidence that such would meet the relevant standard of performance. Temporary crowns were placed on teeth 30 and 31, and placement of the permanent crowns was postponed until the next appointment. Upon completion of the tooth 31 root canal on June 5, 2014, x-rays were taken of the work completed on teeth 30 and 31. Dr. Brotman testified that the accepted standard of care for root canal therapy is to have the root canal fillings come as close to the apex of the tooth as possible without extending past the apex, generally to within one millimeter, and no more than two millimeters of the apex. His examination of the x-rays taken in conjunction with Respondent’s treatment of Patient S.S. revealed a void in the filling of the middle of the distal canal of tooth 31, an underfill of approximately five millimeters in the mesial canal of tooth 31, an underfill of approximately four millimeters in the distal canal of tooth 30, and an underfill of approximately six millimeters in the two mesial root canals of tooth 30. The x-ray images also revealed remaining decay along the mesiobuccal aspect of the temporary crown placed on tooth 31. His testimony that the x-ray images were sufficiently clear to provide support for his opinions was persuasive, and was supported by the images themselves. A day after the placement of the temporary crowns, they came off while Patient S.S. was having dinner in Gainesville. She was seen by Dr. Abolverdi, a dentist in Gainesville. Dr. Abolverdi cleaned the teeth, took an x-ray, and re-cemented the temporary crowns in place. Patient S.S. next presented to Respondent on June 10, 2014. Both of Patient S.S.’s permanent crowns were seated. The permanent crown for tooth 31 was seated without a new impression or new crown being made. Patient S.S. was subsequently referred by her dentist, Dr. James Powell, to be seen by an endodontist to address the issues she was having with her teeth. She was then seen and treated by Dr. John Sullivan on July 25, 2014, and by Dr. Thomas Currie on July 29, 2014, both of whom were endodontists practicing with St. Johns Endodontics. As to the pain being experienced by Patient S.S., Dr. Sullivan concluded that it was from her masseter muscle, which is consistent with Respondent’s testimony that Patient S.S. was a “bruxer,” meaning that she ground her teeth. Dr. Sullivan also identified an open margin with the tooth 31 crown. His clinical assessment was consistent with the testimony of Dr. Brotman. The evidence was clear and convincing that the defect in the tooth 31 permanent crown was an open margin, and not a “ledge” as stated by Respondent. The evidence was equally clear and convincing that the open margin was the result of performing a “retrofill” of the altered tooth, rather than taking new bite impressions to ensure a correct fit. As a result of the foregoing, Respondent violated the accepted standard of performance by failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following the removal of dentin on June 4, 2014, and by failing to assess and correct the open margin on the tooth 31 crown. Radiographs taken on July 25, 2014, confirmed that canals in teeth 30 and 31 were underfilled, as discussed above, and that there was a canal in tooth 31 that had been missed altogether. On July 29, 2014, Dr. Currie re-treated the root canal for tooth 31, refilled the two previously treated canals, and treated and filled the previously untreated canal in tooth 31. The evidence, though disputed, was nonetheless clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the standard of performance in the root canal procedures for Patient S.S.’s teeth 30 and 31, by failing to adequately diagnose and respond to the condition of the roots of tooth 30; failing to adequately fill the canals of tooth 30 despite being able to insert working-length files beyond the area of calcification to near the apices of the roots; and failing to adequately fill the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment. The Administrative Complaint also alleged that Respondent failed to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30. Case No. 19-2900PL - The G.H. Administrative Complaint Case No. 19-2900PL charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by failing to adequately diagnose issues with the crown on tooth 13 and provide appropriate corrective treatment. On May 15, 2014, Patient G.H. presented to Respondent with a complaint that she had been feeling discomfort on the upper left of her teeth that was increasingly noticeable. Respondent diagnosed the need for a root canal of tooth 13. Patient G.H. agreed to the treatment, and Respondent performed the root canal at this same visit. Patient G.H. also had work done on other teeth to address “minor areas of decay.” On July 7, 2014, Patient G.H.’s permanent crowns were seated onto teeth 8, 9, and 13, and onlay/inlays placed on teeth 12 and 14. On July 29, 2014, Patient G.H. presented to Respondent. Respondent’s records indicate that Patient G.H. complained that when she flossed around tooth 13, she was getting “a funny taste” in her mouth. Patient G.H.’s written complaint and her testimony indicate that she also advised Respondent that her floss was “tearing,” and that she continued to experience “pressure and discomfort” or “some pain.” Respondent denied having been advised of either of those complaints. Respondent flossed the area of concern, and smelled the floss to see if it had a bad smell. Respondent denied smelling anything more than typical mouth odor, with which Patient G.H. vigorously disagreed. Respondent took a radiograph of teeth 11 through 15, which included tooth 13 and the crown. The evidence is persuasive that the radiograph image revealed that the margin between tooth 13 and the crown was open. An open margin can act as a trap for food particles, and significantly increases the risk for recurrent decay in the tooth. Respondent adjusted the crown on tooth 9, but advised Patient G.H. that there was nothing wrong with the crown on tooth 13. She offered to prescribe a rinse for the smell, but generally told Patient G.H. that there were no complications. Patient G.H. began to cry and, when Respondent left the room, got up from the chair and left the office. Respondent indicated in her testimony that she would have performed additional investigation had Patient G.H. not left. The contemporaneous records do not substantiate that testimony. Furthermore, Respondent did not contact Patient G.H. to discuss further treatment after having had a full opportunity to review the radiograph image. On March 10, 2015, after her newly-active dental insurance allowed her to see a different in-network provider, Patient G.H. sought a second opinion from Dr. Ada Y. Parra, a dentist at Premier Dental in Gainesville, Florida. Dr. Parra identified an open distal margin at tooth 13 with an overhang. Dr. Parra recommended that Patient G.H. return to Respondent’s practice before further work by Premier Dental. Patient G.H. called Respondent’s office for an appointment, and was scheduled to see Dr. Lindsay Kulczynski, who was practicing as a dentist in Respondent’s Lake City, Florida, office. Patient G.H. was seen by Dr. Kulczynski on March 19, 2015. Upon examination, Dr. Kulczynski agreed that the crown for tooth 13 “must be redone” due to, among other defects, “[d]istal lingual over hang [and] open margin.” The open margin was consistent with Patient G.H.’s earlier complaints of discomfort, floss tearing, and bad odor coming from that tooth. The evidence was persuasive that further treatment of Patient G.H. was not authorized by Respondent after the appointment with Dr. Kulczynski. Dr. Brotman credibly testified that the standard of care in crown placement allows for a space between the tooth and the crown of between 30 and 60 microns. Dr. Brotman was able to clearly identify the open margin on the radiograph taken during Patient G.H.’s July 29, 2014, appointment, and credibly testified that the space was closer to 3,000 microns than the 30 to 60 microns range acceptable under the standard of performance. His testimony is accepted. An open margin of this size is below the minimum standard of performance. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent fell below the applicable standard of performance in her treatment of Patient G.H., by seating a crown containing an open margin and by failing to perform appropriate corrective treatment after having sufficient evidence of the deficiencies. Case No. 19-2901PL - The J.D. Amended Administrative Complaint Case No. 19-2901PL charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations; Failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing an implant in the area of tooth 14; Failing to appropriately place the implant by attempting to place it into a curved root, which could not accommodate the implant; Failing to react appropriately to the sinking implant by trying to twist off the carrier instead of following the technique outlined in the implant’s manual; and/or Paying, or having paid on her behalf, an indemnity in the amount of $75,000 as a result of negligent conduct in her treatment of Patient J.D. Patient J.D. first presented to Respondent on June 28, 2014. At the time, Respondent was practicing with Dr. Jacobs, who owned the practice. Patient J.D. had been a patient of Dr. Jacobs for some time. Respondent examined Patient J.D. and discovered problems with tooth 14. Tooth 14 and tooth 15 appeared to have slid into the space occupied by a previously extracted tooth. As a result, tooth 14 was tipped and the root curved from moving into the space. Tooth 14 had been filled by Dr. Jacobs. However, by the time Respondent examined it, the tooth was not restorable, and exhibited 60 percent bone loss and class II (two millimeters of movement) mobility. Respondent discussed the issue with Patient J.D., and recommended extraction of the two teeth and replacement with a dental implant. Patient J.D. consented to the procedure and executed consent forms supplied and maintained by Dr. Jacobs. The teeth at issue were in the upper jaw. The upper jaw consists of softer bone than the lower jaw, is more vascular, and includes the floor of the nose and sinuses. The periapical radiographs taken of Patient J.D. showed that he had a “draped sinus,” described by Respondent as being where “the tooth is basically draped around the sinuses. It’s almost like they’re kind of one.” Prior to Patient J.D., Respondent had never placed an implant in a patient with a draped sinus. The x-rays also indicated that, as a result of the previous extraction of teeth and the subsequent movement of the remaining teeth, the roots of tooth 14 were tipped and curved. The evidence was persuasive that Respondent did not fail to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, the extent of available bone support, and the configuration of the roots. Dr. Kinzler testified credibly that the pneumatized/draped sinus, the 60 percent bone loss around tooth 14, and the tipped and curved roots each constituted pre- operative red flags. Respondent extracted teeth 14 and 15. When she extracted the teeth, she observed four walls. She was also able to directly observe the floor of the sinus. She estimated the depth of the socket to be 12 millimeters. Sinus penetration is a potential complication of implant placement. Being able to see the sinus floor was an additional complicating factor for implant placement. Dr. Kinzler credibly testified that if Respondent was going to place an implant of the size she chose (see below), then the standard of care required her to first do a sinus lift before placing the implant. A sinus lift involves physically lifting the floor of a patient’s sinus. Once the sinus has been lifted, material typically consisting of granulated cortical bone is placed into the space created. Eventually, the bone forms a platform for new bone to form, into which an implant can be inserted. The evidence established that the standard of care for bone replacement materials is to place the material into the space, close the incision, and allow natural bone to form and ultimately provide a stable structure to affix an implant. The implant may then be mechanically affixed to the bone, and then biologically osseointegrate with the bone. In order to seal off Patient J.D.’s sinus, Respondent used Bond Bone, which she described as a fast-setting putty-like material that is designed to protect the floor of the sinus and provide a scaffold for bone to grow into. She did not use cortical bone, described as “silly sand,” to fill the space and provide separation from the sinus because she indicated that it can displace and get lost. Respondent’s goal was to place the implant so that it would extend just short of the Bond Bone and Patient J.D.’s sinus. She also intended to angle the implant towards the palate, where there was more available bone. Bond Bone and similar materials are relatively recent innovations. Dr. Fish was encouraged by the possibilities of the use of such materials, though he was not familiar with the Bond Bone brand. The evidence was clear and convincing that, although Bond Bone can set in a short period, and shows promise as an effective medium, it does not currently meet minimum standards of performance for bone replacement necessary for placement and immediate support of an implant. Bond Bone only decreases the depth of the socket. It does not raise the floor of the sinus. As such, the standard practice would be to use a shorter implant, or perform a sinus lift. Respondent was provided with an implant supplied by Dr. Jacobs. She had not previously used the type of implant provided. The implant was a tapered screw vent, 4.7 millimeters in diameter, tapering to 4.1 millimeters at the tip with a length of 11.5 millimeters. Respondent met with and received information from the manufacturer’s representative. She used a 3.2 millimeter drill to shape the hole, as the socket was already large enough for the implant. The 3.2 millimeter drill was not evidence that the receiving socket was 3.2 millimeters in diameter. Respondent then inserted the implant and its carrier apparatus into the hole. The implant did not follow the root, and had little bone on which to affix. The initial post-placement periapical radiograph showed “placement was not correct.” Despite Respondent’s intent, the implant was not angled, but was nearly vertical, in contrast with the angulation of the socket which was tipped at least 30 degrees. Given the amount of bone loss, and the other risk factors described herein, the risk of a sinus perforation, either by having the implant extend through the root opening or by a lateral perforation through one of the sides of the socket, was substantial. After adjusting the implant, Respondent went to remove the carrier. The carrier would not release, and the pressure exerted caused the implant to loosen and begin to sink through the Bond Bone. Dr. Kinzler testified credibly that, because of the mechanics of the implant used, had it been surrounded by bone, it would not have been possible for the implant to become loose. In his opinion, which is credited, the loosening of the implant was the result of the lack of bone to hold it in place. Respondent was so intent on removing the carrier that she was not paying attention to the implant. As a result, she screwed the implant through the Bond Bone and into Patient J.D.’s sinus. By the time she realized her error, the implant had sunk in to the point it was not readily retrievable. She was hesitant to reaffix the carrier “because [she] knew [she] had no support from the bone, that it was just a matter of air.” Nonetheless, she “stuck the carrier back in, but it would not go back in.” She then turned to get forceps or a hemostat but, by that time, the implant was irretrievably into Patient J.D.’s sinus. At the hearing, Respondent testified that she could have retrieved the implant but for Patient J.D. doing a “negative pressure sneeze” when the implant was already into the sinus. At that point, she stated that the implant disappeared into Patient J.D.’s sinus, where it can be seen in Petitioner’s Exhibit 9, page 35. There is nothing in Respondent’s dental records about Patient J.D. having sneezed. Respondent further testified that Patient J.D. “was very jovial about it,” and that everyone in the office laughed about the situation, and joked about “the sneeze implant.” That the patient would be “jovial” about an implant having been screwed into his sinus, resulting in a referral to an oral surgeon, and that there was office-wide joking about the incident is simply not credible, particularly in light of the complete absence of any contemporaneous records of such a seemingly critical element of the incident. Respondent believed that the implant must have been defective for her to have experienced the problem with removing the carrier, though her testimony in that regard was entirely speculative. There is no competent, substantial, or persuasive evidence to support a finding that the implant was defective. After determining that the implant was in Patient J.D.’s sinus, Respondent informed Patient J.D. of the issue, gave him a referral to an oral surgeon, prescribed antibiotics, and gave Patient J.D. her cell phone number. Each of those acts was appropriate. On July 29, 2014, an oral surgeon surgically removed the implant from Patient J.D.’s sinus. Patient J.D. sued Respondent for medical malpractice. The suit was settled, with the outcome including a $75,000.00 indemnity paid by Respondent’s insurer on her behalf. The Office of Insurance Regulation’s Medical Malpractice Closed Claims Report provides that the suit’s allegations were based on “improper dental care and treatment.” The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance prior to the procedure at issue by failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations prior to the procedure. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance by failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing the implant in the area of tooth 14, and by placing the implant into a curved root which could not accommodate the implant. The placement of Bond Bone was not adequate to address these issues. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the standard of care by failing to pay attention while trying to twist off the carrier and by failing to appropriately react to the sinking implant. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent paid, or had paid on her behalf, an indemnity of $75,000 for negligent conduct during treatment of Patient J.D. The perforation of Patient J.D.’s sinus was not, in itself, a violation of the standard of care. In that regard, Dr. Kinzler indicated that he had perforated a sinus while placing an implant. It was, however, the totality of the circumstances regarding the process of placing Patient J.D.’s implant that constituted a failure to meet the minimum standards of performance as described herein. Case No. 19-2902PL - The J.A.D. Amended Administrative Complaint Count I Case No. 19-2902PL, Count I, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to take adequate diagnostic imaging prior to placing an implant in the area of Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8; Failing to pick an appropriately-sized implant and placing an implant that was too large; and/or Failing to diagnose and/or respond appropriately to the oral fistula that developed in the area of Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8. Count II Case No. 19-2902PL, Count II, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(m) by: Failing to document examination results showing Patient J.A.D. had an infection; Failing to document the model or serial number of the implant she placed; and/or Failing to document the results of Respondent’s bone examination. Patient J.A.D. first presented to Respondent on March 3, 2016. His first appointment included a health history, full x-rays, and an examination. Patient J.A.D.’s complaint on March 3, 2016, involved a front tooth, tooth 8, which had broken off. He was embarrassed by its appearance, and desired immediate care and attention. Respondent performed an examination of Patient J.A.D., which included exposing a series of radiographs. Based on her examination, Respondent made the following relevant diagnoses in the clinical portion of her records: caries (decay) affecting tooth 7, gross caries affecting fractured tooth 8, and caries affecting tooth 9. Patient J.A.D. was missing quite a few of his back teeth. The consent form noted periodontal disease. The evidence is of Patient J.A.D.’s grossly deficient oral hygiene extending over a prolonged period. A consent form signed by Patient J.A.D. indicates that Patient J.A.D. had an “infection.” Respondent indicated that the term indicated both the extensive decay of Patient J.A.D.’s teeth, and a sac of pus that was discovered when tooth 8 was extracted. “Infection” is a broad term in the context of dentistry, and means any bacterial invasion of a tooth or system. The consent form was executed prior to the extraction. Therefore, the term “infection,” which may have accurately described the general condition of Patient J.A.D.’s mouth, could not have included the sac of pus, which was not discovered until the extraction. The sac of pus was not otherwise described with specificity in Respondent’s dental records. A pre-operative radiograph exposed by Respondent showed that tooth 8 had a long, tapering root. Respondent proposed extraction of tooth 8, to be replaced by an immediate implant. The two adjacent teeth were to be treated and crowned, and a temporary bridge placed across the three. Patient J.A.D. consented to this treatment plan. The treatment plan of extracting tooth 8 and preparing the adjacent teeth for crowns was appropriate. Respondent cleanly extracted tooth 8 without fracturing any surrounding bone, and without bone adhering to the tooth. When the tooth came out, it had a small unruptured sac of pus at its tip. Respondent irrigated and curretted the socket, and prescribed antibiotics. Her records indicated that she cleaned to 5 millimeters, although a radiograph made it appear to be a 7 millimeter pocket. She explained that inflammation caused the pocket to appear larger than its actual 5 millimeter size, which she characterized as a “pseudo pocket.” She recorded her activities. The response to the sac of pus was appropriate. Respondent reviewed the earlier radiographs, and performed a physical examination of the dimensions of the extracted tooth 8 to determine the size of the implant to be placed into the socket. Dr. Kinsler and Dr. Fish disagreed as to whether the radiographic images were sufficient to provide adequate information as to the implant to be used. Both relied on their professional background, both applied a reasonable minimum standard of performance, and both were credible. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to take adequate diagnostic imaging prior to placing an implant to replace Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8. Respondent placed an implant into the socket left from tooth 8. The implant was in the buckle cortex, a “notoriously thin” bone feature at the anterior maxilla. The fact that it is thin does not make it pathological, and placement of an implant near a thin layer of bone is not a violation of the standard of performance as long as the implant is, in fact, in the bone. The implant used by Respondent was shorter than the length of tooth 8 and the tooth 8 socket, and did not have a full taper, being more truncated. The evidence of record, including the testimony of Dr. Kinzler, indicates that the length of the implant, though shorter than the tooth it was to replace, was not inappropriate. The evidence of record, including pre-extraction and post-implantation scaled radiographs offered as a demonstrative exhibit, was insufficient to support a finding that the implant diameter was too great for the available socket. Patient J.A.D. felt like the implant was too close to the front of his maxillary bone because it felt like a little bump on the front of his gums. That perception is insufficient to support a finding that the placement of the implant violated a standard of performance. Subsequent x-rays indicated that there was bone surrounding the implant. Clinical observations by Respondent after placement of the implant noted bone on all four walls of the implant. Her testimony is credited. The evidence that the tooth 8 implant was not placed in bone, i.e., that at the time the implant was placed, the implant penetrated the buccal plate and was not supported by bone on all four sides, was not clear and convincing. Respondent’s records document the dimensions and manufacturer of the implant. Implants are delivered with a sticker containing all of the relevant information, including model and serial number, that are routinely affixed to a patient’s dental records. It is important to document the model and serial number of implants. Every implant is different, and having that information can be vital in the case of a recall. Patient J.A.D.’s printed dental records received by the Department from Respondent have the implant size (5.1 x 13 mm) and manufacturer (Implant Direct) noted. The records introduced in evidence by the Department include a page with a sticker affixed, identified by a handwritten notation as being for a “5.1 x 13mm - Implant Direct.” (Pet. Ex. 11, pg. 43 of 83). The accompanying sticker includes information consistent with that required. Dr. Fish testified to seeing a sticker that appears to be the same sticker (“The implant label of 141, it just has the handwritten on there that it should be added.”), though it is described with a deposition exhibit number (page 141 of a CD) that is different from the hearing exhibit number. Dr. Fish indicated the sticker adequately documented the implant information. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the sticker was not in Patient J.A.D.’s records, or that Respondent failed to document the model or serial number of the implant she placed. Later in the day on March 3, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was fitted for a temporary crown, which was placed on the implant and the adjacent two teeth, and Patient J.A.D. was scheduled for a post-operative check. Patient J.A.D. appeared for his post-operative visit on March 10, 2016. He testified that he was having difficulty keeping the temporaries on, and was getting “cut up” because the two outer teeth were sharp and rubbed against his lip and tongue. Respondent noticed that Patient J.A.D. was already wearing a hole in the temporary. Since Patient J.A.D. was missing quite a few of his back teeth, much of his chewing was being done using his front teeth. His temporaries were adjusted and reseated. On March 17, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was seen by Respondent for a post-operative check of the tooth 8 extraction and implant placement. The notes indicated that Patient J.A.D. had broken his arm several days earlier, though the significance of that fact was not explained. He was charted as doing well, and using Fixodent to maintain the temporary in place. The records again noted that Patient J.A.D. had worn a hole in the back of the tooth 9 temporary crown. A follow up was scheduled for final impressions for the permanent crowns. On March 10 and March 17, 2016, Patient J.A.D. complained of a large blister or “zit” that formed over the area above the end of the implant. Patient J.A.D. had no recollection of whether Respondent told him he had an infection. He was prescribed antibiotics. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the “zit” was causally related to the placement of the implant. Patient J.A.D. also testified that the skin above tooth 9 was discolored, and he thought he could almost see metal through the skin above his front teeth. Patient J.A.D. next appeared at Respondent’s office on June 2, 2016, for final impressions. Respondent concluded that the site had not healed enough for the final impression. She made and cemented a new temporary, and set an appointment for the following month for the final impression. Patient J.A.D. did not return to Respondent. On September 28, 2016, Patient J.A.D. presented to the office of Dr. Harold R. Arthur for further treatment. The records for that date indicate that he appeared without his temporary restoration for teeth 7 through 9, stating that he had several at home, but they would not stay on. Dr. Arthur probed a “[s]mall (1.0 x 1.0 mm) red spot in facial keratinized gingiva communicating with implant.” After probing the opening in the gingiva and the “shadow” in the gingiva, he believed it was at the center of the implant body and healing screw. Dr. Arthur’s dental records for Patient J.A.D. over the course of the following year indicate that Dr. Arthur made, remade, and re-cemented temporary crowns for teeth 7, 8, and 9 on a number of occasions, noting at least once that Patient J.A.D. “broke temps” that had been prepared and seated by Dr. Arthur. On December 1, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was reevaluated by Dr. Arthur. He noted the facial soft tissue at the implant was red, with an apparent fistula. A periapical radiograph was “unremarkable.” The temporary crowns, which were loose, were removed, air abraded to remove the cement, and re-cemented in place. Patient J.A.D. was prescribed an antibiotic. He was again seen by Dr. Arthur on December 13, 2016. The temporary on tooth 9 was broken, which was then remade and re-cemented. The fistula was smaller but still present. Patient J.A.D. was seen by Dr. Arthur on February 2, 2017, with the tooth 9 temporary crown fractured again. The fistula was still present. Patient J.A.D. advised that “the bone feels like it’s caving in around where she put that implant.” That statement is accepted not for the truth of the matter asserted, but as evidence that the complaint was first voiced in February 2017. On April 4, 2017, more than a year after the placement of the implant, Patient J.A.D was seen by Dr. Arthur. Dr. Arthur determined that the implant for tooth 8 was “stable and restorable in current position.” The fistula was still present and, after anesthesia, a probe was placed in the fistula where it contacted the implant cover screw. Although Dr. Arthur replaced the implant abutment, he ultimately placed the final crown on the implant placed by Respondent, where it remained at the time of the final hearing. The fact that incidents of Patient J.A.D. breaking and loosening the temporary crowns that occurred with Respondent continued with Dr. Arthur supports a finding that the problems were, more likely than not, the result of stress and overuse of Patient J.A.D.’s front teeth. On October 24, 2016, a series of CBCT radiographs was taken of the implant and its proximity to tooth 7. Dr. Kinzler testified that, in his opinion, the implant was of an appropriate length, but was too large for the socket. Much of his testimony was based on the October 24 radiograph and his examination of the resulting October 29, 2016, report. Although the report indicated that there was minimal bone between the implant and the root of tooth 7, and that the buccal cortex appeared thinned or eroded, those observations are of limited persuasive value as to whether the standard of performance was met almost eight months prior. Patient J.A.D. obviously worked, and overworked, his dental appliances. Without more, the evidence is not clear and convincing that his subsequent and repeated problems, including “thinned or eroded” bone in the buccal cortex, were the result of a violation of the standard of performance in the sizing and placement of the tooth 8 implant by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, enter a Final Order: Dismissing the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 19-2898PL and the Amended Administrative Complaint in Case No. 19-2902PL; With regard to Case No. 19-2899PL: 1) dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint; 2) determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient S.S. by: failing to adequately diagnose the condition of the roots of tooth 30; failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 30 during root canal treatment; failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment; failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following changes to the tooth’s margins; and failing to adequately assess and correct the crown on tooth 31 when the fit was compromised, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; and 3) determining that Respondent did not fail to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient S.S. by failing to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; With regard to Case No. 19-2900PL, determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient G.H. by seating a crown containing an open margin on tooth 13 and failing to adequately diagnose issues with the crown on tooth 13, and by failing to perform appropriate corrective treatment after having sufficient evidence of the deficiencies, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; With regard to Case No. 19-2901PL: 1) determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient J.D. by: failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing an implant in the area of tooth 14; failing to appropriately place the implant by attempting to place it into a curved root which could not accommodate the implant; failing to react appropriately to the sinking implant by trying to twist off the carrier instead of following the technique outlined in the implant’s manual; and paying, or having paid on her behalf, an indemnity in the amount of $75,000 as a result of negligent conduct in her treatment of Patient J.D., as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and 2) determining that Respondent did not fail to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient J.D. by failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations; Suspending Respondent’s license in accordance with rule 64B5-13.005(1)(x) and rule 64B5-13.005(3)(e), to be followed by a period of probation, with appropriate terms of probation to include remedial education in addition to such other terms that the Board believes necessary to ensure Respondent’s practical ability to perform dentistry as authorized by rule 64B5- 13.005(3)(d)2.; Imposing an administrative fine of $10,000; and Requiring reimbursement of costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: George Kellen Brew, Esquire Law Office of George K. Brew Suite 1804 6817 Southpoint Parkway Jacksonville, Florida 32216 (eServed) Kelly Fox, Esquire Department of Health 2585 Merchant’s Row Tallahassee, Florida 32311 (eServed) Octavio Simoes-Ponce, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Chad Wayne Dunn, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Jennifer Wenhold, Interim Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health Bin C-08 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3258 (eServed) Louise Wilhite-St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
