Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, Richard Alan Cohen, sat for the dental licensure examination in December 1992 and received an overall score of 2.98 for the clinical portion of that examination. The minimal passing score for the clinical portion of the examination was 3.0. After receiving notification that he failed to achieve a passing score on the examination, petitioner challenged respondent's grading of three procedures, number 01, 05 and 06. Respondent rejected petitioner's challenge, and petitioner filed a timely request for a formal hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to contest respondent's grading of those procedures. At hearing, petitioner abandoned his challenge to the grading of procedures 01 and 05. The examination procedure During the course of the examination at issue, the candidates were called upon to exhibit, with regard to procedure 06, certain manual skills relevant to an endodonic procedure. Specifically, the candidate was required to prepare a tooth, which had been extracted and mounted in a mold, for what is commonly called a "root canal." Preparing for the procedure included the cleaning and shaping of the interior of both root canals from each apex (the tip of the root) up to the access area near the crown (top) of the tooth. Thereafter, sealant was to be sprayed into the canal, and gutta percha condensed (compressed) in the canal until it was completely filled. The goal of the procedure was to get a seal within one half to one millimeter of the apex, and to fill the canal so there were no voids. The quality of a candidate's performance on the procedure was graded by three examiners who assigned grades of 0 to 5 based on their assessment of the candidate's performance. The scores assigned were then averaged to derive the score achieved by the candidate on the procedure. In scoring, a grade of "0" represented a complete failure, a grade of "3" represented a minimally acceptable dental procedure, a grade of "4" represented a better than minimally acceptable dental procedure, and a grade of "5" represented an outstanding dental procedure. See, Rule 61F5-2.013, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's examination results Petitioner received a grade of 3.66 for procedure 06, based on scores of 3, 3, and 5 from the individual examiners. Although a passing score on procedure 06, petitioner's overall score on the clinical part of the examination was 2.98; a score below the minimum 3.00 required to pass that portion of the examination. According to the grade sheets, the two examiners who assigned petitioner a grade of 3 observed that petitioner failed to properly fill the canal spaces with gutta percha. In the opinion of the one examiner who testified at the hearing, such observation was based on his examination of an x-ray (petitioner's exhibit 1D) which reflected that the canal was filled beyond the apex and there appeared to be some spacing between the wall of the canal and the filling material. A review of the examination results At hearing, the proof demonstrated that the quality of petitioner's performance on that portion of procedure 06 pertinent to this case is aptly reflected on the x-ray marked as petitioner's exhibit 1D. That x-ray reflects, with regard to one of the canals petitioner filled, what is either a void or filling material beyond the apex of the root. Either event evidences a failure to properly fill the canal space, and warrants a grade of less than 5. Here, petitioner contends he should be awarded a grade of 4 for the procedure. The proof fails, however, to support his contention. If the image reflected by the x-ray is gutta percha beyond the apex, petitioner's performance on the procedure would not meet minimally acceptable dental standards and would merit a failing grade. If on the other hand, the material extending beyond the apex is sealant or the image reflected by the x-ray is a void, the procedure was acceptable, but warranted a grade of less than 5. Under such circumstances, it is concluded that the proof fails to demonstrate that the grades of 3 accorded petitioner were baseless, lacking in reason or that in deriving such grades the examiners departed from the essential requirements of law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the subject petition. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of February 1994. Hearings 1550 Hearings 1994. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399- (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 22nd day of February
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Carl L. Altchiler holds licenses to practice dentistry in the States of New York (1957) and New Jersey (1973). From 1974 through 1977, petitioner was employed in Florida as an institutional dentist at the Sunland Center in Orlando and the Sumter Correctional Institution in Bushnell. He has not practiced dentistry since 1978. In June of 1980, petitioner was a candidate for Florida licensure and took the clinical or practical portion of the dentistry examination. A prerequisite for licensure is that a candidate receive a final total clinical grade of 3.0. Petitioner received a grade below 3.0 on six of the eleven procedures tested, giving him an overall grade of 2.70 on the clinical portion of the exam. A candidate for licensure with the Board of Dentistry must take both a written examination and a pracatical or clinical examination. The clinical exam consists of six parts and requires that eleven procedures be completed. These include the following: Amalgam preparation on a patient Amalgam restoration on a patient Periodontal exercise on a patient Occlusal registration and transfer Final impression Pin amalgam preparation Pin amalgam final restoration Endodontic anterior Endodontic posterior Cast gold preparation Cast gold restoration Prior to the June, 1980, clinical examination, all candidates were sent an instruction booklet which included information concerning the subject areas to be tested, the weight to be accorded each area, the procedures the candidates were to follow in taking each procedure and the grading system. The candidates also participated in a three to four hour orientation program prior to the exam, where protocol was discussed and questions regarding procedure were answered. Florida dentists who have practiced for at least five years are preselected to be examiners for the clinical portion of the dentistry exam. Approximately 23 examiners were utilized during the June, 1980, exam. Prior to arriving at the examination site, each examiner is sent the grade sheets to be utilized and the instructions to candidates. They also receive examiner and monitor instructions and forms. On the day prior to the exam, the examiners are given an 8-hour "standardization" course where the grading guidelines and procedures are discussed. This is to promote consistency and objectivity in grading. Examiners are instructed to independently grade each procedure assigned to them by awarding a grade of from 0 to 5 and indicating the appropriate number on the comment portion of the grading sheet to justify the grade assigned. They may also provide additional comments if they so desire. The grades of 0 to 5 represent the following: 0 = complete failure 1 = unacceptable dental procedure 2 = below minimal acceptable dental procedure 3 = minimal acceptable dental procedure 4 = better than minimally acceptable dental procedure 5 = outstanding dental procedure Each clinical procedure performed by a candidate is independently graded by three different examiners, and the three grades are then averaged to determine the total grade for that procedure. Among the forms which the examination monitors are instructed to utilize is a "Report of Equipment Failure." If utilized during the exam, this form is to be placed in the candidate's file containing the examiner's grade sheets. Four witnesses who were qualified and accepted as experts in the field of dentistry testified in this proceeding. Thomas Gerald Ford, Jr., D.D.S. and Allen M. Guy, D.D.S. were called on behalf of the petitioner. Dr. Ford has practiced general dentistry since 1972, is a member of various dental associations, is a dental consultant for various agencies and private organizations and has given testimony in all phases of forensic dentistry. Dr. Guy has practiced general dentistry since 1971 and is a member of various dental associations. Neither Dr. Ford nor Dr. Guy has served as a monitor or examiner for the Florida dentistry examination. Testifying on behalf of the respondent were Rupert Q. Bliss, D.D.S. and Louis Vodila, D.D.S. Dr. Bliss has practiced general dentistry since 1956, specializing in restorative dentistry, is a member of various dental associations, has taught dentistry, is currently a member of the,Florida Board of Dentistry and has served as an examiner for the Florida dental examination. Dr. Vodila has practiced general dentistry since 1956, is a former member of the Board of Dentistry and has served as Chairman of the Dental Examination for two or three exams. He presently serves, as he did in June of 1980, as the consultant and Chief Dental Examiner for the Department of Professional Regulation, Office of Examination Services. PROCEDURE NUMBER 5 Procedure Number 5, entitled "Complete Denture Evaluation" was a test of the candidate's ability to transfer the centric relation of a live patient's jaw to an articulator. The accurate transfer from the human jaw to the articulator is crucial since the denture will be constructed on the articulator and not in the patient's mouth. If the transfer is not accurate, the denture will not fit or function properly. Wax bite registrations were utilized for this procedure and the test was whether the candidate could accurately duplicate the patient's jaw relationship on an articulator. Hand articulation is not an acceptable means of determining the accuracy of the transfer and cannot simulate the articulation observed by the three examiners who graded this procedure. Petitioner received the grades of 3, 2 and 2, for an overall score of 2.33 on Procedure Number 5. The two examiners who assigned a grade of 2 noted that the centric relation was unacceptable. Other comments listed by the three examiners were that the appearance of the wax was overcontoured and that the interocclusal distance (space) was too little. Petitioner's live patient for this procedure, Beatrice King, testified that the wax bite registrations fit and felt comfortable during the June, 1980, examination. She felt that two of the three examiners were very rough with her. She noted that the one gentle examiner had no trouble placing the rims in her mouth, and that she had to blow to enable their removal. During the administrative hearing, Mrs. King inserted the wax registrations in her mouth and felt that they were still comfortable and that her bite was normal. The expert witnesses testifying for both petitioner and respondent observed the registrations inside Mrs. King's mouth during the hearing. Petitioner's two expert witnesses agreed that the wax bite registrations lacked in appearance and were overcontoured. However, they both felt from observing the registrations in Mrs. King's mouth, that the centric relation was acceptable and repeatable and that, if inserted properly, a full seating could be obtained on Mrs. King. They would have assigned a grade of 3 and 4, respectively. Respondent's expert witness observed that the rims of the wax did not match and that the back sides of the rims were touching, thus providing an obstruction to proper closing. It was also his observation that the inserted bite rims in Mrs.King's mouth had lateral movement. He felt that a grade of 2 was "very generous." PROCEDURE NUMBER 6 Procedure Number 6, entitled "(Final) Complete Denture Evaluation," consisted of the preparation of an impression of the mouth. of a completely endentulous patient. On this procedure, petitioner received grades of 1, 2 and 4, for an overall grade of 2.33. All of the examiners noted voids in the impression tray. Other comments made by the examiners included pressure areas, inablility to observe a post-dam area, the tray not being built u high enough into the vestibule and lack of retention and stability. The actual impression tray used by petitioner during the examination has been distorted by improper storage while in the custody of respondent. It therefore could not be inserted into the mouth of Mrs. King for observation by the expert witnesses who testified at the hearing. Nevertheless, upon observation of the impression tray, petitioner's two witnesses, while noting the voids and pressure areas, would assign grades of 3.5 and 4, respectively. Respondent's expert witness did not feel that the impression submitted by petitioner constituted good dentistry. Voids and pressure areas in the impression tray can cause distortions and inaccuracies in the final denture. Respondent's witness felt that the grades of 1 or 2 were "very generous." PROCEDURE NUMBER 8 Procedure Number 8, entitled "Cast Gold Cavity Preparation," was conducted on a mannequin and required candidates to complete a cavity preparation to receive a cast gold onlay. The instructions called for the preparation of an MOD onlay replacing the buccal and lingual cusps. Petitioner received grades of 2, 2 and 1 on this procedure, for an overall grade of 1.67. The comments noted on the grading sheets included a rough marginal finish, no gingival bevel, debris, the scarring of adjacent teeth, unsupported enamel and unacceptable outline form and depth preparation. Petitioner agrees that the marginal finish was rough and that the adjacent teeth were scarred. According to petitioner, this latter defect occurred when the head of the mannequin suddenly moved as a result of a loose neck screw causing the drill to slip and go through the metal bands on the adjacent teeth. Petitioner's expert witnesses observed the rough marginal finish, but found the remaining criteria satisfactory. They would assign grades of 3 and 4, respectively. Respondent's witness felt that the outline form did not match what was called for on the examination. Rather than the MOD onlay required, the outline form more resembled one for a three-quarter crown. He noted the other deficiencies marked by the examiners on the comment section of the grading sheet. He felt that the grades of 1 and 2 were consistent with what he observed. PROCEDURE NUMBER 9 Procedure Number 9, entitled "Final Gold Restoration," consisted of the candidate fabricating an onlay casting for an ivorine tooth from a dentoform in a mannequin. The procedure was graded with the gold onlay placed on the tooth within the mannequin jaw and with regard to the relationship of the onlay to the other teeth in the jaw. Petitioner received grades of 0, 1 and 2 for this procedure, for an overall grade of 1.00. The examiner who assigned a grade of 0 noted that the casting was not seated and rocked. The other two examiners did not check this comment, but did make comments pertaining to functional anatomy, proximal contour, contact and surface finish. Petitioner's expert witnesses did not observe the ivorine tooth with the gold on lay in the dentoform in the mannequin jaw. They did observe the ivorine tooth with the gold onlay and found that the onlay did not rock on the tooth. Dr. Ford, while noting a few rough edges on the casting and a little problem in the margin, found the gold to be an exact match of the tooth. He would assign a grade of 4 to this procedure. Dr. Guy, noting a rough surface finish, would assign a grade of 3.6. The ivorine tooth and the gold onlay were in the possession of the respondent until several weeks prior to the administrative hearing. Respondent's two witnesses observed the tooth and onlay prior to the last part of April, 1981, and found that the gold onlay had a slight rock to it at that time. They both admitted that the on lay now seated better on the tooth than when they first observed it, though Dr. Bliss still detected a slight rock. Dr. Vodila felt that the procedure still deserved a failing grade because of the deficiencies in the margins. Dr. Bliss, noting that the procedure could not be accurately graded outside the dentoform in the mannequin's mouth, as well as the lack of seating when he first observed it, felt that the grade of 0 was accurate and that the product failed to meet minimal standards for the practice of dentistry. PROCEDURE NUMBER 10 Procedure Number 10, entitled "Pin Amalgam Preparation," was conducted on a dentoform in a mannequin and consisted of the preparation of a tooth for amalgam restoration. Petitioner did not complete this procedure and received a grade of 0 from each of the three examiners. According to petitioner, during this procedure the head on his mannequin often made sudden movements due to a loose screw on the back of the mannequin's neck. He attempted to tighten the screw to fixate the head on several occasions, but the screw would not hold. He testified that he called the monitor over on several occasions and was told, at first, to do the best he could, and eventually, to go on to another procedure. This testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Suzette Rogers, who assisted petitioner during this procedure. A steady, stable working station is important in this type of procedure for an accurate preparation. A competent dentist is trained to and should be able to steady his work area and complete the procedure even with a loose mannequin head. As noted above, the monitors are instructed to complete a form when equipment failure is demonstrated and to insert that form into the candidate's file. No such form was found in petitioner's file. The lead examiner for the dental exam, Dr. Vodila, was never notified of any mannequin failure during the June, 1980, exam. The same mannequin head used by petitioner was also used by four other candidates before and after petitioner used it. PROCEDURE NUMBER 11 Procedure Number 11, entitled "Pin Amalgam Final Restoration," required the candidate to complete an amalgam restoration in an ivorine tooth with a pin. This procedure was to be accomplished on a prepared tooth placed in a mannequin by the monitor after the candidate turned on a light to indicate his readiness for this procedure. Petitioner apparently did not understand the directions for this procedure, no prepared tooth was placed in the mannequin, and no work product was turned in by the petitioner. A grade of 0 was assigned by all three examiners for Procedure Number 11.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the grades awarded to petitioner on Procedures Number 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the clinical portion of the dentistry examination held in June of 1980 be upheld. Respectfully submitted and entered this 29th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Dyer, Esquire Duckworth, Allen, Dyer and Pettis, P.A. 400 West Colonial Post Office Box 3791 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carol L. Gregg, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Shorstein Secretary, Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Shaikh Enayetul Karim, sat for the dental licensure examination administered by the Department of Professional Regulation in December 1985. The Petitioner received a failing score of "2.85" for the clinical portion of the examination and a score of "78" on the written and oral diagnosis portion. A passing score on all portions is necessary for licensure. The Petitioner complained of contradictory grading or disparate grades between each of the three examiners for a given procedure. Accordingly, pursuant to Department rules, the Petitioner's objections were reviewed by the Respondent's dental examination consultant as to the following procedures: Procedure 2 - amalgam restoration Procedure 5 - endodontic evaluation (posterior) Procedure 6 - endodontic evaluation (anterior) Procedure 7 - cavity preparation Procedure 8 - onlay wax-up Procedure 9 - pin amalgam preparation Procedure 10 - pin amalgam restoration The Respondent's consultant, Dr. Sue Ellen Hamilton, testified as an expert witness and was one of the three graders on Petitioner's original examination. Upon reviewing the Petitioner's examination and his scores for each procedure, she ultimately agreed with the grade assigned by the three examiners for procedures numbered 2, 5, 7, 8 and 10 above. She questioned the grades for procedures 6 and 9, however, and recommended that those two procedures be regraded by three additional independent graders. Upon these procedures being regraded, the Petitioner's scores still were insufficient to merit a passing score on the clinical portion of the examination. Passing that portion is required to pass the entire examination and to become licensed. Lucinda Ann Richards was accepted as an expert witness in the areas of examination development, evaluation and the administration of examinations. She is an examination development specialist with the Department of Professional Regulation and is a PhD candidate in "testing and measurement," a discipline involving training in the development and implementation of fair examinations which accurately test competency in a field such as dentistry. She established that the examination at issue was developed and administered in accordance with the Department's rules. She particularly described the method of training of examiners to ensure that they grade each procedure tested independently of each other and accord a candidate a fair evaluation, giving a candidate the benefit of the doubt in the case of an answer or procedure in which they feel the scoring thereof is a "borderline" passing or failing situation. She established that the examination is based upon "holistic material," that is, the material for the dental examination is not drawn from one or two schools or methods of dentistry, but rather the material for the examination and the questions and procedures upon which candidates are tested is drawn from all generally accepted schools or methods of dentistry and is graded on the same holistic basis, that is, candidates' answers are accorded passing scores if they are correct under theories or practices of any of the generally accepted schools or methods of dentistry related to the procedure or question posed to the candidate. She established that this holistic grading system is more fair and reasonable for examination candidates who typically are educated at many dental schools in many different states. Fairness of the examination and its grading is additionally ensured by the use of three different independent examiners who each independently grade each question or procedure without consultation with each other. Their grades are then submitted for each procedure and averaged so that the score the candidate obtains is an average score so that the candidate will get the benefit of those examiners who graded a given guest ion or procedure with the maximum grade, a "5" to counter balance an examiner who might have graded the procedure with a "1" or "2." Thus, as established by witness Hamilton, the grades assigned by the three examiners for procedures 2, 5, 7, 8 and 10 were determined upon review to be correct but, as to those grades for procedures 6 and 9 which Ms. Hamilton determined required regrading, it developed that upon regrading of those procedures he was accorded the same grade on procedure 6, but indeed received a lower grade on procedure 9. Thus, ultimately, the Petitioner's grade on the clinical portion of the examination at issue, upon regrading, was still insufficient to accord him a passing score. Contrary to Petitioner's remonstrances before and at hearing, his score was not sufficient so that one additional point would have passed him, even upon regrading his examination. Witness Sue Ellen Hamilton was accepted as an expert witness in the field of practice of dentistry and the evaluation of dental examination candidates. She was examiner number "083" who helped grade the Petitioner's original examination and who participated in the review of that examination, when he protested his score to the Department. She found that all the procedures mentioned above put at issue by the Petitioner except procedures 6 and 9, were graded correctly. For instance, she did agree with the Petitioner in her testimony that he identified the "canals" correctly, but the other mistakes on that procedure amply justified the original grade she and the other examiners accorded him. Procedure 8 was not accorded a passing score upon original grading or upon review by Ms. Hamilton. That procedure involved a wax "onlay" which was "waxed up" higher or modeled with a higher dimension than surrounding teeth. Ms. Hamilton established that this was a serious defect which would result in that tooth being the only tooth touching the opposing teeth in both jaws. Witness Hamilton otherwise in her testimony, amply established that the grades on procedures 2, 5, 7, 8 and 10 were correct as originally scored and that, upon the regrading she felt required on procedures 6 and 9, that the scores upon regrading were correct. She established that as to procedure 2, there was a serious defect involving an "open contact," that is, too much space between the teeth of the model. The Petitioner had been dissatisfied with the variation of the three examiners' comments about this procedure. Two of the examiners had criticized the open contact, and the third examiner noted "proximal contour." Ms. Hamilton established that these examiners' comments do not actually oppose each other in their import. It would not be possible to verify the fact of contact or lack of it by an X-ray "because of variances due to angulation" (see Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Ms. Hamilton established, however, that given that there was an open contact situation in the Petitioner's performance of this procedure, the procedure should have a failing grade without having the candidate redo that restoration because of the fundamental and serious nature of this defect. Concerning procedure 5, the grades given were "3", "5" and "1". Ms. Hamilton agreed with the Petitioner that the canal identification was correct. Even so, the "messial" wall was overextended and slight "pulp horns" were found, on the "lingual" wall. She felt that the grade of "5" accorded by one examiner was overly generous but it should be allowed to balance the grade of "1" given by another examiner so that a fair, holistic evaluation of that procedure was that score originally given, that is, an average of the grades "3", "5" and "1". Accordingly, she recommended no regrading. As another example, upon her review of the Petitioner's response to procedure 6 (grades given were "2", "4" and "3") she found that indeed the preparation was overextended incicsally, as the examiners had found, but she could find no evidence of the under-extension concerning which the Petitioner had been criticized and concedes that maybe examiner number "10" had made an error in making the wrong comment about this procedure. Even so, examiner "10" had given the Petitioner a passing grade on it and in an abundance of caution, Ms. Hamilton recommended that it be regraded since she felt the preparation did not deserve a failing grade. The regrading of procedure 6, however, did not result in increasing the overall score on the clinical portion of the exam to a passing grade. As to procedures 7 and 8, she found the grades were fair for those procedures and should stand. For instance, as to procedure 7, she found that the "axial walls will not draw," which is a defect determined originally by the examiners. As to procedure 8, she found that the "margins were generously bulky and the over-waxed buccal cusp and distal marginal ridge would cause hyperocclusion." She felt the overly generous grades of "3" and "4" accorded by two of the examiners adequately compensated for the low grade of "1" accorded by the third examiner and felt that the grade was fair as to that procedure also. Procedure 9 has already been discussed and Ms. Hamilton recommended a regrade of that procedure, which was done. She felt the grade of "5" accorded by one examiner was overly lenient, did not sufficiently balance the lower grade of "2" given by another examiner, hence the recommended regrading for reasons more particularly described in Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Finally, as to procedure 10, the pin amalgam restoration, all three examiners accorded the Petitioner a grade of "3." Ms. Hamilton, upon a review of these grades and of the procedure performed by the Petitioner found that the margins were bulky on the "proximal and buccal surfaces." The distal buccal cusp was too narrow. In short, she felt that the grades accorded this procedure were justified to begin with. In summary, as established by Ms. Hamilton, although the Petitioner felt many of the grades were inconsistent and contradictory, it was established that the comments of the examiners were guidelines to show candidates where their procedures differed from the ideal situation. Comments are designed to overlap each other for each procedure so each situation is evaluated as completely as possible. It is difficult, given different aspects and interpretations possible for each procedure to have agreement of all three examiners as to scoring on the same procedure. This is why three examiners were used so as to aim for a holistic evaluation of each procedure and to average the number scores accorded by each examiner so as to accord maximum fairness to the candidate. She and witness Richards established that this was done as to each of the contested procedure grades for the Petitioner. With this type of grading in mind, it was shown that the object of the examination review accorded the Petitioner when he first objected to his grades, is to try to discern if a grade by one examiner is unjustifiably low and is not compensated for by a lenient grade from the other examiner, or examiners, for the same procedure. If one examiner, for instance, accords a grade of "1" for a procedure and other examiner on the same procedure accords a grade of "5", it may be that the grade of "1" is too low but that the grade of "5" is too beneficial to the candidate. Thus, the grades are averaged and the lenient grade is allowed to be averaged with the "too-low" grade, which results in a fair result for the candidate and helps to render the examination as a whole, and each procedure, a fair test of the candidate's overall competence in the field of dentistry. It has thus been established by Respondent's expert witnesses that the examination development and its administration and method of grading was professionally accurate, fairly took into account, and gave candidates the benefit of, their education in various schools or methods of dentistry, was statistically valid and was free of arbitrariness or caprice.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Shaikh Enayetul Karim, be denied licensure as a dentist in the State of Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 24th day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2635 The Petitioner Karim did not file Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this case. The Respondent Department of Professional Regulation did file Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, all of which were accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaikh Enayetul Karim Apartment 30 524 Morris Avenue Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208 Jeffrey H. Barker, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Pat Guilford, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 466, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to the authority of Section 20.43(3)(g), Florida Statutes, Petitioner has contracted with the Agency for Health Care Administration to provide consumer complaint, investigative and prosecutorial services by the Division of Medical Quality Assurance, councils, or boards. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN0006759. Respondent's dental license has been delinquent since March 1, 2000. Respondent's last known address is 8081 Park Villa Circle, Cupertino, California 95014. On or about December 16, 1993, Respondent was convicted in a jury trial of one count of soliciting prostitution, five counts of sexual battery and two counts of false imprisonment in the County of Santa Clara, California. Respondent was sentenced to three years in prison. The sentence was suspended and Respondent was placed on felony probation for five years subject to the following conditions: that he serve one year in the county jail; that he pay fines and penalties; that he undergo psychiatric counseling; that he report his conviction to future employers; that he report to the California Dental Board; that he treat male patients only; and that he have no contact with the victims. The circumstances underlying Respondent's criminal convictions involved sexual battery of female employees in the dental office and of female patients during dental treatments in his office while he was engaged in the practice of dentistry. In or around January 1996, the California Board of Dentistry accepted Respondent's surrender of his California license to practice dentistry in case number AGN 1994-18, and allowing Respondent to apply for reinstatement after one year, subject to the terms and conditions of Respondent's criminal probation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Dentistry enter a final order adopting the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and which revokes Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Rosanna M. Catalano, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Houshang J. Dayan, D.D.S. 8081 Park Villa Circle Cupertino, California 95014 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, respondent, Peter Kurachek, held a license to practice dentistry, No. DN005429, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Dentistry. In 1983, respondent employed Deborah Burr as a chairside dental assistant. Ms. Burr was not licensed by the State of Florida as a dentist or dental hygienist nor did she hold an expanded duties certificate. During the employment, respondent directed Ms. Burr to cement and remove temporary crowns, fabricate temporary crowns, fabricate temporary bridgework, make adjustments on permanent dentures, and pack retraction cord. All of the foregoing were done without respondent's direct supervision. From a period of 1983 into 1985, respondent employed Craig Marcum as a chairside dental assistant. Mr. Marcum was not licensed by the State of Florida as a dentist or dental hygienist nor did he hold an expanded duties certificate. During this employment, respondent directed Mr. Marcum to cement and remove temporary crowns, fabricate temporary crowns, make adjustments on temporary bridgework, make adjustments on permanent dentures, pack retraction cord, and take opposing impressions for dentures. All of the foregoing were done without respondent's direct supervision. Many patients confused Mr. Marcum as a dentist. But the evidence did not prove that the respondent was aware of this behavior. This behavior became a greater problem when the respondent was opening a Sarasota office between May and December, 1984, and Marcum was in the Venice office under the supervision of other dentists. When the respondent re-assigned a trusted assistant to Venice in September, 1984, she told the respondent that Marcum was referring to himself, and holding himself out, as a dentist. The respondent reprimanded Marcum and had him sign a written promise to cease that behavior. There was no evidence that Marcum continued this behavior after the reprimand. On at least one occasion, Eugena Whitehead, respondent's receptionist, observed Mr. Marcum using a low speed drill inside a patient's mouth. Ms. Whitehead immediately informed respondent of Mr. Marcum's conduct. Respondent took no immediate action but allowed Mr. Marcum to continue using the drill. While in respondent's employ, Mr. Marcum wrote dental prescriptions under respondent's name. But the evidence did not prove that the respondent did not dictate the prescription or, if he did not, that the respondent knew about forged prescriptions. In 1983, respondent employed Pam Anderson as a chairside dental assistant. Ms. Anderson was not licensed by the State of Florida as a dentist or dental hygienist nor did she hold an expanded duties certificate. During this employment, respondent directed Ms. Anderson to cement and remove temporary crowns, fabricate temporary crowns, do temporary fillings, make adjustments on permanent dentures, and pack retraction cord. All of the foregoing were done without respondent's direct supervision. In 1983, respondent employed Patricia M. Lacher as a chairside dental assistant. Ms. Lacher was not licensed by the State of Florida as a dentist or dental hygienist nor did she hold an expanded duties certificate. During this employment, respondent directed Ms. Lacher to cement and remove temporary crowns, fabricate temporary crowns, make adjustments on temporary bridgework, take opposing impressions for permanent dentures, make adjustments on permanent dentures, remove sutures, and pack retraction cord. All of the foregoing were done without respondent's direct supervision. In 1983, respondent employed Gwen Green as a chairside dental assistant. Ms. Green was not licensed by the State of Florida as a dentist or dental hygienist nor did she hold an expanded duties certificate. During this employment, respondent directed Ms. Green to cement and remove temporary crowns, fabricate temporary crowns, make adjustments on temporary bridgework, make adjustments on permanent dentures, and pack retraction cord. All of the foregoing were done without respondent's direct supervision. Through 1983 and 1984, Dr. Kurachek imposed an office policy that dental assistants, not dentists or dental hygienists, perform the duties of packing retraction cord, fabricating temporary crowns and bridges to a dentist's specifications, and adjusting permanent dentures to a dentist's specifications, all without direct supervision. Since some time in 1985, the respondent altered his practices to some extent. He no longer has dental assistants place or remove temporary restorations or cement temporary crowns and bridges or take study impressions unless the dental assistant has an expanded duties certificate and is under direct supervision. He does not allow dental assistants to place or remove or cement or recement permanent crowns or bridges, take final impressions for dentures, pack retraction cord, use a handpiece, or drill, in a patient's mouth or do temporary fillings regardless whether the dental assistant has an expanded duties certificate. He still has dental assistants, with or without the expanded duties certificate, make temporary crowns and bridges to his or another dentist's specifications outside of the mouth and adjust permanent dentures to his or another dentist's specifications, both outside the mouth either in a laboratory or in the operatory which serves as a laboratory and both under the direct supervision of the responsible dentist. The respondent understands that these procedures are legal based on his understanding of what DPR representatives have told dental assistants in his employ.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order: holding the respondent, Peter Kurachek, D.D.S.: (a) guilty as charged of five counts of violating Section 466.028(1)(g) and (aa) (1983), one for each of the dental assistants Burr, Marcum, Lacher, Anderson and Green; and (b) guilty of a sixth count, as charged, for violating Section 466.028(1)(bb) (1983); imposing a $5,000 fine payable within 30 days; suspending the respondent's license for a period of six months; and placing the respondent on probation for one year after reinstatement of his license. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 15th day of March, 1988.
