The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of incompetence or negligence and failing to keep adequate dental records and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed dentist, holding license number DN 0010415. He has been licensed continuously in Florida since 1985, and he practices in Naples. On February 13, 1992, M. D. presented to Respondent at Kings Lake Dental Services. M. D. complained of a loose three-unit fixed bridge, which had replaced tooth number 4, using teeth numbers 3 and 5 as abutments. Respondent performed a focused emergency examination. He found a decaying, loose bridge that was falling apart and coming out of M. D.'s mouth; tooth number 5 was decayed and had fractured off; and tooth number three was decayed around the abutment crown and post. Respondent took an x-ray and found root canals on teeth numbers 3 and 5. Based on these findings, Respondent recommended to M. D. that he have post and cores on teeth numbers 3 and 5 and a new bridge. Respondent noted in his dental records these findings during this initial visit and the limited nature of the examination. At the time of this initial examination, Respondent determined that teeth numbers 3 and 5 could serve as abutment teeth to support the bridge for tooth number 4. His determination was correct as tooth number 5, but the record suggests that his determination was questionable as to tooth number 3. However, Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the suitability determination for tooth number 3 was incompetent or negligent. On M. D.'s next visit, which took place on February 26, 1992, Respondent prepared teeth numbers 3 and 5 for the new bridge by removing the existing post and core in tooth number 3 and preparing tooth number 5 for a post and core. Respondent installed a temporary bridge during this visit. A post and core is an appliance that is cemented into a tooth that has undergone previous endodontic treatment. A post goes into the residual root, and the core replaces the natural crown of the tooth. The post and core can then be prepared for a crown or, as in this case, a fixed bridge. The final result resembles the placement of a peg into a tooth on which additional material is built up. On M. D.'s third visit, which took place on March 4, 1992, Respondent re-cemented the temporary bridge, which had come loose. On M. D.'s fourth and final visit, which took place on March 13, 1992, Respondent installed the permanent fixed bridge. At no time did any blood collect in M. D.'s post preparations. At no time during the post-and-core work, including during the unanaestheticized installation procedure, did M. D. experience pain. As material to this case, a perforation would result from excessive drilling in the process of preparing the tooth for the post, so as to create an extra opening into the bone. The absence of blood during the post preparation is generally inconsistent with a post perforation. The absence of pain during the ensuing installation procedure also militates against a finding that Respondent inadvertently perforated the tooth. The crucial findings on the issue whether Respondent perforated the tooth are thus the absence of blood during the drilling attendant to the post-and-core procedure and the absence of pain during the ensuing installation procedure. These findings are based in part on the self-serving testimony of Respondent, but also are supported by other evidence. At the time of the incident, Respondent had practiced dentistry in Florida for over six years. It is likely that he would have known that an untreated perforation would eventually cause the restorative work to fail. Respondent had treated numerous patients, presumably including seasonal Naples residents, without this issue previously arising, even though excessive-drilling perforations themselves are not that uncommon. When M. D. later contacted Respondent and complained of the dental work, he made no mention of the pain that typically would have accompanied the installation of a core over a perforated tooth. M. D. was a winter resident of Naples. Fourteen months after his final visit to Respondent, a dentist in Massachusetts discovered a perforation of the root on tooth number 5 and an acute periodontal abscess on tooth number 3. An acute periodontal abscess occurs at the end of the root and is secondary to infection involving the dental pulp in the soft tissue part of the tooth. Periodontal abscesses occur around the supporting structures of the teeth. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent perforated M. D.'s tooth. Although excessive drilling may cause a perforation, decay, a root fracture, and rampant periodontal disease may also cause perforations. Given the considerable period of time between Respondent's treatment of M. D. and the discovery of the perforation, the likelihood of decay, a root fracture, and rampant periodontal disease increases as the cause of the perforation. Given the other factors, such as lack of blood during the post procedure or pain during the core procedure, Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's treatment of M. D. was incompetent or negligent. The record provides even less basis to find by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's work caused the periodontal abscess 14 months later. Respondent's dental records are adequate in many respects. The records adequately describe the cast post and core technique; Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the failure to distinguish between the two types of cast post and core is material in this case. Petitioner has also failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the records fail to provide an adequate basis for another dentist to infer the removal of the old post and core. The x-ray is of extremely poor quality, but it is merely a duplicate. The original is not in the record, and the record provides insufficient basis for inferring the quality of the original. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the actual x-ray was of such poor quality as to preclude reliance upon it. Respondent's records indicate that tooth number 5 is decayed and fractured off, that tooth number 3 is decayed, and that the x-rays reveal root canals on both these teeth. While adequately documenting these findings, the records do not document Respondent's evaluation of the suitability of teeth numbers 3 and 5 to serve as abutment teeth. Nor do the records document the "moderate" periodontal disease that Respondent testified that he also observed. Respondent's restorative work eventually failed. The most likely cause of failure was the perforation of tooth number 5. However, fourteen months later, tooth number 3 was no longer capable of serving as an abutment tooth. By inference, its condition at the time of Respondent's decision to use it as an abutment tooth at least warranted documentation in the dental records. Similarly, the acute periodontal abscess also evidences the need to document Respondent's finding of moderate periodontal disease. These omissions from Respondent's dental records are material due to the questionable suitability of tooth number 3 as an abutment tooth and the subsequent development of periodontal disease. On these facts, Respondent's records fail to document a thorough evaluation of M. D.'s oral structures involved in the restorative work and his overall dental condition. In these respects, Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to keep adequate dental records in that they fail to justify the course of Respondent's treatment of M. D. On March 30, 1992, S. T. presented to the Fort Myers Dental Service for an abscessed tooth at tooth number 3. One of the dentists at the office, Dr. Rubin, saw S. T. He recommended full mouth x-rays and study models and prescribed pain medication and an antibiotic. The dental records contain no indication of periodontal disease at this time. The Fort Myers Dental Service maintained a system of patient referral in which Respondent or Dr. Johnson saw patients requiring endodontic treatment and other dentists saw patients requiring periodontic treatment. Following her visit, Dr. Rubin referred S. T. to Respondent for endodontic work on April 2, 1992. The x-rays had revealed lesions on teeth numbers 3 and 4, so the referral was for an evaluation for root canals. On April 3, Respondent examined S. T.'s mouth and noted buccal swelling around teeth numbers 3 and 4 and broken- down, decayed teeth at teeth numbers 3, 4, and 5. However, his examination did not reveal any periodontal disease. Respondent recommended root canals for teeth numbers 3 and 4 followed by casts, posts, and cores for teeth 3 and 4 and a porcelain fuse metal crown for tooth number 5. Respondent commenced this dental treatment on April 10, 1992. During this visit, Respondent began a root canal on tooth number 4. On April 17, Respondent completed the root canal on tooth number 4. On April 24, Respondent began a root canal on tooth number 3. On May 22, Respondent completed the root canal on tooth number 4. On September 24, 1992, Respondent prepared teeth numbers 3, 4, and 5 for crowns. On October 8, Respondent installed crowns on these teeth and posts and cores on teeth numbers 3 and 4. Fourteen months later, on December 7, 1993, S. T. was examined by Dr. William McKenzie, a periodontist who practiced 33 years, primarily in Fort Myers, until his retirement prior to the hearing in this case. A general dentist in Fort Myers had referred S. T. to him. At the time of his examination, Dr. McKenzie found poorly fitting crowns on teeth numbers 3, 4, and 5 and open contacts between teeth numbers 2 and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5, and 5 and 6. In general, S. T.'s dental health was good, except for the area in which Respondent had worked. In this area, S. T.'s gums bled profusely upon probing by Dr. McKenzie. In part, Petitioner tried to prove that Respondent improperly proceeded with endodontic treatment despite unresolved periodontic problems. However, the record fails to sustain this allegation. To the contrary, as Dr. McKenzie testified, the poor-fitting and gapped crowns caused the periodontal condition that Dr. McKenzie encountered. The open contacts, which allowed food to pack between the teeth, led to infection, which caused the inflammatory process in the gums and bone deterioration that Dr. McKenzie also discovered in this area of S. T.'s mouth. As to the fit of the crowns, Dr. McKenzie described it as "horrible" and work of which a "freshman dental student" was capable. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance in the treatment of S. T.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for six months and, following the expiration of the suspension, placing the license on probation for a period of 12 months. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ROBERT E. MEALE 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 29th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Wright Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 E. Raymond Shope, II 1404 Goodlette Road, North Naples, Florida 34102 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Bill Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Philip B. Okun, was a licensed dentist having been issued license number DN 0005278 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Dentistry (Board). He has been licensed in Florida since 1971. He also holds a license in the State of New York where he graduated from the New York University School of Dentistry in 1967. Respondent presently practices dentistry at 8269 West Sunrise Boulevard, Plantation, Florida. The genesis of this action lies in respondent's treatment of a patient in November 1982 and January 1983. Ultimately, a complaint was filed with the Board on behalf of the patient, and this culminated in the issuance of an administrative complaint on June 6, 1986, or more than three years after the treatment occurred. The complaint alleges generally that respondent failed to conform to minimum standards of performance in four respects while performing root canal therapy on the patient in question. More specifically, the complaint alleges that Dr. Okun erred by (a) initially allowing the patient to leave his office with the tooth "open," (b) permanently closing and overfilling the tooth without antibiotics and in too short a time, (c) failing to open the periapical tissue and removing the root, filling and apical granulomatous tissue after noting the "severe" overfill, and (d) placing an endodontic post in the overfilled tooth thereby blocking access to the canal space. The Board's action resulted in the instant proceeding. A Basic Primer on Root Canals Endodontics is a specialty within the field of dentistry. It involves the treatment of the root canals of the teeth and their surrounding structure. A root canal (PC) is an endodontic procedure and involves the sterile filling of the interior of a tooth. Its purpose is to save the tooth for further use rather than lose it by extraction. The center of a tooth contains nerves and arteries. This area is susceptible to invasion by bacteria (decay). If decay is present, it will show up on an X-ray in the form of a periapical radiolucency (a dark circle). Once the nerve has been invaded by bacteria, the tooth must be extracted or given PC therapy. In a noncomplicated PC, which is the type involved in this case, certain procedures are normally followed by the prudent dentist. They include (a) removing the decay, (b) enlarging the canal with filing tools, (c) removing the debris, (d) sterilizing the inside of the canal, and (e) filling the inside of the tooth with a permanent filling. Decay in a tooth is normally removed by drilling. Once the drilling is completed, the inside of the tooth should be sterilized with a recognized medicament and temporarily closed (until the PC therapy is performed) to prevent the introduction of bacteria into the canal. However, there are circumstances when a tooth can be left open to "drain." The most common are when the patient experiences pain or when exudate (pus, blood and similar fluids) is present. In addition, there may be other circumstances which justify leaving a tooth open. For example, if a patient will be taking a trip by airplane immediately after the decay is removed, but before RC therapy can be completed, an endodrain (a small piece of plastic sponge) may be installed in the tooth to avoid pain and discomfort caused by expanding gases due to changes in atmospheric pressure. If the tooth is left closed, the trapped gases have no way to escape and can cause a blowup in the tooth area. However, before leaving the tooth open under these circumstances, the dentist must observe some sensitivity or tenderness in the tooth area, and the X-rays should reflect a radiolucent area around the tooth. The patient should also be advised that he runs the risk of having bacteria introduced into the canal space and that prompt, follow-up care will be required. As a general rule, an unclosed tooth should be monitored by a dentist and, if conditions permit, closed within the next few days. However, if the tooth is left open for several weeks, the introduction of microorganisms into the canal does not mean the area will automatically become infected. Finally, when removing decay, a dentist must take care to eliminate the decay without pushing it through the apex (the bottom of the tooth next to the gum) and into the gum. If this occurs, the patient risks having an infection in the bone area which, prior to the RC, was not contaminated. After the decay is removed, the endodontic treatment is begun. This involves the filing or reaming of the canal with precision tools that vary in size. Filing is normally begun with the smallest file and gradually increased to the desired size. 3/ The intent is to file or ream the walls of the canal so as to remove any irregularities, decay, nerves and arteries that are present. The walls are made into a narrowing, tapered cylinder shaped hole with the narrowest point being closest to the gum. After each step of the reaming is completed, the tooth is lavaged (washed out) with sterile solutions so as to remove the filing debris and sterilize the inside of the tooth. After drying the tooth with sterile paper points, a medicament is placed inside the tooth to kill bacteria. The most common medicaments are camphorated monochlorophenol (CPNC), formacreosol and calcium hydroxide. Thereafter, the tooth is temporarily sealed with a soft, putty-like substance to prevent bacteria from entering the canal. There is conflicting testimony concerning the length of time that must elapse after the foregoing procedures are completed but before the tooth is permanently closed. All witnesses agreed that a RC can be started and completed in the same visit so long as no bacteria is present and the tooth is kept sterile. They disagree on whether a tooth can be temporarily sealed on one day and permanently filled the next, particularly when the tooth has been left open for up to six weeks. The more persuasive and credible evidence is that, as long as the tooth is "comfortable," "dry," properly "shaped" and has "no fistulas," there is no set waiting period between installing the temporary and permanent fillings. Put another way, unless the dentist observes some contraindication, he may make a permanent closure on the day after the temporary seal has been installed. On the visit when the permanent closure is made, the temporary filling or seal is first removed, and a paper point is placed in the canal to ascertain if any exudate is present. If the canal is clear, it is lavaged and dried. After a medicament is placed in the canal, it is permanently filled with guttapercha (inert rubber material) or cement to prevent the entry of bacteria. A dentist generally seeks to fill the canal approximately one-half to one millimeter short of the radiographic apex of the tooth since it is better to fill the canal short than long. When permanently sealing a tooth, it is not uncommon for a dentist to overfill a RC. In the words of one expert, "(overfilling) occurs with a great deal of frequency." Overfilling means that too much guttapercha has been placed in the canal, and the filling has penetrated the periodontal ligament and entered the periapical space above the apex. However, the filling material is resorbed over time by the body, and an overfilling does not result automatically in an endodontic failure. Indeed, most overfilled canals are successful. Further, an overfill is not objectionable as long as the overfill does not impinge on vital structures such as blood vessels and nerves. If overfilling occurs, two options are available to the dentist. First, if necessary, he may surgically remove the filling material by cutting into the gum and cleaning out the area. This procedure is known as a periapical curettage. If surgery is required, the dentist must cut laterally into the bone above the apex area. Therefore, if the guttapercha has been pushed beyond the apex area, the fact that a post has been placed into the tooth is immaterial since it does not block surgical access to the filling. The second and more desirable alternative is for the dentist to simply monitor the patient's condition through future office visits to see if the problem resolves itself through the resorption process. If the overfill resolves itself, and no pain or swelling occurs, surgery is not required. Finally, antibiotics need not be prescribed to a patient with an overfilled tooth unless symptoms of an infection are present. Once a broken-down, anterior tooth is endodontically filled, it is normal practice for a dentist to place a post two-thirds of the way into the RC as a support for anchoring the crown. This is because the inside of the root is the only place where retention for the appliance can be obtained. The Patient's Visit In November 1982 one George Roderman, then a California resident and around sixty eight years of age, visited his son, Barry, in the Fort Lauderdale area for a few days. Because Barry was a patient and friend of Dr. Okun, respondent agreed to see George Roderman on an emergency basis. Roderman's primary complaint was that he needed repairs on a temporary bridge on teeth numbers 4-11. Roderman's initial visit to respondent was on November 23. After removing the temporary bridge, respondent examined Roderman's teeth and found Roderman had not followed good dental hygiene practices and that his teeth were in poor condition. Respondent learned that the patient had not seen a dentist since the temporary bridge was made some two years earlier. Although Roderman did not complain of any pain, the front part of the bridge was broken, there was inflammation and infection around the gums, and he had a great deal of recurrent decay on many margins of the bridge. After taking panoramic X-rays, Dr. Okun observed a rarefaction (a radiolucent area at the apex of the tooth) and recurrent decay in tooth number 11. The tooth was nonvital (dead) and had pulp exposure. However, there was no pus or oozing, and the area of the tooth was dry. Respondent initially removed the decay from tooth 11, medicated the tooth and inserted a temporary filling. After mending the bridge, the patient was advised that a RC had been initiated, that he needed a permanent bridge fabricated after the canal was completed and that a post would be placed in tooth 11. He was also instructed to resume good oral hygiene practices. Finally, primary impressions to fabricate a new temporary crown and a custom tray were taken. A second appointment was scheduled on November 26, or three days later. In his records, Dr. Okun noted that a twelve unit appointment (twelve blocks of 15 minutes each) would be set up for continued RC therapy when Roderman returned to Florida. The appointment contemplated other work as well, including the fabrication of a new bridge which generally took a month or so to complete. According to respondent, these appointments were a courtesy to Barry Roderman since he did not know specifically when Barry's father would return to Florida. On November 26 Roderman returned to Dr. Okun's office so that respondent could monitor his condition. Respondent did not observe any exudate, and the tooth was dry. The patient had no complaints of pain. However, after learning that Roderman was returning by airplane that evening to California, Dr. Okun percussed tooth 11 and found the patient experienced a slight tenderness and sensitivity due to inflamed fibers supporting the tooth. Based on this clinical observation, and the presence of a radiolucent area on the patient's X- ray, Dr. Okun reopened the tooth, removed the temporary stopping and medication and installed an endodrain. He did this because he was concerned that the pressure change from the airplane might cause a buildup of gases in the tooth resulting in discomfort and pain. Respondent believed that Roderman had felt no discomfort on his flight from California to Florida because Roderman had a natural passageway (by virtue of the extensive decay in the canal) for bacteria and gases to escape from the tooth. Doctor Okun advised the patient that he was more at risk by leaving the tooth open and that he must see a California dentist to have the root canal therapy completed. This advice was consistent with respondent's normal practice of having a patient with an open tooth return within 24 to 48 hours for further evaluation and treatment. Roderman was also given a four or five day prescription for antibiotics as a precautionary measure and his full mouth series of X-rays for use by the California dentist. When the patient left, respondent assumed he would see a dentist in California for further treatment. On January 13, 1983, or a day earlier than his scheduled appointment, Roderman telephoned respondent's office and was told to come over that afternoon. Respondent expected to see Roderman with a completed RC and the series of X-rays in his possession. However, to Dr. Okun's surprise, Roderman had neither. Since Roderman left his X-rays in California, it was necessary that he take another series. Respondent proceeded with the RC therapy by completely irrigating and drying the canal in tooth 11, filing it to a number 60 file, sterilizing it with CPNC and applying a temporary filling. These steps were in conformity with generally accepted and prevailing standards for dentists. On January 14, 1983, the patient returned for his regularly scheduled visit. He was first "reeducated" on proper oral hygiene and given a stimulator and gum brush. Dr. Okun next examined tooth 11 and the apical area and found the patient had no symptoms of discomfort, pain or abscess. There was no clinical sign of infection. In view of this, respondent decided to fill the canal with a permanent filling. After removing the temporary filling, respondent observed that the tooth was dry and clean, did not smell and had no exudate. Accordingly, he filled the canal with guttapercha and paste. A periapical X-ray taken after the filling revealed that there was a slight overfill of guttapercha. However, this did not appear to be unusual, excessive or severe, and it did not impinge on any vital structures. Respondent advised Roderman the canal was "a little overfilled" and that, if Roderman intended to return to California, he must get "immediate attention" if he experienced any discomfort. Roderman was told further that when he returned to respondent's office, respondent would monitor the tooth to ensure no problems occurred. Doctor Okun also decided to place a post into the canal on tooth 11 as an anchor for a new crown. Finally, the patient was given a new temporary bridge for teeth numbers 3-14. On January 17, 1983, Roderman returned to Dr. Okun's office and was given the final prep and impression for a new twelve-unit fixed porcelain to metal cantilever bridge. The patient was also given Tylenol with codeine and was told to rinse and massage his gums because of a slight gum irritation caused by the bridge fitting. On January 20, Roderman made a final visit to respondent's office. A color selection (shade) for the bridge was taken and Roderman took a bite registration. The bridge was thereafter sent to the laboratory to be fabricated. However, Roderman left for California and never returned to respondent's office to pick up his permanent bridge. At no time during any visits in January 1983 did Roderman complain of pain or discomfort regarding tooth 11. Root Canal Therapy or Heresy? Three experts testified concerning the level of skill and treatment exercised by respondent while treating Roderman. The Board expert concluded that Dr. Okun did not conform to minimal, acceptable standards. Conversely, respondent's two experts reached the opposite conclusion. The pertinent findings relative to this testimony are set forth below. To support its allegation that Dr. Okun violated various statutory provisions while treating Roderman, the Board presented the testimony of Dr. Jerry W. Zimmerman, a general dentist in North Miami Beach, Florida, since 1970 and who has performed "hundreds" of endodontic procedures during his career. Before reaching an opinion, Dr. Zimmerman reviewed the pertinent patient records in question and "did copious research into books, journals (and) magazines" because of the "complex nature of the case." He acknowledged later the case was not complex and involved a relatively simple endodontic procedure. According to Dr. Zimmerman, Dr. Okun fell "far short" of the minimum standards of performance in the treatment of Roderman. As to Dr. Okun leaving Roderman's RC open after the November 26, 1982, visit, Dr. Zimmerman noted that, because of the likelihood of bacteria being introduced into the tooth, he would not leave the tooth open unless the patient was experiencing extreme pain and had a large amount of exudate. Even then, the witness suggested the tooth should be resealed within the next 24 to 48 hours. Unlike respondent, Dr. Zimmerman did not believe an imminent airplane trip was justification to leave the tooth open. In reaching this conclusion, the witness assumed the patient had no pain or exudate and that the tooth was not sensitive or tender when percussed. He assumed further, albeit incorrectly, that the patient was not instructed to see a dentist as soon as he got to California. Doctor Zimmerman believed that respondent erred by continuing the RC therapy on January 13, 1983, and promptly closing it the following day. This conclusion was based on the assumption that the tooth was infected after being open for six weeks and that a minimum of three visits would be necessary to completely eradicate the bacteria and sterilize the canal. It was also based upon technical literature which suggested that a comparable waiting period was appropriate. It should be noted, however, that other technical literature of record supports the practice of instrumenting and closing in the same session abscessed teeth that had been left open for drainage. The state's expert opined further that Dr. Okun was negligent and incompetent by failing to prescribe antibiotics for Roderman on January 14, 1983. This opinion was predicated upon a belief that the canal space could not be adequately sterilized in the one visit on January 13, and that by overfilling the canal on January 14, bacteria would have been pushed through the apex of the tooth. Doctor Zimmerman characterized the degree of overfilling by respondent as "gross" and contended (incorrectly) that guttapercha cannot be resorbed by the body. However, he later conceded the material could be resorbed. The witness stated that he would have removed the excess guttapercha in a nonsurgical manner by simply melting it with a chemical. The witness added that respondent complicated matters by placing a post in the canal which prevented the use of this nonsurgical technique. However, as pointed out in other findings, the melting procedure was unavailable in this case due to the location of the overfill and the hazardous nature of the chemical. Finally, the expert concluded that Dr. Okun was incompetent in his work by failing to clean the canal with any lavages after it was reamed. He based this conclusion on the records which indicated that the canal was simply "filed to number 60 and closed." Testifying on behalf of respondent was Dr. Harry Blechman, a board certified endodontist and presently the professor and chairman of the Department of Endodontics at the New York University School of Dentistry and onetime dean of the school from 1967 through 1975. After reviewing the patient records and X-rays, and interviewing respondent, Dr. Blechman concluded that respondent's care and treatment of the patient were in conformity with the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. According to Dr. Blechman, it was acceptable for respondent to leave Roderman's tooth open after removing the decay on November 26, 1982. This was because the patient was about to embark on a lengthy airplane trip, was experiencing tenderness after having the tooth percussed, had been given a precautionary supply of antibiotics, and had access to a dentist in the state to which he was traveling. The witness suggested that, by leaving with his tooth closed, the patient would risk a "blowup" and possible serious complications. As to the charge that Dr. Okun erred by permanently closing and overfilling the tooth without the use of antibiotics in too short a period of time, Dr. Blechman responded first that, if the tooth is asymptomatic (free of symptoms), comfortable and dry, there is no time sequence for a permanent filling of a RC. Concluding those circumstances were present, the witness found it was acceptable for respondent to permanently close the tooth on January 14 after filing the tooth on January 13, even though the tooth had been left open previously for six weeks. Secondly, the witness noted that overfills occur "with a great deal of frequency," and while a concern, do not constitute "a risk to the health" of the patient. In this case, he found the overfill did not put Roderman at risk. He added that an overfill by itself is within acceptable standards for a dentist. Finally, the expert observed that antibiotics were not necessary since there was no sign of infection. Doctor Blechman found nothing improper by respondent's failing to open the periapical tissue and removing the guttapercha after learning the tooth had been overfilled. Indeed, the witness opined that Dr. Okun exercised good judgment by opting to see if the situation would resolve itself through the resorption process rather than resorting to a surgical procedure, particularly since the tooth was asymptomatic. He disagreed also with Dr. Zimmerman's conclusion that, without a post in the canal, the guttapercha could be safely removed by a nonsurgical procedure. Also testifying on behalf of respondent was Dr. Rupert C. Bliss, a general dentist in Jacksonville, Florida, and licensed since 1956. Doctor Bliss is a former chairman of the Board of Dentistry and still serves under contract as a part-time consultant to the Board. He concluded that, based upon a review of the records and X-rays and a discussion of the matter with respondent, respondent adhered to minimum standards of performance for a dentist while treating Roderman. According to Dr. Bliss, respondent's decision to leave Roderman's tooth open on November 26 was strictly a clinical judgment. Based upon the expert's knowledge of the facts of the case, this witness would have also left Roderman's tooth open. Doctor Bliss opined that there is no set time between temporarily and permanently closing a tooth and that the one-day interval used by respondent was permissible. He also pointed out that the medication applied to the tooth on January 13 was sufficient to sterilize and clean the tooth for permanent closure on January 14. Since there was no indication of an infection present in the tooth when Roderman returned to respondent's office on January 13, 1983, he concluded that antibiotics were not required. The expert did not characterize the degree of overfill in this case as being objectionable or unusual since it did not impinge on any vital structures. As to the allegation that respondent erred by not opening the periapical tissue and removing the overfill, Dr. Bliss observed that surgery is not required unless the overfill fails to resolve itself through the resorption process. The witness suggested further that the use of a nonsurgical procedure, as suggested by witness Zimmerman, was not practical here since the guttapercha extended slightly beyond the confines of the canal, and under these circumstances the use of chloroform to melt the material would be a very risky procedure. Finally, Dr. Bliss opined that the placement of a post in an overfilled tooth was in conformity with minimal recognized standards since it did not impede surgical access to the overfill material and was necessary to anchor the crown. The undersigned has resolved the conflicts in the above testimony in respondent's favor. In doing so, the undersigned finds respondent's experts to be more credible and persuasive, particularly since the testimony of the Board's witness was grounded on certain erroneous assumptions. Accordingly, it is found that respondent met the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance while treating patient Roderman.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the amended administrative complaint filed against respondent be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of August 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 19th day of August, 1988.
The Issue Should Respondent's license as a dentist in Florida be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein?
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matter in issue herein, the Petitioner, Board, was the state agency responsible for the regulation and supervision of the dental profession and the licensing of dentists in Florida. Respondent was a licensed dentist holding license Number DN 0010500. At all times pertinent to the matters in issue herein, Respondent was actively engaged in the practice of dentistry at his office located at 1429 Kass Circle, Suite A, Spring Hill, Florida. In mid-January, 1990, Henrietta Pollio, then a 69 year old widow, had two teeth pulled by a Dr. Pikos, to whom she had been referred by her daughter, a patient. Dr. Pikos recommended she see Respondent for replacements for the pulled teeth, and on January 22, 1990, she saw Respondent in his office. At that time, Ms. Pollio told him she had had two teeth pulled and already wore a bridge. She initially wanted only her lower denture replaced, but Respondent suggested she replace both the lower and upper for a better fit. She agreed. In March, 1990, Mrs. Pollio went to the Respondent's office for impressions for the new dentures. In the interim, she continued to wear her existing dentures which she had worn for several years. When she got her first set of dentures from Respondent that same month, she didn't like how they looked or how they fit. She told him so, and he agreed to make her another set. When Respondent gave her her second set of dentures, she did not think they fit any better than the first set he had made for her. They were uncomfortable and she felt the lower denture was too loose. When she told him about this, he said that teeth were supposed to be placed on gums. She disagreed, saying she wanted them to be comfortable so she could chew. She claims he merely stated to her that this was the way they were to fit. He did, however, attempt to adjust both sets over the several times she saw him. Each time she went for an adjustment, Respondent would make some change to the dentures and allegedly said he would get them right even if it took 5 years. However, when he offered to reline the second set of dentures, as he had done to the first set, she refused because she didn't want a reline. She wanted the teeth to be made to fit properly. In all, Dr. Gibney performed 27 adjustments on Mrs. Pollio's dentures. According to Dr. Cadle, it is not routine for a dentist to provide a second set of denture for an unsatisfied patient but it is not unheard of. This fact and the numerous adjustment are, in his opinion, evidence that Respondent was trying to satisfy his patient. By December, 1990, Mrs. Pollio was still complaining to Respondent about the fit of the teeth he had made for her. Respondent claims she wanted a complete partial refund of the amount she had paid. He ultimately offered her a refund of $550.00 if she would sign a release and she decided to think about the offer. When she went back the next day, she claims the office was closed. She later again went to Respondent's office where his assistant, Ginger, handed her a letter terminating the doctor/patient relationship. It was after she received that letter that she agreed to accept the money Respondent had offered but she still refused to sign a release because of the "pain and suffering he had caused her." Dr. Donald I. Cadle, Jr., a dentist practicing in New Port Richey since 1971, former Chairman of the Board of Dentistry, and an expert in general dentistry, was retained by the Board to evaluate Respondent's performance in this case. He reviewed Respondent's records regarding his treatment of Mrs. Pollio including correspondence and x-rays, and the investigative report rendered herein. He also examined Mrs. Pollio on October 14, 1991 and on the basis of all the above had sufficient information on which to base an opinion of the Respondent's work. His review of the lab procedure authorization forms presented to him reveals a lack of finish date on many individual forms. This date is required so that the dentist will know when to arrange for the patient to come back for the dentures. He also noted than on several forms the description of the patient and her condition was minimal but probably enough to be acceptable. On one form the Respondent failed to state how he wanted the teeth set in the mold, (occlusion, spacing, etc.). On other forms, Respondent failed to specify the material used and on some, there was no direction as to contour. As to Respondent's patient records, used to keep all pertinent information regarding a patient in one area, both the statute and the rules say they should include such information as the results and findings of the doctor's initial examination of the patient; a written diagnosis; and a treatment plan. In evaluating Respondent's records relating to Mrs. Pollio, Dr. Cadle found that the treatment notes were adequate as to procedures performed, (what he did in day to day treatment) but that the examination findings and charting of existing conditions were, in his opinion, inadequate. This information would have been determined in the examination at the initial appointment. Respondent's entry is "Denture consult - advised new F/F denture because patient is unable to function with existing F/F denture." In Dr. Cadle's opinion, the Respondent's entry fails to show detailed examination findings which can be found no place else. Also, he claims, the patient history and the dental history forms are inadequate. There is no evidence shown of sores, irritants or other abnormalities and there should be some explanation in the history as to why the patient checked "yes" to questions asked regarding condition. There should also be a diagnosis which relates to the dental conditions in the patient's mouth. Problems had been identified in Dr. Pikos' records, but these are not diagnoses and Dr. Cadle is of the opinion it is lax practice to accept another dentists observations. Dr. Pikos indicated to Respondent by letter that he had discussed some problems and possible alternatives with Mrs. Pollio and this letter was a part of Respondent's records. Nonetheless, Dr. Cadle felt this was not enough. Respondent also should have discussed all alternatives with her. In rebuttal, Respondent asserts that the use of the term "consult" in the records covers his discussion of implants, adhesives and surgery even though they are not specifically noted. He also claims he discussed her pain and other problems when he read the dental history form filled out by Mrs. Pollio's daughter. While it is found that Respondent engaged in the appropriate discussions with Mrs. Pollio, his records do not reflect that and, as such, are inadequate to clearly identify his diagnosis and treatment plan. Cadle found Respondent's treatment plan acceptable as such but other options which existed should have been discussed with the patient and noted in the records. None were so noted. Based on his review of all the available records, Dr. Cadle opined that Respondent's records failed to justify his treatment of Mrs. Pollio and did not meet the required standards as to examination findings and diagnosis. Dr. Cadle examined Mrs. Pollio on October 14, 1991 to evaluate the treatment provided by Respondent and the conditions existing in her mouth. In his report prepared after that examination he noted that the comparison between her old dentures, those she was wearing, and the new ones prepared for her by Respondent, (second set), showed a difference which related to her complaint. He found the maxilary portion of those done by Respondent to be inadequate as to the portion of the anterior teeth which were set differently in the old set, and this related to one of her problems. The "F" sound portion was too heavy and the "S" sound caused a slight whistle. The complaint that the anterior teeth were too long related to the way they were set - the inclination of the teeth. This gave her the feeling they were too big. All of this was visible in her mouth. He also believed the mandibular denture was inadequate because of an over-extension of the border. The edge of the denture extended beyond where it should stop. The reason for this was that the soft tissue in the area was attached higher on the ridge than would be expected. This could have been compensated for during the patient examination and diagnosis and noted in the treatment plan. The patient should have been advised of the condition and what its consequences could be. Respondent's records failed to show this was done. Taken together, Dr. Cadle was of the opinion that the dentures Respondent prepared were inadequate. There were actions he could have taken to correct this. At the initial examination and diagnosis he could have discussed the options available with the patient. Also, after construction of the dentures he could have corrected the maxilary denture by removing and resetting the six front teeth. He also could have reduced the mandibular borders. If that simple procedure had been done, according to Dr. Cadle, it might have resolved the problem. If he had contemplated doing this procedure, however, he would be required to warn Mrs. Pollio that to do it might reduce the strength of the denture and as a result, surgery might become a possibility. Dr. Cadle could find no evidence in the records that any of this was done except for a discussion toward the end of the doctor/patient relationship, but there was no notation as to what action he could take to correct any but one small part of the problem. None of the previous records showed any discussion of the problem or alternatives discussed. Based on the above, Dr. Cadle opined that Respondent's treatment of Mrs. Pollio failed to meet the minimum standards of performance as to both the maxillary and mandibular dentures. In that regard, the mental capacity of the patient should not enter into a determination of the standard of care to be provided. Dr. Ronald E. Myers practices dentistry in Spring Hill and is considered an expert in maxillofacial prosthodontics. He, too, reviewed the Respondent's records of his treatment of Mrs. Pollio and formed an opinion of Respondent's performance quite different from that of Dr. Cadle. He agrees with Cadle that Respondent's treatment records were acceptable for the treatment given but he opined, with regard to the lab requests, that there was sufficient data contained thereon to allow the lab technician to do what was required. A lab order is generally supplemented by either oral or written communications which permit the technician to know what is required. This has to be so since there is no way the dentist can write down all exact specifications on dentures. Here, the Respondent and the lab technician had an understanding of what the Respondent expected in each case as to types of acrylic, the base for the denture, and like matters, unless otherwise indicated. According to Mr. Eidenschink, the technician, he and Respondent had established certain basics as to materials and procedures to be used in all work done for Respondent. On the lab prescription, Respondent would specify what teeth he wanted, and frequently they would speak by phone about specific cases. This is, according to Myers, an accepted procedure. As to the lack of a return date, he admits they are lacking on the copies he saw. Evidence otherwise submitted indicates, however, that the slips examined by both experts, which came from the pad in the dentist's office, were duplicates whereas the original was given to the receptionist who set up a return appointment with the patient before sending that original, with a return date based on that appointment on it, to the lab. A substantial number of original lab slips, furnished by Respondent without objection by counsel for the Board subsequent to the hearing, all clearly reflected a finish date. As to the Respondent's chart dealing with Mrs. Pollio's existing condition, Dr. Myers admits the notes thereon are somewhat skimpy, but since Dr. Pikos' letter to Respondent indicated he had discussed the potential for surgery with Mrs. Pollio, Gibney could have relied on that. In any event, the diagnosis is there and the treatment plan evident is to fabricate complete new dentures. In his opinion, this is sufficient and meets standards. Based on all the above, Dr. Myers is of the opinion that Respondent's records, taken together, are adequate to meet the legal standards. Mrs. Pollio's undercut condition in her upper jaw did not contra- indicate full dentures. This condition does not always indicate the need for surgery. Here high tissue attachment in the front lower jaw can interfere with denture placement but a denture could be fabricated around it.. Psychologically, this can be a problem for denture wearers, many of whom, like Mrs. Pollio dislike wearing dentures and yearn for the days when they didn't have them. This being so, and coupled with her testy personality and her apparent inability to clearly comprehend the situation, Mrs. Pollio appears to be a difficult dental patient. Dr. Myers examined Mrs. Pollio on February 5, 1993. She brought both sets of dentures made for her by Respondent to the examination and was wearing her old dentures. He had her insert both sets of dentures made for her by Respondent and did speech tests and measurements with both. Then he mixed uppers and lowers from the sets in different combinations and when he asked her to give him the first set Respondent made, she gave him the lowers from both sets. Obviously, she was confused and she could not tell which was which from the feel in her mouth. Dr. Myers found the dentures to be made of high quality materials and fabricated to the "pleasure curve" Mrs. Pollio had developed in the old teeth. He did not care for the fit of the first set but this may have been due to the appearance instructions Mrs. Pollio gave to Respondent at that time. He found the second set to be "fine", however - fitting even better than her old set. As to the lower, the anterior flange was overextended into the mouth. This, however, could have been corrected by a minor procedure. Generally, this type of problem can be corrected if the patient and the dentist work together. Here, Myers feels Mrs. Pollio's frustration with the situation precluded this. The teeth were in the proper place, however, and with a possible realignments, they would have fit. Had Mrs. Pollio worked more with Respondent, he could have made them fit. The fact that Mrs. Pollio would go back to her old dentures from time to time could materially effect the fit of the new dentures because such a practice inhibits tissue adaptation. The current looseness of the dentures is due to tissue damage occurring during the past two years since Mrs. Pollio last saw Respondent. Dr. Myers is of the opinion that Respondent did all he could to help Mrs. Pollio accommodate to her new dentures. Unfortunately, it appears, she manipulated him. From all the evidence he observed, Dr. Myers also concluded that Respondent treated the patient properly. He is of the opinion that Respondent met community standards in both his dental records and history and the treatment given.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Dentistry finding Respondent, James W. Gibney, D.M.D., not guilty of incompetence or negligence and not guilty of both preparing inadequate work orders and failing to list examination findings and to chart existing conditions in his records, but guilty only of failing to include an adequate written diagnosis and treatment plan in his records, in violation of Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but dissatisfaction basis is as alleged by Mrs. Pollio. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as claimed by Mrs. Pollio. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Accepted in part and rejected in part. FOR THE RESPONDENT: No Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Louis Kwall, Esquire 133 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34615 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent, a licensed dentist, on the basis of alleged violations of paragraphs (m) and (x) of Section 466.028(1), Florida Statutes. The alleged violations are set forth in a two-count Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated facts2 The Respondent, Jack Saban, D.D.S., is now, and was at all material times, licensed as a dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 8257. The Respondent's address of record is 150 North University Drive, Suite 100, Plantation, Florida. The Respondent is not board- certified in any specialty. The Respondent provided dental care to Patient A.S. from April 3, 2000, to August 6, 2001. On or about June 14, 2001, Patient A.S., then a 41-year-old female, presented to Respondent for emergency treatment of severe pain in her tooth number 31, a lower right molar. On or about June 14, 2001, the Respondent began root canal therapy on Patient A.S.'s tooth number 31. The Respondent was able to treat the distal canal of Patient A.S.'s tooth number 31, but he could not enter the mesial canals of that tooth and he referred Patient A.S. to a specialist. On or about June 22, 2001, Patient A.S. returned to the Respondent for treatment, and the Respondent again attempted to enter the mesial canals by drilling on Patient A.S.'s tooth number 31. Facts based on evidence at the final hearing On June 14, 2001, Patient A.S. presented to the Respondent's office experiencing severe pain in a lower right molar, tooth number 31. On that date the Respondent began root canal therapy on tooth number 31. The Respondent was able to treat the distal canal of tooth number 31, but he could not enter the two mesial canals. The Respondent's drilling produced bleeding, which he noted as "mesio-lingual canal pulpitis." The Respondent believed that the subject tooth was hypercalcified; that is, that it contained excess dental tissue that closed off the root canals. During the treatment session on June 14, 2001, the Respondent sealed tooth number 31 with a temporary filling. Because of the secondary and tertiary reparative dentin which resulted from previous treatment of Patient A.S.'s tooth number 31, the Respondent believed the required endodontics were beyond his skill.3 Accordingly, the Respondent referred Patient A.S. to a specialist in endodontics. On June 15, 2001, Patient A.S. presented at the office of the endodontist (Dr. Green) to whom the Respondent had referred her, but she did not see Dr. Green. Later that same day, Patient A.S. presented to another endodontist, Dr. Kaplan. On that occasion, Dr. Kaplan performed a clinical examination and made an x-ray of the subject tooth. On the basis of the examination and the x-ray, Dr. Kaplan concluded that the floor of the pulp chamber of Patient A.S.'s tooth number 31 was very thin and was perhaps even perforated. Dr. Kaplan discussed his conclusions with Patient A.S. and discussed treatment possibilities with her, but Dr. Kaplan did not perform any treatment. On June 18, 2001, the Respondent spoke with Dr. Kaplan. Dr. Kaplan told him that Patient A.S.'s tooth number 31 was near perforation or was perforated, and that the patient had chosen not to be treated by Dr. Kaplan. On June 22, 2001, Patient A.S. returned to the Respondent's office with her husband and requested that the Respondent treat her tooth number 31. With Patient A.S.'s husband present, the Respondent discussed the treatment options which had previously been explained to the patient by Dr. Kaplan, and also reviewed the risks associated with treatment of the subject tooth. Patient A.S. and her husband insisted that the Respondent complete the root canal therapy on tooth number 31. Against his better judgment, the Respondent yielded to their requests and embarked upon further endodontic treatment of the subject tooth. During the Respondent's attempt to access the hypercalcified mesial canals, a perforation occurred in the furcation area.4 The Respondent again urged Patient A.S. and her husband to seek endodontic treatment of her tooth number 31 from an endodontic specialist. Instead of seeking treatment by an endodontic specialist, Patient A.S. returned to the Respondent's office on June 29, 2001, and again implored him to continue treating the subject tooth. On June 29, 2001, the distal canal was sealed, but entry into the mesial canals was not possible. On July 13, 2001, Patient A.S. again presented at the Respondent's office, and again he attempted to treat her tooth number 31. On that date, one last unsuccessful effort was made to enter the mesial canals. Each time Patient A.S. requested that the Respondent treat her tooth number 31, the Respondent recommended that she seek treatment from an endodontic specialist. The Respondent did not at any time advise Patient A.S. that he had perforated her tooth number 31. The Respondent's records of his treatment of Patient A.S. do not contain any mention of a perforation of the subject tooth prior to the notations on August 6, 2001, regarding the Respondent's conversation with Dr. Baker in which Dr. Baker told the Respondent that Patient A.S.'s tooth number 31 was perforated. When a dentist perforates a patient's tooth, the dentist should promptly inform the patient of the perforation, should promptly note in the treatment records that a perforation occurred, and should promptly refer the patient to a specialist to initiate reparative measures.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case to the following effect: Adopting all of the Findings of Fact in this Recommended Order, Adopting all of the Conclusions of Law in this Recommended Order, Dismissing the portion of Count One of the Administrative Complaint that is based on allegations regarding the lack of a treatment plan. Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of a violation of Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by reason of his failure to include in his treatment records that he had perforated the patient's tooth. Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of the violations of Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes, charged in Count Two of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Imposing the following penalties:7 Administrative fines in the total amount of $7,500.00; Probation for a period of one year on terms to be determined by the Board of Dentistry; and A requirement that the Respondent attend a course in dental record-keeping. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 31st day of January, 2004.
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)
Findings Of Fact Frank A. Velez, Jr., D.D.S. has been registered with the Florida State Board of Dentistry since 1967. His latest address on file with the Board is 4640 Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando, Florida. The records of the Board show no licensed hygienist with the same address as Velez or that any licensed personnel are employed by Velez. In November, 1973 Mrs. Margaret B. Laursen went to Dr. Velez for professional services. Velez performed a root canal and took impressions for a partial plate. When the patient returned for the bridge work to be inserted in her mouth Velez removed a tooth before putting in the plate. When the plate was inserted it did not fit and despite several visits to Dr. Velez for adjustment, the plate could not be worn because of the pain and discomfort caused with the plate in place. Finally, in August, 1974, she went to Dr. Barnes. Upon examination Dr. Barnes observed a large root tip which had been left in the cavity from which the tooth was extracted. This root tip was visible without x- ray. The root tip that had been removed and the x-ray showing the root tip were admitted into evidence as Exhibits 5 and 6. After extracting the root tip and adjusting the partial plate Dr. Barnes could not make the partial plate fit, largely because an extension had been added to the plate to take care of the space caused by the extraction of the molar from which the root tip had been left. Dr. Barnes further found that the crown which had been placed on the tooth used to anchor the partial plate had been cracked and the plate could not be securely attached thereto. Since the partial was sitting on top of the root tip at the time it was being fitted by Dr. Velez, the pain would not allow the partial to fit comfortably. Mrs. Estella Livermore saw a brochure from Dr. Velez on a bulletin board in the trailer park where she resided. Therein it said that he would make a full set of upper and lower dentures for $98. Needing dentures she visited Velez in January, 1976. Upon arrival she talked to Velez and the secretary who showed her two sets of teeth; one the $98 set and the deluxe version at $150. As a result of the conversation she authorized Velez to make her a $150 set. At this time Mrs. Livermore had been wearing dentures for about 30 years. On her initial visit impressions were taken and about a week later she went back when the plates were ready. When the new dentures were placed in her mouth she couldn't eat, drink, or talk with them. At Velez's insistence she tried to wear them, but couldn't even drink water with the teeth in. After complaining to Velez he stated that he would make another set. When the other set was prepared they appeared to fit worse than the first set. They were impossible to wear. She called Velez and he stated he couldn't do anything about it. Telephone calls to his office were answered by a recording. Subsequently, she and her husband went by his office to wait him out. When he appeared he was angry because she had not called for an appointment and wanted to know if she wanted him to take some material off the plates. When Mrs. Livermore replied that she didn't know, he took the teeth into his lab for a short while and when he returned shoved them in her mouth and escorted her out. His nurse told her if she came back he would charge her $10 per visit. The teeth still could not be used by Mrs. Livermore and when she complained to the dental society she was referred to Dr. Waldheim, Assistant Secretary Treasurer of the State Board of Dentistry. In February, l976 Dr. Waldheim examined Mrs. Livermore and found the dentures to be oversized with a poor occlusion. The dentures were inadequate for the patient and could not be adjusted to fit. Mrs. Georgia McCampbell visited Dr. Velez in late November, 1975 to have teeth pulled and dentures made. He took impressions of her teeth and approximately one week later when she returned several teeth were extracted and both upper and lower dentures were inserted. The lowers fit badly and would not stay in place. Her next appointment was one week later. During this period of time the dentures were burning and hurting very badly and when she went back for her appointment she did not see Dr. Velez, but was seen only by an assistant. By this time her gums inflamed and abscessed. She told the assistant she had an appointment with Dr. Velez, but was advised that since she was late for her appointment with Velez she could not see him. One of the assistants attempted to fit the dentures by putting them in, but they were hurting too much for her to wear. A few days later she went to Dr. Ford. When Dr. Ford examined Mrs. McCampbell he found the incision extended from second molar to second molar across the lower front part of her jaw. The wound was open and the jawbone was exposed. A pus-like material was observed in the gum. Her temperature was slightly elevated at 99.2 F. He treated her with antibiotics. Mrs. McCampbell advised Dr. Ford that she had teeth removed ten days before and had been back on three occasions but was unable to see the dentist. She could only see a dental assistant. Dr. Ford expressed the opinion that where six or eight teeth in a row are removed sutures would normally be indicated. Three days later upon her return she was beginning to heal and he removed some bone fragments from the jaw. The incision made when the teeth were removed healed in about three weeks. His examination of the dentures that had been made for Mrs. McCampbell showed they were too large and the jaw would not properly close with the dentures in the mouth. Dr. George A. Woodruff, D.O.S., in Titusville knew Dr. Velez when he was practicing in Titusville some two and a half to three years ago and had patients in common with Velez. One of these patients, Sue Flenniken, visited his office in May, 1972 with gum abscess. She advised him that Velez had proposed to treat her with a root canal. In Dr. Woodruff's opinion a root canal would not have helped in her case, as the gum was abscessed. Some two months later the tooth flared up again and extraction was required. Another client shared with Dr. Velez was one Hazel Todd. She was experiencing problems with a Velez-constructed bridge held by three teeth on which root canals had been done by Dr. Velez. Upon examination Dr. Woodruff found the root canal treatment inadequate. One was underfilled just short of the tip of the root, the other two overfilled with the filling sticking out of the end of the root. This was clearly visible in the x-ray. Dr. Woodruff opined, that the three root canals done at the same time on three teeth in a row was contraindicated. Normally when a patient has sensitivity in an area proper treatment would be to narrow down the sensitivity and then do a root canal on the tooth most suspect to see if that cured the problem before proceeding to treat the other teeth. Mrs. Amelia Thomas visited Dr. Velez in June, l976 for replacement dentures. After she paid half of the quoted price a dental assistant took the impressions from which the new dentures were made. On this visit Dr. Velez did not take any impressions. When she returned a week or ten days later to pick up the teeth she was advised that she had to pay the balance of the amount owed on the teeth prior to having the teeth fitted. When she questioned paying for the teeth before trying them Dr. Velez told her abruptly that is the way that he did it. After she made the balance of the payment the teeth were tried in her mouth. They did not fit well and she could not bite comfortably. Velez took part of the material off the teeth and told her to try them out and come back a week or so later for an adjustment. Although she tried to wear the teeth she couldn't talk or eat with them. She considered they were too large and her jaws would not properly close. When she went back to Dr. Velez with her complaint he told her that he had made the teeth to fit and that she was going to have to wear them. She offered to pay him more if he would make another set that did fit but he declined. Velez then brought in another man who checked her teeth and took them out to the lab to work on. About an hour later Velez advised her that he would make her another set of plates and he took impressions to do so. He also asked for her old plate to be left there for a couple of days which she declined to do because she felt she could not get along without them. She did not return for the second set of teeth because she had become uneasy about the work Dr. Velez had done and stopped payment on her second check. Mrs. Thomas has worn dentures for approximately 40 years and this is the first time a dentist had asked her to leave her old dentures for a pattern. Alfred W. Langley saw Dr. Velez in January, 1976 to have a set of dentures made. Dr. Velez took the impressions and when Langley returned approximately one week later for fitting, the teeth fit so badly that Velez would not let Langley out of the office with them. Velez took a second set of impressions but when Langley returned those teeth fit no better and a third impression was taken. When the third set of teeth was made, Langley took those home with him but they did not fit. They wouldn't stay in place and he could not talk with them. Subsequently he visited the consumer protection agency and obtained a letter from the dental board and from the consumer protection agency. When he confronted Dr. Velez with these letters Velez returned the money he had paid for the teeth. These letters from Dr. Waldheim and from the State Attorney's office were received into evidence as Exhibits 7 and 8. Mrs. Louise Rodgers visited Dr. Velez in February, 1976 experiencing problems with her teeth. Another dentist had wanted to do root canals on some twenty-odd teeth but she didn't feel she could afford the approximately $4,000 she had been advised that treatment would cost. She visited Dr. Velez to see if extraction and dentures would be cheaper. Dr. Velez took x-rays and impressions prior to extracting the teeth. On March 4, 1976 Dr. Velez extracted 23 teeth and put in the plates that he had constructed from the earlier impressions. She immediately inquired if the upper plate was supposed to be as loose as the one in her mouth appeared to be. Under instructions she kept the plate in all afternoon but had to hold her finger on the plate for 3 or 4 hours until the swelling was sufficient to hold the plate in place. Later when she took them out to clean her mouth she couldn't get the plate back in because of the large bone in the way. The following Monday she called the office and was advised to come in on the 11th, some 7 days after the extractions. Dr. Velez was not there and one of the girls in the office tried to put the teeth in but couldn't. Mrs. Rodgers returned the following day and saw Dr. Velez who removed the bone fragment that was in the way. He tried to put the teeth back in but there was too much swelling and the upper part of the jaw was very irritated. When she returned on the 18th of March her gums were still tender but there was no longer any bleeding. On that visit Dr. Velez did some grinding on the teeth so they could be put in her mouth; however, they would not stay in place. Velez advised her to get something gummy and sticky to hold them in. She tried to wear the teeth but they felt too big and would not stay up. She went back on the 23rd of March complaining about her teeth not staying up. She was advised she had to get used to them but he would remake them if she would pay an additional fee of $78. When she called on April 22nd and asked to talk to Dr. Velez the girl said he was extremely busy and couldn't come to the phone. The receptionist advised that she would make her another appointment but she should wait for three weeks. During this time she was still trying to wear the dentures but couldn't eat with them, talk with them, and the uppers kept falling down. When she did return for her final appointment he advised she was just going to have to wear them until she could get used to them. After complaining to the Dental Board Mrs. Rodgers was advised to visit Dr. Waldheim. When Dr. Waldheim examined Mrs. Rodgers in June, 1976 he found that her gums had healed but the teeth did not fit. The occlusial relationship was badly off and the teeth could not be adjusted to fit. Dr. Waldheim further opined that extracting 23 teeth at one time and not seeing the patient until 10 days thereafter was very poor dental practice. In his opinion the patient should always be seen the following day if as many as 23 teeth were extracted. Mrs. Sarah Gier visited Dr. Velez in February, 1976 to have new dentures made. Velez advised her that she could have the $98 set or the $150 deluxe set, but that the $150 teeth were worth approximately $600. She selected the $150 set. At this visit Dr. Velez took impressions and when she returned on February 19 for the teeth the upper dentures appeared all right. Dr. Velez acknowledged that the bottom dentures were wrong and would have to be made over. He then took impressions for the lower plate but when she returned for them they didn't fit. Dr. Velez instructed her to try and wear them. She tried but couldn't wear them because they hurt too badly. When she returned on March 1, a boy in the office removed her teeth, took them back to the lab to work on them. When he returned they still did not fit and he made a second adjustment. When Dr. Velez appeared he advised her that she would probably have to use powder and that it may be several weeks before she would get used to the teeth. Inasmuch as each visit was now costing $10 she didn't feel that she could make more visits. On March 4th Mrs. Gier called and asked for her money back. Initially the receptionist said all right, but called back and advised that Dr. Velez had changed his mind and could not give her money back. Subsequently when she and her husband stopped by to see Velez he told her if she didn't leave he would call the police. Later she visited Dr. Waldheim, to whom she had been referred by the Dental Board. Dr. Waldheim found the dentures did not fit as they were too large and the jaws could not close to their natural position. Using the witness as a model Dr. Waldheim had her insert the teeth at the hearing. It was clearly evident that the jaws were extended by the teeth and the lips would not close. In Dr. Waldheim's opinion those teeth could never be made to fit. In February, 1976 Mr. Joseph Marrone visited Dr. Velez to have dentures made. He had heard that Dr. Velez was reasonable and the next door neighbor had recommended Dr. Velez. He had a partial plate held by three teeth on the, bottom that needed to be pulled. When Dr. Velez examined him Marrone was advised it would be better to pull the bottom and top teeth and make a full set of dentures. On the first visit Dr. Velez made impressions for the lower plate. On Mr. Marrone's second visit the lower plate was ready and was placed in his mouth. Although the receptionist told him not to take them out they hurt so badly that he had to. When he returned a few days later two girls in the office examined his teeth and made adjustments on them. However, the teeth never fit and were causing bruises and sores in the gums. He could not eat with them. Thereafter Dr. Velez made a second full set of teeth, but they too did not fit. After several adjustments were made Velez advised this would be the last time he could adjust them and if they didn't work he could do nothing more about it. Mr. Marrone then asked him to return his money `and he would go to a dentist who could prepare him a set of dentures he could wear. When Marrone subsequently complained to the dental board he was referred to Dr. Waldheim. Dr. Waldheim's examination of the dentures showed the lower plate extended and it could not be corrected to fit. Mr. Marrone was then referred to another dentist who was able to adjust the upper plate that had been made by Dr. Velez to fit but it was necessary to make a new lower plate for Mr. Marrone. With respect to the various patients of Dr. Velez that had been seen by Dr. Waldheim due to improperly fitting dentures, Dr. Waldheim expressed the opinion that the most probable cause of the ill-fitting dentures was in the manner in which the impressions were taken or in the material used in taking the impressions. If improper impression material was used it could have changed from the time the impression was taken until the time it was used for the mold for the dentures. None of the dentures made for the patients of Dr. Velez that were seen by Dr. Waldheim could have been adjusted so they would fit. Connie Bragdon and Marie Minzenberger worked in Dr. Velez's office in 1975 and 1976. Both had received training from Dr. Velez, both worked as Dr. Velez's assistants, both took impressions from which dentures were made, and both adjusted dentures. They were instructed to give a copy of the letter, admitted into evidence as Exhibit 9, to all patients. These letters contained a map showing the location of the office on the back and advised the prices that the doctor charged for various services. Letters similar to those in Exhibits 2, 4 and 9 were mailed to patients who called and requested information. Rebecca Velez, wife of Dr. Velez, testified over the objection of the attorney for Respondent, who objected on grounds of the husband and wife privilege. Mrs. Velez had worked in the office for approximately one and one half years in 1975 to early 1976. She too had received no previous training. She acknowledged that Exhibits 2 and 4 were very similar to those that were in the office and were given to all patients who visited the office. Dr. Henry Gagliardi, D.D.S. is a dental educator who established a dental hygiene school at the Florida Junior College in Jacksonville. Dr. Gagliardi defined a dental auxiliary as an individual working with or for a dentist. This person can be either a dental assistant or a hygienist; however, the latter requires a license and two years training. A dental assistant may be employed with no preparation or training. A hygienist can scale teeth, use instruments in the mouth, and take impressions. A person not licensed by the dental board may not legally take impressions from which a prosthetic device will be made, but they may take impressions for diagnostic purposes only. A dental assistant may not alter a prosthetic appliance (denture). If an extension on a prosthetic device causes problems to the patient the diagnosis and correction of this problem must be done by a dentist. Since the determination of the accuracy of the bite on a prosthetic device is very important, this is another task that must be done by the dentist and not by an auxiliarist. Dentures are often placed into the oral cavity immediately after extraction and when so done they act as a splint until the cavities heal. In the normal process gums will shrink following extraction of teeth and thereafter the dentures will require adjustment. Improperly fitting dentures can cause lack of equilibrium in the jaws, sore gums, and sores in the mouth. In December, 1973 Mrs. Norma Laursen, daughter-in-law of Margaret B. Laursen, visited Dr. Velez on an emergency basis to have a broken tooth repaired. Dr. Velez was unable to take her case at that time. Several months later she and her husband received an envelope in the mail containing a letter which was introduced into evidence as Exhibit 2. The introduction of Exhibit 2 was objected to on the grounds that there was no evidence that it was signed by Dr. Velez or sent by Dr. Velez. Ruling on this motion was deferred at that time. Since subsequent exhibits indicate that this letter was one of many of a similar kind that were distributed to various individuals, the objection is overruled and Exhibit 2 is admitted into evidence. Robert E. Laursen corroborated the testimony of his wife, Norma. James E. Stone, of Titusville visited Dr. Velez while Velez was practicing in Titusville some two and one half to three years ago. He had chipped a tooth over the week-end and went in to see Dr. Velez for emergency repairs on a following Monday. Dr. Velez took x-rays, filed the tooth down, and advised Mr. Stone that in the future he may need a root canal. Dr. Velez was never his family dentist. Some months later he received in the mail a letter which was offered into evidence as Exhibit 4. Mrs. Stone corroborated the testimony of Mr. Stone with respect to the receipt of Exhibit 4 in the mail. Exhibit 4 was objected to on the same grounds as Exhibit 2 and at the time the ruling on the objection was deferred. For the same reasons given above, Exhibit 4 is now admitted into evidence. Six witnesses, Susan Weiler, Daryl DeVevc, Gustav Jicha, Daisy Smith, Robert B. Smith, and Janice Sidley testified on behalf of Dr. Velez. All had received treatment from Dr. Velez and considered him to be an excellent dentist who did very fine work for each of them. Some had experienced difficulties with dentures made by other dentists, but those prepared by Dr. Velez were excellent. A series of commendatory letters addressed to Dr. Velez were admitted into evidence as Exhibit 13. Attached thereto is an affidavit signed by some 57 former patients to the effect that Dr. Velez had performed dental work on them and they were completely satisfied with his service, his professional conduct and competence as a dentist. Copies of various certificates held by Dr. Velez were admitted into evidence as Composite Exhibit 14.
