Findings Of Fact Joseph L. Ratchford is a graduate of the University of Georgetown School of Dentistry and took the Florida dental exam in June, 1984. The clinical, or practical, portion of the dental exam consists of ten procedures and the examinee must obtain a total combined weighted grade of 3.0 to pass the clinical portion of the exam. Petitioner received a total overall grade of 2.96 and has questioned the grades he received on two of the ten procedures. In grading the clinical portion of the exam, three examiners separately review and grade each procedure performed by the examinees. At each examination, approximately twelve to thirty examiners are used, and three hundred to four hundred candidates are examined. Each examiner must successfully complete an eight to twelve hour standardization exercise during which they are trained on the grading scale, procedures, and the criteria to be used in grading the clinical portion of the exam. The Board of Dentistry determines the criteria to be used in grading the exams and the grading scale. A perfect score is a "5" and a complete failure is a "O". Examiners are chosen by the Board of Dentistry based upon their successful completion of the standardization exercise and must also have been licensed in Florida for at least five years. Petitioner received grades of 2, 3, and 5 from the three examiners grading the Periodontal procedure on his exam. This resulted in a grade of 3.33 on the Periodontal procedure. Petitioner objects to the grading of this procedure due to the wide disparity in the three examiners' grades. The periodontal procedure is performed on a live patient and is an evaluation of the patient's teeth, root structure, and supporting structures. In grading this procedure, five criteria are used: Presence of stain on assigned teeth. Presence of supra-gingival calculus on assigned teeth. Presence of sub-gingival calculus on assigned teeth. Root roughness on assigned teeth. Tissue management. While several of these criteria are easily observable, criteria (c) and (d) are not, and in fact are sometimes hard to distinguish from each other. The grading system requires two points to be taken off when sub-gingival calculus is present on the assigned teeth (criteria c), and allows one to four points to be deducted for root roughness on the assigned teeth (criteria d). Examiner 10 gave Petitioner a grade of 2 since the examiner found Petitioner was deficient on criteria (a), (c), (d) and (e). A grade of 2 is appropriate with these deficiencies, although such a grade may even be a bit high. Examiner 10 had participated in seven exams prior to the one in question and a post-exam evaluation of all examiners shows that Examiner 10 ranked 6th out of 18 examiners in terms of grading accuracy. Examiner 35 gave Petitioner a grade of 3 since the examiner found Petitioner was deficient on criteria (c). A grade of 3 is mandatory is this situation since the presence of subgingival calculus requires two points to be deducted from the grade. Examiner 35 had participated in no previous exams but ranked 7th out of 18 examiners in terms of grading accuracy, according to a post-exam evaluation of all examiners. Examiner 82 gave Petitioner a perfect score of 5, noting no deficiencies. This was the second exam Examiner 82 had participated in and he ranked 17th out of 18 examiners in terms of grading accuracy. Therefore, the perfect score which Petitioner received from Examiner 82 is the least reliable of the three grades on the Periodontal procedure since Examiner 82 had the worst ranking for accuracy among these three examiners, and was next to last among all examiners. On the Cast Class II Onlay Prep procedure, Petitioner received grades of 1, 0, and 1. This resulted in a grade of .66 on this procedure. Petitioner objects to the grading of this procedure. He states he performed this procedure the way he was taught in dental school, he alleges that the comments of the examiners conflict, and he feels it is impossible to measure tooth reduction without an opposing model. The Cast Class II Only Prep procedure is performed on a model, or mannequin, and consists of a restoration onlay wax-up on a posterior tooth. In grading this procedure five criteria are used: Outline form Depth Retention Gingival level Mutilation of opposing or adjacent teeth Examiners 6 and 37 gave Petitioner a grade of 1. Examiner 6 commented on his score sheet that "Distal box too deep and undercut; excess facial cusp reduction." Examiner 37 commented that outline form was poor and "no lingual cusp protection." Examiner 15 gave Petitioner a score of 0 and commented that there was insufficient reduction of the functional cusp. Each of these examiners had participated in at least two previous exams, and each had a high grading accuracy ranking according to a post-exam evaluation of all examiners. Specifically, Examiner 15 ranked 1st, Examiner 37 ranked 4th and Examiner 6 ranked 8th out of 18 examiners. The comments of the examiners do not conflict and, in fact, do support the grades given. An examination of the mannequin used by Petitioner to perform this procedure (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) by a dental consultant who has been a licensed dentist in Florida since 1971, and who was accepted as a expert on the technical aspects of the clinical portion of the dental exam, confirms and supports the grades given by the examiners on this procedure. The major and significant deficiency on this procedure was Petitioner's failure to adequately reduce the functional or lingual cusp, and excessive reduction of the facial cusp resulting in the subject tooth being almost level. Although it is difficult to determine the amount of tooth reduction without an opposing model, and no opposing model was used in the exam, the teeth used for the exam mannequin are manufactured in large quantities from the sane mold or form. Therefore, variations in these model teeth before the procedures are performed are not visible to the naked eye. Improper reductions on these teeth are visible to the examiners who have seen this procedure performed many times on these same models, both in exams and in the standardization procedure. According to an examination development specialist employed by Respondent who was accepted as an expert in testing and measurement, specifically for the dental exam, the grading of exams which involve hands-on, practical demonstrations of an examinee's skill level is not entirely objective. There is some subjectivity in assigning grades after criteria for each procedure are evaluated. This is why three examiners separately review each procedure, and the average of their grades is used. In addition, Respondent performs the standardization exercise prior to the exam and then evaluates each examiner's grades for accuracy after the exam in order to minimize disparity and the effects of subjectivity. Examiners who do not receive a good evaluation in the post-exam review are not used in subsequent exams. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law have been submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings of fact have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary. Specifically, Petitioner's proposed findings numbered 7, 10, 11 and 12 are rejected for these reasons, and also because they are not based upon competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order upholding the grades given to Petitioner and denying the relief sought by Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael S. Rywant, Esquire 240 Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On November 17, 1981, a one-count Administrative Complaint was filed against the Respondent Schopler which alleged that he placed crowns on teeth numbers 7, 8, 9 and 10 (right lateral incisor, right central incisor, left central incisor and left lateral incisor) of Lorraine Romano in an incompetent and negligent manner which constituted malpractice and which failed to meet minimum standards of performance in treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance in violation of Sections 466.24(2), (3)(c) and (3)(d), Florida Statutes, as continued forward as Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1979). At all times material hereto, the Respondent Schopler was a dentist licensed by the State of Florida having been issued license number DN 0005316 and was engaged in the practice of dentistry in Pompano Beach, Florida. During the period from August, 1978 until February 16, 1979, Dr. Gary Ozga was a dentist providing dental services as an independent contractor at Respondent's dental office in Pompano Beach. During the period from October, 1978 until March, 1979, Lorraine Romano went to Respondent's dental office in Pompano Beach and received dental treatment from Dr. Ozga. The dental treatment provided by Ozga to Ms. Romano included the preparation of Romano's teeth numbers 7, 8, 9 and 10 for permanent crowns, the taking of impressions for permanent crowns and the cementing of temporary crowns into Ms. Romano's mouth with temporary cement. The amount of compensation which Dr. Ozga would normally have received for the crown work on Romano was reduced by one-third by the Respondent to reflect the fact that Dr. Ozga did not cement the permanent crowns into Ms. Romano's mouth. On or about March 13, 1979, the Respondent Schopler delivered permanent crowns to Ms. Romano for her teeth numbers 7, 8, 9 and 10, cementing them in with temporary cement. On May 1, 1979, Ms. Romano visited the Respondent Schopler's dental office to complain concerning the size and color of her permanent crowns. In response to these complaints, the Respondent Schopler removed, recontoured and changed the color of the crowns. On May 14, 1979, the Respondent Schopler recemented the permanent crowns into Ms. Romano's mouth. The crowns on Ms. Romano's teeth numbers 7, 8, 9 and 10 had poor gingival marginal adaptation which could in time produce problems in the gums and teeth. The crown on Ms. Romano's left lateral incisor, number 10, had open margins on the lingual and mesial aspects of the tooth. An open margin on a crown creates a pocket under the tooth which could lead to recurrent decay. The crown on Ms. Romano's left central incisor, number 9, had a margin which was short of the gingivival margin and which was open on the mesial aspect of the tooth. When the margin is open as was Ms. Romano's, a metal explorer can be placed between the metal in the crown and the tooth. This results in an unattractive appearance and the possibility of recurrent decay. The crown on Ms. Romano's right lateral incisor, number 7, had a margin which was short of the gingivival margin on the facial aspect of the tooth and which was open on the mesial aspect. The actions of the Respondent Schopler in cementing ill-fitting and discolored crowns into Ms. Romano's mouth failed to meet prevailing standards of peer performance in the Fort Lauderdale/Broward County area. The unrefuted testimony of the state's expert witnesses, Drs. Dixon and Diamond was that the permanent crowns on Ms. Romano's teeth failed to meet minimum standards of dental performance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent Schopler's license to practice dentistry be suspended for two (2) months. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Weins, Esquire ABRAMS ANTON ROBBINS RESNICK SCHNEIDER & MAGER, P.A. 2021 Tyler Street Post Office Box 650 Hollywood, Florida 33022 Fred Varn, Executive Director Florida Board of Dentistry Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner's licensure examination challenge should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a dentist who seeks licensure to practice dentistry in the State of Florida and who was a candidate for the dental examination administered by Respondent in December 1990. Each candidate for licensure is given three opportunities to present a patient who presents certain minimal periodontal problems upon whom the candidate can demonstrate his or her proficiency in periodontics. Rule 21G- 2.013, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (2)(b) ... It is the applicant's responsibil- ity to provide a patient who is at least 18 years of age and whose medical history permits dental treatment. In order that the examination may be conducted in an efficient and orderly manner, an applicant will be allowed no more than three attempts to qualify a patient during the specified check-in period for each procedure requiring a patient. The candidate is required to select five teeth that meet certain criteria from the candidate's first patient. Rule 21G-2.013, Florida Administrative Code, provides those criteria, in pertinent part, as follows: (4) The grading of the clinical portion of the dental examination shall be based on the following criteria: * * * (b) Periodontal exercise on a patient with a minimum of 5 teeth, none of which shall have a full crown restoration, all of which shall have pockets at least 4 mm. in depth with obvious sub-gingival calculus detectable by visual or tactile means and radiographic evidence of osseous destruction; at least one tooth shall be a multi-rooted molar which shall be in proximal contact with at least one other tooth; none of the 5 teeth shall be primary teeth. All calculus appearing on radiographs must be detectable by visual or tactile means. The patient is thereafter examined by two examiners who are dentists to determine whether each selected tooth meets the criteria. If the examiners determine that one or more of the teeth selected do not meet the criteria, the candidate has a second opportunity and may select additional teeth from patient one, or the candidate may present patient two and select five teeth from the new patient. If the examiners determine that one or more of the teeth selected on his second opportunity do not meet the criteria, the candidate has a third opportunity and may select additional teeth from patient two, or the candidate may present patient three and select five teeth from that third patient. If the examiners determine that one or more of the teeth selected on his third opportunity do not meet the criteria, the candidate receives, pursuant to Rule 21G-2.013(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, a score of zero on the periodontics portion of the examination. For her first opportunity, Petitioner presented Patient #1 and selected teeth 13, 14, 19, 20, and 21. Examiners 187 and 054 examined the five teeth selected by Petitioner and rejected teeth 13, 20, and 21. Neither of these examiners testified and the reasons for the rejection of these three teeth were not given. Patient #1 had been used by Petitioner during the June 1990 administration of the examination. The five teeth selected from Patient #1 in the June 1990 examination had been accepted, but the teeth that had been accepted did not include teeth 13, 20, or 21. For her second opportunity, Petitioner presented Patient #2 and selected teeth 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23. Examiners 176 and 080 examined these five teeth and rejected teeth 19, 20, and 23. Neither of these examiners testified and the reasons for the rejection of these three teeth were not given. For her third opportunity, Petitioner again used Patient #2, but substituted teeth 3, 29, and 30 for the teeth that had been rejected in opportunity two, so that the selected teeth were 3, 21, 22, 29, and 30. Examiners 162 and 195 rejected teeth 3, 29, and 30. Neither of these examiners testified and the reasons for the rejection of these three teeth were not given. Petitioner thereafter received a zero on the periodontal portion of the examination, which greatly contributed to her failing the examination. Petitioner received a final grade of 2.51 on the examination. She needed a score of 3.00 to pass the examination. Each of the examiners who are used by Respondent in the administration of the dental examinations is a dentist who has been licensed in the State of Florida for a minimum of five years. Prior to the examination, the examiners undergo a day long standardization session during which the criteria to be applied and the proper method of application are taught. These dentists who serve as examiners examine the patient and the selected teeth from that patient independently of one another. Neither examiner knows the results of the examination performed by the other examiner and neither examiner knows the candidate who brought that patient to the examination. The purpose of the preliminary examination is to determine whether the teeth selected by the candidate meet the criteria established by Rule 21G- 2.013(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The form used by the examiners does not require that the reason for the rejection of a tooth to be stated. If both examiners reject a particular tooth, that tooth cannot be used by the candidate. Petitioner failed to present evidence upon which it can be concluded that the teeth she presented from the two patients she brought to the examination met the criteria for examination found in Rule 21G-2.013(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which denies Petitioner's challenge to the dental examination. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of August, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 26th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3086 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in the first numbered paragraph of Mr. Irigonegaray's letter dated August 8, 1991, are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the second numbered paragraph of Mr. Irigonegaray's letter dated August 8, 1991, are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The greater weight of the evidence was that the statistics cited by this paragraph were not designed to measure the professional qualifications of an examiner or how he or she grades a particular criteria. Therefore, these statistics do not support Petitioner's contention that the teeth she selected were arbitrarily or capriciously rejected. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. 1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-5 are adopted in material part by the Recommended. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Beatriz Jacobo 175 Fort Wilkinson Road Milledgeville, Georgia 31061
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department should give the Petitioner a passing grade on the June, 1993, Board of Dentistry Clinical Examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Jose P. Cruz, took the June, 1993, Board of Dentistry Clinical Examination. Initially, he received a grade of 2.91, whereas a grade of 3.0 is passing. He requested a review of his grades and received some additional credit, raising his grade for the examination to 2.98--still failing, but quite close to a passing grade. The examination grade is a weighted aggregate made up of scores given on each tested procedure, using a formula for weighting the scores on each procedure. The possible scores for each procedure range from zero to five, with a score of three considered "passing" for a particular procedure. Likewise, weighted aggregates can range from zero to five, with a grade of 3.00 passing. Each procedure performed by the Petitioner (and the other examinees) was graded by three graders from pool of qualified graders. The Petitioner's graders not only were qualified, but they also were "standardized." "Standardization" is a process undertaken on the day before the examination to explain to the prospective qualified graders for an examination the criteria for grading the different procedures and how the criteria should be evaluated. The purpose of "standardization" is to insure that the graders are looking at the criteria in the same way, so that ideally each grader would grade the same performance the same way. Averaging the scores given by three "standardized graders" increased the reliability of the examination results. Procedure 8 on the examination was a pin amalgam preparation on an ivorine (plastic) tooth. Criteria for the procedure include: (a) outline; (b) depth; (c) retention; (d) pin placement; and (e) mutilation of opposing adjacent teeth. Two of the three graders gave the Petitioner a score of 3 on Procedure 8; the other gave him a 2. Procedure 9 on the examination was a pin amalgam final restoration on an ivorine (plastic) tooth. Criteria for the procedure include: (a) functional anatomy - appropriate occlusal and interproximal anatomy; (b) proximal contour and contact - contact is considered present when resistance is met with specified floss given at the time of the exam; (c) margins; (d) gingival overhang - overhang is considered to be excess amalgam in either a proximal or gingival direction at the gingival cavosurface margin; and (e) ma[n]agement of soft tissue. Two of the three graders gave the Petitioner a score of 2 on Procedure 9; the other gave him a 3. An ivorine (plastic) tooth is not the same as a real tooth. It is easier to carve, but it does not have the major external and internal landmarks created by the enamel, dentin and nerve root of a real tooth. Without additional instructions, the latter differences make it difficult or impossible for the examinee or a grader to apply certain criteria. The evidence was that the examinees received an examination booklet that instructed them to "treat simulated teeth as normal human teeth, that is, assume the simulated teeth have the same enamel, dentin, and pupil morphology as human teeth." The instruction in the examination booklet, by itself, leaves some important questions unanswered. "Normal human teeth" differ in the thickness of the enamel, not only from one person to another but also from tooth to tooth within any one person's mouth and even from place to place on any one tooth. Also, the direction in which the enamel rods run in "normal human teeth" differ, depending essentially on the shape of the tooth. The direction of the enamel rods is important in determining whether enough dentin is left under the enamel rods to support the enamel. "Normal human teeth" also have fissures, i.e., little cracks and grooves, and the margins of a preparation and restoration should be extended to include fissures that cannot be eliminated by enamelplasty. But ivorine teeth do not have all the fissures normal teeth have. As a result of these difference between "normal human teeth" and the test mannequin's ivorine teeth, it still would be difficult or impossible--even with the information in the examination booklet--for an examinee or a grader to apply, with any degree of precision, the following criteria for Procedure 8: outline form; depth of preparation; and retention. In addition, as to Procedure 9, functional anatomy depends upon a tooth's interaction with its opposing and adjacent teeth, but the mannequins did not have opposing teeth. As a result, it still would be difficult or impossible--even with the information in the examination booklet--for an examinee or a grader to apply, with any degree of precision, the criterion functional anatomy for Procedure 9. Similarly, the ivorine teeth in the mannequins were cemented in place, and points were to be deducted for moving them. This made it difficult, if not impossible--even with the information in the examination booklet--for the candidates to control proximal contour and contact, which are criteria for Procedure 9. Despite the deficiencies in the information in the examination booklet, taken by itself, there also was evidence that the graders were instructed orally during standardization, and the candidates were instructed during an orientation prior to the administration of the examination, that they were to assume an "ideal, minimal preparation" and that the purpose of the examination was simply to demonstrate basic knowledge of acceptable techniques. They also were told to assume "normal" or "ideal" enamel thickness of approximately 0.5 millimeter. Given those qualifications, they were told that the preparations were to have a "normal outline form" and "normal depth." As for functional anatomy, they were told that restorations were to "set up ideal (or normal) occlusion" by making the marginal ridges even and by replacing the restoration to the "normal shape of a cusp of a tooth." As for proximal contour, a restoration's marginal ridges were to meet (i.e., match) those of the adjacent tooth. Candidates also were allowed to ask questions as part of the orientation to clarify the oral instructions, as necessary. Given the additional oral instructions, the candidates and graders were given a clear enough understanding of the examination criteria. Evaluation of the candidates' and the graders' performance by the Department's psychometrician indicated that the examination was valid and reliable. The Petitioner's performance of Procedure 8 was primarily deficient in that the outline form was 0.25 millimeter short of the lingual occlusal groove, which was clearly visible on the ivorine tooth and which should have been included within the outline form. The Petitioner did not prove that his performance of the procedure, when looked at as a whole, should have been given a passing grade. The Petitioner's performance of Procedure 9 was primarily deficient in that the restoration did not replace the "normal shape of a cusp of a tooth" and that the marginal ridges did not meet those of the adjacent tooth. The Petitioner did not prove that his performance of the procedure, when looked at as a whole, should have been given a passing grade. There was evidence that, since the examination on ivorine teeth only simulates real teeth, which are easier to carve than real teeth, and is necessarily limited to a demonstration of basic knowledge of acceptable techniques, the examination does not directly test the candidate's ability to actually practice dentistry. But, due to heightened concern for the transmission of infectious disease, including HIV, ivorine teeth have been used in dental schools and in dental clinical examinations exclusively for over ten years, and the Petitioner did not prove that the use of ivorine teeth, instead of extracted real teeth, for his examination was unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Dentistry, enter a final order denying the Petitioner's examination challenge. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of July, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 28th day of July, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6923 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted and incorporated. 2.-4. Accepted but subordinate and not necessary. Rejected as not proven. (The exam should not necessarily measure a person with more dental experience as receiving a higher grade.) Accepted but subordinate and not necessary. Accepted and incorporated. 8.-10. Rejected as not proven. (It would be more accurate to say that the Department's examination reviewer could neither say that the the score of 2 was erroneous or unreasonable or that a score of 3 would have been erroneous or unreasonable.) 11. Accepted and incorporated. 12.-16. Accepted but subordinate and not necessary. (As to 16, however, he reiterated his opinion that the appropriate score was a 2.) 17. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 18.-19. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven that the dentin is the "stronger material." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. 22.-26. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, as found, notwithstanding the limitations inherent in not being able to see on the ivorine tooth exactly where the enamel would end and the dentin would begin, or where the enamel rods would be, certain basic knowledge of acceptable techniques can be demonstrated on the ivorine teeth, given certain additional instructions. 27.-29. Rejected as not proven. The Petitioner's expert was not "standardized" and was not privy to what the graders were told during standardization or what the candidates were told during orientation. 30. See 22.-26. 31.-32. See 27.-29. 33. See 22.-26. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-8. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 9.-10. Accepted and subordinate to facts found. 11. Rejected as contrary to the evidence that the Petitioner introduced no competent and substantial evidence in support of his challenge. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Colonial Square Office Park 8001 North Dale Mabry Highway Suite 301-A Tampa, Florida 33614 William M. Woodyard, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jack McRay, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Board of Dentistry (Board) should discipline the Respondent on charges that she violated section 466.028(1)(z), (ff), and (gg), Florida Statutes (2009-2012),1/ by: improperly delegating professional responsibilities to persons not qualified to perform them; operating her dental office below minimum acceptable standards; and allowing the administration of anesthesia, in violation of Board rules.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Miranda Whylly Smith, D.D.S., holds license DN15873, which authorizes her to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. She has held this license since January 2002. No discipline has been imposed against her license to date. Since July 2009, the Respondent has owned and operated a dental practice called "Smiles and Giggles" in Spring Hill, Florida. Prior to May 2011, Smiles and Giggles was located on Mariner Boulevard; in May 2011, it moved to County Line Road. The Respondent is the only dentist practicing at Smiles and Giggles. She employs dental assistants, not dental hygienists. Count I--Improper Delegation Count I charges the Respondent with improperly delegating professional responsibilities to her dental assistants. Expanded-function dental assistants employed by the Respondent have included: Lillian Torres, who worked at Smiles and Giggles from late 2009 to March 2012 and functioned as the "head dental assistant" with responsibility for overseeing the work of other dental assistants working in the office; Kristina Plumadore, who has worked there since 2009; and William Hemme, who has worked there since late 2011 and now serves as head dental assistant. Priscilla Davila worked there as a dental assistant without an expanded-function certificate from May 2011 to August 2011. Incorporated in that charge are specific factual allegations regarding Ms. Torres and an unnamed male expanded- function dental assistant (who, the evidence revealed, was Mr. Hemme). (The Administrative Complaint includes other specific allegations based on statements from other dental assistants who did not testify, and those allegations are omitted here, since there was no evidence to support them.) Also incorporated in the charge are general factual allegations that all dental assistants improperly performed many of the same tasks at the direction of Ms. Torres and Mr. Hemme, with the Respondent's knowledge and approval, including taking impressions and bite registrations2/ for dentures, delivering dentures, adjusting dentures with grinding devices, using drills on cavities, filling cavities, and other tasks for which they were not qualified. Count I charges that the Respondent delegated to dental assistants the taking of final impressions for dentures and the making of adjustments to dentures, including the use of high- and/or low-speed drills, which made unalterable changes to the teeth.3/ As the factual basis for that charge, the Administrative Complaint alleges that Ms. Torres took the final impressions for dentures for a patient, L.C.; that Mr. Hemme adjusted dentures for the patient L.C. by "grinding [them] down"; and that both Mr. Hemme and Ms. Torres did "[a]ll denture fabrication and adjustment procedures" for L.C. In some respects, L.C.'s testimony on this allegation was inconsistent with the dental records introduced by the Respondent, which are more accurate in those respects. L.C. presented to the Respondent in late 2009. Initially, it was planned that a partial upper denture would be made, and an immediate complete lower denture would be made for use after her remaining lower teeth were extracted. In mid- January 2010, the plan changed, and an immediate complete upper denture was made for use after her remaining upper teeth were extracted. The upper teeth were extracted in mid-January 2010, and the immediate upper denture was fitted. In July 2010, attempts were made to adjust the denture because it was uncomfortable and also loose. In October 2011, L.C. returned to Smiles and Giggles with more complaints that the upper denture did not fit correctly and was loose. In late October and early November 2011, the upper denture was relined in an attempt to address the patient's complaints, but her complaints persisted. Later in November 2011, impressions were done for the patient's immediate complete lower denture. In January 2012, the patient's remaining lower teeth were extracted, and her immediate lower denture was fitted and adjusted. L.C. continued to complain about the fit of both dentures, and several attempts were made in the spring of 2012 to adjust them, to no avail. The patient then complained to Medicaid, and she returned to the Respondent to have both dentures redone in January 2013. L.C. testified that the Respondent took no impressions for dentures and did not fit or adjust her dentures until after the spring of 2012. She testified, prior to that all the work was done by Ms. Torres and Mr. Hemme. Ms. Torres and Mr. Hemme testified that they took impressions, but not final impressions or bite registrations, which were done by the Respondent. The dental records reflect that the provider of all these services was the Respondent. However, in this instance, the patient's testimony is credited, and the contrary testimony of Ms. Torres and Mr. Hemme (as well as the possible contrary inference from the dental records) is rejected. On questioning by counsel for the Respondent, Mr. Hemme appeared to take the position that the impressions were not final because they were for immediate dentures, which sometimes are replaced by permanent ones. However, it is clear from the evidence that L.C.'s immediate dentures were intended to be permanent. It was not until after her complaints to Medicaid that the Respondent agreed to make permanent dentures for her. Most, if not all, dental assistants working at Smiles and Giggles took impressions for dentures. It is not clear from the evidence whether these were all final impressions, except in the case of the patient L.C. Another patient, V.C.,4/ testified that Ms. Torres also took final impressions for her dentures. The testimony was elicited, in part, as proof of what paragraph 72 of the Administrative Complaint alleges Ms. Davila5/ witnessed. Ms. Davila's testimony gave no indication that she witnessed dental care being provided to V.C., and it seems unlikely from the evidence that Ms. Davila's short tenure working for Smiles and Giggles included the time when the care in question was provided to V.C. No dental records were introduced regarding the patient V.C. that could have helped answer that question. The testimony of the patient V.C. also could have been elicited as proof of a general allegation in paragraph 70 of the Administrative Complaint that all Smiles and Giggles dental assistants supervised by Ms. Torres performed various unauthorized tasks, including making dentures.6/ According to Mr. Hemme, he adjusts patients' dentures by using a handpiece to polish or smooth down rough spots where they come in contact with the gums to try to make them fit more comfortably. This is what he says he attempted to do to L.C.'s dentures. According to Ms. Torres, she uses an acrylic burr to "bring down high spots" that are identified by the Respondent and to make "minute adjustments" to dentures. These adjustments can be remedied only by making a new set of dentures. Although evidence was presented regarding the taking of bite registrations, the Administrative Complaint does not allege that the Respondent delegated this task to dental assistants. In any event, the evidence was not clear and convincing that dental assistants at Smiles and Giggles took bite registrations for dentures for patients other than L.C. To the contrary, there was no evidence that they did, and several denied it. Count I charges that the Respondent delegated to dental assistants the placement of filling materials and the use of dental instruments, including high- and/or low-speed drills, which made unalterable changes to the teeth. As the factual basis for that charge, the Administrative Complaint alleges: that Ms. Torres has admitted to placing amalgam and composite fillings, using low- and high- speed drills, and using a spoon excavator to take out the upper part of a cavity during the time she worked at Smiles and Giggles; and that all assistants working at Smiles and Giggles, while Ms. Torres worked there, used low-speed drills, all with the Respondent's knowledge or direction. The Administrative Complaint also alleges that Ms. Davila saw dental assistants use high-speed drills and complete fillings on patients during the time she worked at Smiles and Giggles, all with the Respondent's knowledge or direction. The Administrative Complaint also alleges that Ms. Torres "placed fillings" for a patient, T.F., when she had dental work done at Smiles and Giggles in the summer of 2011.7/ The evidence was clear that dental assistants at Smiles and Giggles were using flowable resin to fill cavities. This is a composite material that hardens when cured and can only be removed by being drilled out by the dentist using a high-speed handpiece. Dental assistants at Smiles and Giggles also were packing amalgam filling material to fill cavities. The Respondent would then review the restoration. If adjustments were needed, the Respondent or, sometimes, a dental assistant would use a slow-speed handpiece to try to bring down rough or high spots. After the patient T.F. was diagnosed with cavities in the summer of 2011, she returned to have those teeth restored. The Respondent used a drill to prepare the cavities for filling, and Ms. Torres placed composite material. The Respondent then left the room, and Ms. Torres used a slow-speed handpiece, with a burr attached, to grind down the filling to correct the bite. The Respondent did not return to re-examine T.F. before she left the office that day. The Respondent seems to take the position that fillings done by dental assistants were temporary fillings, to be followed by permanent restorations at a later date. But sometimes they were intended to be permanent. Even if intended initially to be temporary, if the patient did not return to have the temporary filling replaced by a permanent restoration, the temporary filling became de facto permanent. In either case, once placed, the filling material could be removed only by being drilled out with a high-speed drill. At some point in 2013, the dental assistants at Smiles and Giggles were told not to place filling material or bring down high spots any more. The source of this directive was not clear from the evidence, but it can be inferred that it came from the Respondent. By mid-October 2013, those tasks were being performed by dental assistants only "every once in a while" and are not being performed by them any longer, according to Ms. Plumadore. Count I charges that the Respondent delegated to dental assistants the performance of full-mouth debridement. As the factual basis for that charge, the Administrative Complaint alleges generally that the Respondent delegated to dental assistants at Smiles and Giggles the task of performing full-mouth debridement. No specifics are alleged. A cavitron is a device that uses ultrasound and water to remove plaque. It is used in the subgingival area, i.e., on the parts of teeth at the gum line and under the gums, as part of a full-mouth debridement. At the hearing, the patient T.F. testified that Ms. Torres used a cavitron to clean plaque from her teeth, including in the subgingival area. Ms. Torres admitted using the cavitron, but denied using it in the subgingival area. The patient was numbed by a local anesthetic, which would have made it difficult for the patient to sense precisely where the cavitron was being used. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Ms. Torres used the cavitron in the subgingival area. Ms. Davila testified that she saw Ms. Torres and other dental assistants use the cavitron for deep cleaning, which would include in the subgingival area. However, it is not clear how she would have been in a position to ascertain where a cavitron was being used in a patient's mouth. During the relatively short time she worked at Smiles and Giggles, she usually was not in the part of the office where patients' teeth were being cleaned. Even if she was in that area of the office, the patient's chair would have been facing away from where Ms. Davila probably would have been standing, so that she would not have been able to observe exactly where the cavitron was being used in the patient's mouth. There was no evidence that the Respondent knew of, or condoned the use of, the cavitron by her dental assistants for full-mouth debridement, including in the subgingival area. Count I charges that the Respondent delegated to dental assistants the initiation of a nitrous oxide mask and the administration of nitrous oxide without direct supervision. As the factual basis for that charge, the Administrative Complaint alleges that Ms. Torres placed a nitrous oxide mask on a minor patient, O.S., and administered nitrous oxide to the patient in August 2010. At the hearing, DOH presented the testimony of the child's mother, who was in the examination room when Ms. Torres placed the mask on her child's face and left. Neither she nor any other staff returned for about 20 minutes, during which the child began to act very calm, relaxed, and groggy, slump in the chair, wave his arms up and down, and act silly. The child was autistic, but this was unusual behavior for him. The mother became concerned and called for help. Ms. Torres returned, took the mask off, and dental work was performed on the patient. Ms. Torres denies that she did anything but put the mask on the patient's face and claims that no nitrous oxide was initiated. This testimony is rejected. It is found that Ms. Torres initiated the flow of nitrous oxide on the child before she left the examination room. The dental records indicate that nitrous oxide was administered, which is consistent with the patient's behavior. There was no clear and convincing evidence that it was normal procedure for the dental assistants to initiate nitrous oxide without the Respondent being present. All the dental assistants who testified indicated that they only monitor the flow of nitrous oxide or, at most, adjust the flow at the Respondent's explicit direction during a procedure. Although there were no specific factual allegations about it in the Administrative Complaint, the patient L.C. testified that a dental assistant placed a gas mask on her face when her teeth were being extracted. There was no evidence as to how the flow of nitrous oxide was initiated or administered to L.C. Count III--Dental Office Standards Count III charges the Respondent with operating an inadequately staffed dental office for the number and types of treatments performed for her patients and scheduling too many patients, so that unrealistic time limitations had to be placed on her and her staff, resulting in the office being operated below minimum acceptable standards of performance for the community. At most, the evidence showed that the Respondent operated a dental office that was very busy at times; that full schedules sometimes were exacerbated by emergencies that had to be worked around; that this sometimes resulted in office hours having to be extended into the evening; that the office's function would have benefited from an additional dentist; and that dental assistants at times voiced that the patient load was too high. There also was evidence that the office would have benefited from an experienced office manager/appointment scheduler; that the office eventually did benefit when one was hired; and that the office suffered from the lack of dedication and hard work from some of the dental assistants on staff. Some of them not only slacked off, but also even tried to sabotage the office out of personal animosity towards the Respondent and some of her staff. One of these former dental assistant was fired after she stole drugs from the office. There was no clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent had so many patients that she placed unrealistic time limitations on herself and her staff, or that the result was an office being operated below minimum acceptable standards of performance for the community. Count VI--Sedation Count VI charges the Respondent with administering anesthesia in a manner that violated the rules of the Board. The factual basis for this charge included allegations that the Respondent did not have a sedation permit from the Board; that the Respondent provided nitrous oxide sedation; that the Respondent had an unsupervised assistant provide nitrous oxide; that the Respondent had dental assistants start nitrous oxide; that children would be placed on nitrous oxide before she was present; that the Respondent had a licensed anesthesiologist provide I.V. sedation with propofol; and that the Respondent's dental office was not equipped, and her staff was not properly trained, as required by statute and Board rules for the administration of I.V. sedation with propofol. The factual basis regarding nitrous oxide refers to the administration of nitrous oxide in the presence of a licensed anesthesiologist. For approximately one year, between 2010 and 2011, the Respondent contracted with Anesthesiology Associates to provide an anesthesiologist to administer anesthesiology to patients who would benefit from it, since the Respondent herself was not authorized to do so. Sometimes, before the Respondent's arrival in the room to perform dental work, the anesthesiologist would direct one of the Respondent's dental assistants to place a gas mask on the patient and initiate nitrous oxide to relax the patient prior to sedation. These allegations are distinct from the previously discussed allegations that the Respondent herself delegated this task to her dental assistants without her direct supervision. In addition to nitrous oxide, which typically was administered by the anesthesiologist to relax a patient before the administration of other sedatives, the anesthesiologist used propofol, versed, and ketamine. Ketamine is an analgesic and sedative that typically was administered by injection to an uncooperative patient, usually a child, prior to the initiation of other sedation. Versed and propofol were administered intravenously. Propofol provided conscious sedation. Patients would be sedated for as long as necessary to complete the procedure, according to the Respondent's estimate. If the procedure was long enough to require too much propofol, versed would be started to complete the procedure. Versed reduces anxiety and relaxes the patient, but does not provide conscious sedation. During this time period, the anesthesiologist typically would go to the Respondent's office two days a week and provide services for six to ten patients a day. He would bring the required drugs and I.V. and other equipment. Later, the equipment was left in a closet at the Respondent's office and any unused drugs sometimes were left in a locked storage closet in the Respondent's office for use the next time. The next time the anesthesiologist came to the Respondent's office, he would get a key from the Respondent or her staff to access the locked storage closet and would inventory and inspect the drugs and equipment to be sure he had what was needed before beginning the day's work. The Respondent or the anesthesiologist provided a crash cart with a heart monitor and oxygen, which was needed to support the breathing of a sedated patient. There was a defibrillator in the Respondent's office, and the anesthesiologist was certified to provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation, if needed. The anesthesiologist testified that he met all the requirements of his license to provide anesthesiology services at the Respondent's office and had everything he needed to provide those services safely. At some point, the Respondent became aware that the Board required her to have a sedation permit to do what she was doing through Anesthesiology Associates. She applied for the permit. For some time after applying, she continued to contract with Anesthesiology Associates to provide these services, but later terminated the contract because she became aware that her sedation permit had not been issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order: finding the Respondent guilty of violations under Counts I and VI of the Administrative Complaint; imposing a $10,000 fine; suspending her license for six months; placing her on probation with appropriate conditions for six months after the suspension is lifted. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 5th day of March, 2014.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a dentist licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0001575. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the standards for licensure and for practice of dentists in the State of Florida and with enforcing compliance with those licensure and practice standards contained in Chapter 466, Florida Statutes (1981). Jewel Taub is an elderly dental patient who first saw Dr. Seth Rhodes on January 28, 1980. On February 14, 1980, the Respondent took impressions of Mrs. Taub's mouth to construct a partial denture for her. On February 26, 1980, the denture was tried in the patient's mouth by Dr. Tyrone Cheeping, an associate of the Respondent. On March 4, 1980, the denture was delivered to Mrs. Taub by the Respondent and an initial adjustment performed by him, Mrs. Taub complaining that the denture palate was too thick. On April 28, 1980, the Respondent again adjusted the denture in response to Mrs. Taub's complaint that the denture or its palatal portion, was still too thick. In approximately March of 1980, the patient had stopped putting the partial denture in a container of liquid as she had been instructed by the Respondent. She began at that time to keep the partial denture in a dry envelope in her medicine chest. The patient had worn lower dentures and had been advised many times that if she did not properly care for and maintain this upper denture it could be damaged. She stopped caring for and maintaining the partial denture because she had no intention of ever wearing it again because of her dissatisfaction with its fit. Dr. Marshall Brothers, a contract dentist for the Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Dentistry, was accepted as an expert witness. He examined Jewel Taub in his office on November 25, 1981, and examined the upper partial denture in question. The theory of the design of the upper partial denture was correct because the Respondent planned that appliance to have full palatal coverage because the patient needed the additional support from the roof of her mouth and that type of denture would aid her in making a transition eventually to a full upper denture. Dr. Brothers opined that the thickness of the plate, the impingement, the openness of the bite and a lateral rock rendered the execution of the partial denture to be below community standards for manufacture and fit of such dentures. Dr. Brothers did not, in formulating this opinion, consider the passage of time during which the denture was not used by the patient and not properly cared for and was not aware whether there had been any movement in the teeth, change in size of the gums or adjacent tissue, during more than one and one-half years since the attempted adjustments. It is quite unusual that a denture should fit the first time it is tried in a patient's mouth. Thickness alone, even if a denture is too thick, does not alone render the execution of that denture below the standard of care. If a substantial period of time elapses (here in excess of one and one-half years) between the time when the denture was made and the time expert opinions are rendered regarding the fit of the denture in this patient, there can be movement in the teeth and changes in the dimensions of gums or tissue which can alter the fit of the denture. This is particularly true in the case of an 80- year-old patient. The fit of the denture can be altered for the additional reason that the patient failed to maintain the denture properly during that intervening one and one-half years between the time she quit wearing it, in approximately April of 1980, and the time expert examination and opinions regarding its fit were rendered, shortly prior to this hearing. The manufacture of the denture with a palatal portion of a thickness in excess of one and a half millimeters is not necessarily too thick and the fact that that thickness exceeds one and a half millimeters does not render the manufacture and fit of that denture a departure from the proper standards of care of the dentist who manufactures and fits it. Indeed, proper palatal thickness varies considerably from one patient to another and the prescribing of a proper palatal thickness in such a denture is not an exact science since patients' mouths and their dimensions are all different. Indeed, the Respondent prescribed and fitted dentures for a substantial number of his patients who required a palatal thickness of between 3 and 6.2 millimeters and those patients all reported satisfaction with the fit of their dentures. The material used in the denture in question is an acrylic material containing a metal reinforcing mesh. That material is manufactured and supplied to dentists such as the Respondent with a thickness slightly in excess of one and a half millimeters. That then is the minimum dimension of the palatal material which then must be built-up by the dentist in constructing an accurate fit in the palatal portion of the denture to conform to a particular patient's mouth. The slightly more than one and a half millimeter palatal material is therefore a minimum or starting point for the dentist in constructing the denture and it is practically impossible for the material to be thinner than that dimension. Indeed most of the similar dentures satisfactorily fitted by the Respondent were of a palatal thickness of between 3 and 6.2 millimeters. Thus, a palatal thickness in excess of one and a half millimeters cannot be per se excessive. The Respondent's expert witness, Dr. Gary Golden, is also a contract dentist with the Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Dentistry. He conducts a limited clinical specialty practice in prosthodontics and in maxillofacial prosthetics. He is assistant professor of orthodontics and oral surgery at the University of Miami and has conducted extensive study in his specialty area. He is the author of numerous papers and articles on the subject. One article in particular, admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 3, deals specifically with the issue of palatal size in dental prosthetics. It is not possible to merely observe a denture and determine if one and a half millimeters, the so-called "old standard" is too thick or too thin for a given patient. The partial denture in this case was outside of the patient's mouth for over one and a half years and that fact alone makes it difficult for the patient to reinsert it comfortably. This is true because of shrinkage of areas of her mouth or gums not containing teeth and the resultant movement of her remaining teeth. In an 80-year-old lady such as the complaining witness, particularly, teeth tend to "drift" because of previous extraction of teeth which the denture was designed to replace. It is quite likely that with this patient movement of her teeth occurred during the one and a half years when she did not use the denture, causing the poor fit. A patient's cooperation is quite necessary in obtaining the proper fit for such a partial denture and it is not unusual for numerous adjustments to have to be made. Here the patient quit coming to the Respondent's office for adjustments after the fourth adjustment during a short period of time after the initial fitting. After that the patient ceased cooperating with the Respondent and did not care for the denture properly by not maintaining it in a liquid environment. The lack of care by the patient, coupled with the fact that only a one-half millimeter movement of the teeth in any direction can render the fit of such a denture improper was more likely the cause of the improper fit than the initial design and manufacture of the denture and the adjustments made during the four opportunities the Respondent had to adjust the denture. When the patient complained of excessive palate thickness, the Respondent made adjustments and trimmed the thickness and the coverage of the palatal portion of the denture. After that, the patient failed to appear in his office again (for any further adjustment). Finally, the Respondent established that the interior metal mesh in the material from which the palate was construction is itself one and a half millimeters thick and thus it was impossible for the palate, including the acrylic material surrounding the mesh, to be only one and a half millimeters thick and although one and a half millimeters could possibly be too thick for some patients, it was not the case with this patient. The patient's complaint was really a generalized one regarding "all that stuff in the roof of my mouth" and in reality it was not established that the denture in question could be made successfully in any other way. In summary, Dr. Brothers could not determine whether or not there had been any movement in the teeth or change in size of the gums or adjacent tissue in the patient's mouth. The patient had not maintained the denture properly during the substantial period of time when she did not wear the denture. It is not possible to accurately determine the appropriate original fit and function of the partial denture in question at the time Dr. Brothers examined it and the patient, since it was outside the mouth of the patient for a period of one and a half years and because of possible shrinkage of edentulous areas which do not contain teeth; the extrusion and drifting of the remaining teeth (since the denture is precisely cast to the teeth and gum tissue in a certain position at a certain time); and any movement or change in the teeth or gums would make it impossible to seat the denture satisfactorily. It is to be expected that in a patient 80 years of age who had not worn a partial denture for a period of one and a half years, that at least some movement of the teeth would have occurred, altering the fit of the partial denture. Thus, it was established that the fit of the denture to the patient's mouth more than one and a half years after the Respondent initially manufactured and fitted the denture was not the same. It is quite rare that a prosthetic dental device can be manufactured and simply inserted and not require a number of adjustments. It was not established that the denture was improperly made or that it should have been remanufactured.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found not guilty of a violation of Section 466.028(1)(y) and that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed in its entirety. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Gallagher, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Hamar, Esquire 155 South Miami Avenue Suite 111 Miami, Florida 33130 Fred Varn, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues presented herein are: (1) whether or not the Respondent, Kenneth T. Risco, D.D.S., permitted an unlicensed dental employee (Wilbert E. Bolyea) to examine and diagnose the mouth of Dr. Erwin Ochs for treatment or treatment planning in violation of Chapters 466.024(4)(b) and 455.026(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1979); whether Respondent, thereby aided, assisted, procured or advised an unlicensed person to practice dentistry or dental hygiene contrary to Chapter 466.028(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1979); whether Respondent knowingly permitted Bolyea to take an impression for the purpose of fabricating an intra- oral restoration, to wit: upper and lower dentures, in violation Chapter 466.024(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1979); whether Respondent thereby delegated professional responsibilities to a person with knowledge or reason to know that such person did not qualify by licensure to perform such tasks in violation of Section 466.028(1)(aa), Florida Statutes (1979); whether Respondent permitted Bolyea to engage in the examination, diagnosis and treatment planning of conditions within the human oral cavity audits adjacent tissues in conjunction with the supplying of dentures to patients in Respondent's office in violation of Chapter 466.026(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), and thereby knowingly employed a person to perform duties outside the scope allowed such persons in violation of Chapter 466.024(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1979).
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record complied herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its eight (8) count Administrative Complaint filed herein on November 6, 1980, the Petitioner seeks to revoke, suspend or take disciplinary action against Respondent as a licensee and his license as a dentist under the laws of Florida. Respondent, Kenneth T. Risco, is a licensed dentist having been issued license No. DN6971, since approximately August of 1975. On approximately January 7, 1980, Respondent because professional associated with Wilbert Bolyea (Bolyea) whom he employed as an expanded duty assistant. In summary fashion, the complaint allegations are that Respondent, during the period January 7 through 18, 1980, permitted Bolyea, his expanded duty assistant, to engage in the examination, diagnosis, treatment planning and the taking of impressions for the purpose of fabricating prosthetic dentures and the adjusting of such dentures in violation of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes (1979). Petitioner's proof herein consists of testimony adduced from a deposition of Respondent taken on January 18, 1980, in Collier County Circuit Court, Case No.79-1029 captioned Bolyea v. Wittenberg; Dr. Erwin Ochs, who is now deceased, testimony was received as an unavailable declarant pursuant to Chapter 90-803(18), Florida Statutes; and testimony taken during the hearing herein on February 24, 1981, in Naples, Florida. Ruppert Bliss, a licensed dentist and a member of Petitioner's Board, has been practicing dentistry since approximately 1956. Dr. Bliss is a member of several professional associations and expressed familiarity with the terms of art peculiar to the dental profession. Dr. Bliss was received as an expert in prosthetic dentistry in this proceeding. According to Dr. Bliss, the treatment and diagnosis of a patient with dental problems should proceed as follows. First, the patient is examined by a visual inspection of the patient's pathological signs. A working relationship is then developed with the patient and a study model is made to follow and coordinate subsequent diagnostic procedures. This includes a study of a patient's tissue contours which aids in making a model to trace registrations and to effect proper adjustments which affect a patient's ability to bite. Throughout the procedure, the patient is constantly examined and a final adjustment is made to ensure that the dentures, as constructed and fitted, enable the patient to bite properly and that the bone and tissue conditions are not adversely affected. Dr. Bliss described the difference between the terms of art in the dental profession known as a "remediable" versus nd "irremediable" task. A "remediable" task is one that can be reversed whereas an "irremediable' task can not be reversed. Dr. Bliss included in the list of irremediable tasks, the adjustment of prosthetic appliances since they affect a patient's bite; may worsen bone or tissue conditions and also impacts on a patient's mannerisms. The diagnosis of a denture problem and its adjustment is an irremediable task. (Tr. 41) Respondent's Defense Dr. Riso is a 1975 graduate of the University of Pennsylvania. Upon graduation, he became licensed to practice in the states of Florida, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Respondent's spouse, Dr. Rebecca Weber, is also a dentist licensed to practice in Florida and practices jointly with Respondent. Respondent, during the instant hearing on February 24, 1981, denied permitting Bolyea or any unlicensed person employed by him to practice dentistry or to examine patients without any supervision by him. Respondent became professionally associated with Bolyea on January 7, 1980, as an expanded duty assistant. In keeping with this employment relationship, Respondent and Bolyea entered into an employment agreement which delineated the procedures under which Bolyea was authorized to carry out his employment functions. (See Respondent's Exhibit No. 1) According to Respondent, he first learned of the services performed for Dr. Ochs by Bolyea, at the contempt hearing on January 21, 1980. Pursuant to the employment agreement, Bolyea was authorized to greet patients; take patients' dental history; determine the need for dentures and report back to Respondent. (Tr. pp. 53 and 67) Respondent therefore claims that he was unaware of any dental adjustments by Bolyea during times material to the allegations herein. (Se Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 and Tr. p 69) When Dr. Ochs visited Respondent's office for treatment on January 11, 1980, the employment relationship in effect between Respondent and Bolyea had been effective approximately two days. Dr. Ochs was not seen or examined by Respondent. On January 11, 1980, Dr. Ochs, a former dentist for approximately 35 years, visited Respondent's denture clinic in Naples for an examination and, if necessary, to have dentures made. After being greeted by an office assistant, Bolyea began talking to Ochs about the price and quality or dentures. At the outset of the examination by Bolyea, Ochs explained that he only needed an upper denture made since his lower denture was all right. Bolyea donned a pair of rubber gloves; removed Ochs' upper denture and placed it on a try. Bolyea then examined Ochs' mouth; massaged his lower gum with his finger; remarked that his ridge was very flat and had been pounded to almost nothing. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7, pp 3 and 4) After a mirrored view of Ochs' oral cavity while in the protruding position, Bolyea remarked that "there is contact anteriorly and posteriorly, but in the space between there, you have quite a space. That is why you are pounding your ridge to pieces, because your bite is not right." Bolyea advised Ochs that he could not help him with only a lower denture and that his only solution was to construct a complete set of dentures to correct his bite. Thereafter, Bolyea took a wax bite of Ochs' mouth. According to Respondent, the study model is made by Bolyea after a patient is initially screened. Thereafter, examines the model and a custom tray is made from which a final impression is made by Respondent. Respondent physically delivers the appliance after the third appointment. At some point during the course of fabricating the dentures, Respondent examines the patient. This occurred, in the usual case, during the second or third visit. Respondent's testimony during the contempt hearing held on January 21, 1980, is as follows. Patients desiring dentures were required to make three visits and at some point during the diagnostic procedures of the patient (by Bolyea), Respondent diagnosed and examined the patient. Respondent considered that Bolyea's actions in feeling dr. Ochs' gums and advising him as to the condition of the ridges included the corrective measures he would employ to correct his bite were "physical observations" rather than an examination and diagnosis. Respondent authorized Bolyea to make those determinations. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6 at p 48) Respondent did not check to determine the corrections of Bolyea's judgment as to the necessity for a new set of dentures. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6 at p 48) Respondent also stated that a patient was free to, and in fact would, return to his office if he was dissatisfied with the dentures (as fitted or adjusted by Bolyea). However, Respondent agreed that an improperly adjusted denture could result in irreversible harm to the muscles and soft tissues of the mouth. In this regard, Respondent's and Ms. Chesser's testimony during the hearing, to the effect that he (Respondent) was unaware of Respondent making adjustments to patients' dentures is contrary to Respondent's testimony on January 21, 1980. Respondent's sworn statements, when he was not under the pressure of disciplinary sanction by the Petitioner is considered more credible than the subsequent testimony herein when the threat of disciplinary action existed. To the extent that his testimony herein differs from the version offered by him during the prior proceedings, the more recent testimony is rejected. Likewise, Ms. Chesser's testimony to the effect that Respondent was unaware of Bolyea's actions relative to the adjustments of dentures is contrary to Respondent's testimony on January 21, 1980, and is also rejected. Joyce Chesser was employed by Messr. Dolyea from approximately July 1979, through March of 1980. She was hired as an assistant and officer manager. Based on Bolyea's procedures, dentures were completed during a span of not less than four weeks subsequent to a patient's first visit. Bolyea made adjustments to patients' dentures without Respondent's knowledge, permission or authorization (Tr. 76 thru 82). Bolyea also examined patients and went behind Respondent's back to adjust dentures which were already prepared prior to any employment relationship with Respondent. 2/ Respondent's wife, Dr. Rebecca Weber, was also familiar with the employment relationship between Respondent and Bolyea. Dr. Weber denied that Respondent permitted Bolyea to examine or otherwise diagnose patients.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Board of dentistry, enter a final order herein finding the Respondent guilty of the allegations set forth in Counts 1 through 8 of the Administrative Complaint filed herein and suspending the Respondent's license to practice dentistry in the State of Florida for a period of six (6) months. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of May 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May 1981.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations that the Respondent provided dental treatment which was below minimum acceptable standards of performance. At the hearing, the Petitioner called Charlene Willoughby and Richard J. Chichetti, D.D.S., as witnesses. The Respondent called Victoria Osborn and Stewart Dropkin, D.D.S., as witnesses and also testified on his own behalf. Both parties also offered documentary exhibits and transcripts of deposition testimony. A transcript of the hearing was filed on June 16, 1987, and the parties were allowed until July 31, 1987, (subsequently extended) within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Both parties filed proposed recommended orders on August 3, 1987, and the despondent filed an amended proposed recommended order on August 4, 1987. On August 3 and 4, 1987, the Respondent also filed separate documents specifically addressed to the issues raised by the Respondent's motion to dismiss. The parties' proposed recommended orders have been carefully considered during the formulation of this recommended order. Specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by the parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bruce Larrick, D. D.S., whose license number is DN0007282, was licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida on August 26, 1977, and has been so licensed from that date until the present time. Respondent provided dental, services to a Mr. Quinton G. Anglin during the time period of February to April of 1985. The Respondent first saw and examined Mr. Anglin on February 20, 1985. Prior to the examination, all of Mr. Anglin's teeth were cleaned. The Respondent's examination of Mr. Anglin included radiographs, visual, and tactile techniques. The Respondent's treatment of Mr. Anglin consisted of bonding the facial surfaces of Mr. Anglin's six upper front teeth, also known as teeth numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Bonding is a type of restorative dentistry which consists of mechanically bonding a coat of plastic to the tooth surface and then chemically bonding a composite material to that coat of plastic. Bonding is a part of the general practice of dentistry and is not recognized as a specialty in dentistry. As a result of problems he was experiencing with the bonding and because of an inability to get in touch with the Respondent, Mr. Anglin filed a complaint against the Respondent. The ultimate facts alleged in Mr. Anglin's uniform complaint form included the following: Dr. Larrick bonded several teeth for me during March and April. The last tooth he bonded was not bonded well and the bonding came off. Dr. Larrick rebonded the tooth. Bonding came off once again. The problem I now have is: (1) I have an upper right canine tooth that has been ground down and the bond has come off. Prior to this I only had a small cavity. (2) I have a right upper incisor on which the bond material was ground down so thin that when something touches the front surface it is quite painful On January 15, 1986, Richard Chichetti, D.D.S., examined Mr. Anglin to evaluate the six restorations performed by the Respondent. The examination lasted approximately thirty minutes. Dr. Chichetti did not examine tooth number 9, because that tooth had been further restored by another dentist subsequent to the restoration work done by the Respondent. Dr. Chichetti's examination of Mr. Anglin's upper front teeth consisted of taking x-rays, a physical examination and inspection using a mouth mirror and explorer, photographs of the teeth, and study models of the teeth. Dr. Chichetti looked at each tooth and observed whether any areas on each tooth indicated the presence of decay. He then used the explorer to tactilely examine the surfaces of the teeth where he suspected decay to be and to confirm the presence of decay. Decay is readily distinguishable from stain when the tip of the explorer comes into contact with the tooth surface. Dr. Chichetti found only a small amount of plaque and materia alba and found no calculus on Mr. Anglin's teeth. Therefore, it was not necessary to clean Mr. Anglin's six upper front teeth in order to determine if decay was present. At the time of Dr. Chichetti's examination of Mr. Anglin, teeth numbers 6, 7, S, and 10, each had bonding on the facial side and recurrent decay on the lingual side. Tooth number 8 had a ledge present at the margin of the veneer closest to the gum line. A ledge exists when the veneer is not smooth and confluent with the tooth surface. At the time of Dr. Chichetti's examination of Mr. Anglin, tooth number 11 no longer had the bonding restoration performed by the Respondent. A large carious lesion was present on the visible portion of the tooth and extended into the enamel and dentin. There are two broad categories of decay known as acute decay and chronic decay. Chronic decay is decay that has progressed at a very slow rate as compared to acute decay. Chronic decay may take place over a period of several years. A chronic carious lesion is darker in color than acute decay and has a firm and leathery texture as compared to the softer texture of acute decay. It is not possible to determine the exact date on which a chronic carious lesion began, nor is it possible to determine the exact rate of decay of such a lesion. Nevertheless, by observation of a chronic carious lesion it is possible to determine that the lesion has been present and detectable for at least a specific period of time. The carious lesion on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11 had a relatively hard texture and a dark brown color, both of which are consistent with chronic decay. Sclerotic dentin was also present on tooth number 11, which is indicative of the presence of a long-term carious lesion. The decay present on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11 at the time of Dr. Chichetti's examination was chronic in nature. That decay was present and detectable at the time of the Respondent's treatment of Mr. Anglin. The Respondent used Dycal in connection with the bonding performed on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11. Dycal is a product used in areas of deep decay to provide insulation between the bonding material and the pulp of the tooth. The use of Dycal by Respondent corroborates the conclusion that decay was present when the Respondent bonded Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11. The fact that the bonding came off of Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11 shortly after the Respondent's treatment of that tooth also corroborates the conclusion that decay was present when the bonding was performed on that tooth, because a tooth surface of a carious nature precludes long-term retention of the bonding material. By bonding over a carious lesion present on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11, the Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. The recurrent decay observed by Dr. Chichetti on Mr. Anglin's teeth numbers 6, 7, 8, and 10, also constituted chronic decay. The chronic carious lesions on the lingual sides of those teeth were similar in color and texture to the lesion on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11. The chronic carious lesions on the lingual surfaces of Mr. Anglin's teeth numbers 6, 7, 8, and 10 were present and detectable at the time of the Respondent's treatment of Mr. Anglin. By leaving carious lesions untreated on the lingual surfaces of Mr. Anglin's teeth numbers 6, 7, 8, and 10, while placing bonding restorations on the facial surfaces of those teeth, the Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. This failure to treat the lesions on the lingual surfaces of Mr. Anglin's teeth numbers 6, 7, 8, and 10 would be consistent with acceptable practice, if the patient refused treatment after full disclosure, and if the diagnosis, disclosure, and refusal of treatment were all documented in the patient's record. There was no such disclosure and refusal, nor is any such disclosure and refusal contained in the Respondent's records of his treatment of Mr. Anglin. Dr. Chichetti detected a ledge on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 8 by using the tip of an explorer. Due to its location, the ledge was not readily visible and it did not appear on the x-rays or on the study model. The ledge was the result of a failure to properly feather or smooth the edge of the bonding material so as to cause it to meet the existing tooth structure in a smooth and confluent manner. The ledge on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 8 resulted from the application of bonding material by the Respondent. The ledge on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 8 was not causing any significant problem at the time of Dr. Chichetti's examination. Specifically, there was no plaque or inflammation in the area of the ledge at the time of Dr. Chichetti's examination. Nevertheless, it had the potential of becoming a significant problem with the passage of time. The presence of a ledge can lead to an accumulation of plaque which can invoke an inflammatory response in the gingival tissue and lead to periodontal disease. By leaving the ledge on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 8, the Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order finding the Respondent to be in violation of Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1985), as charged in the Administrative Complaint. It is also recommended that the following penalties be imposed on the Respondent: That the Respondent's license to practice dentistry be reprimanded; That an administrative fine of $1,000.00 be imposed; and, That the Respondent's license to practice dentistry be placed on probation for a period of 12 months under such conditions as the Board may specify DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. Michael M. Parrish, Hearing Office 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 21st day of January 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-3538 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all of the parties. The references to paragraph numbers are to the numbers of the paragraphs in the parties' proposed findings of fact. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Accepted. Paragraph 4: First two sentences accepted. Last sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: First sentence rejected as constituting a comment on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, and 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: First sentence. is accepted. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as constituting argument about the evidence rather than proposed findings of fact. (This rejection does not purport to pass upon the merits of the argument; it merely excludes the text of the argument from the findings of fact.) Paragraphs 12 and 13: Accepted. Paragraph 14: Rejected as constituting a subordinate and unnecessary conclusion that does not necessary follow from the facts. Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting commentary and argument about the evidence, rather than a proposed finding of fact. (This rejection does not purport to pass upon the merits of the argument.) Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20: Accepted. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraph 1: Rejected as constituting unnecessary and subordinate details. Paragraph 2: Rejected as irrelevant observation about the state of the record. Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7: Accepted. Paragraphs 8 and 9: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 10: Rejected as subordinate and irrelevant details. Paragraph 11: Rejected. Depending on how the paragraph is interpreted, it is either irrelevant or contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 12: First sentence rejected as irrelevant. Second sentence rejected as constituting an inference not warranted by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 13: First two sentences rejected as irrelevant. Last sentence rejected as constituting an inference not warranted by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 14: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 15: Rejected as irrelevant and/or as constituting subordinate details. Paragraph 16: Rejected as constituting argument about the state of the record, rather than a proposed finding about the condition of the teeth. Paragraphs 17, 18, and 19: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 20 and 21: Rejected as argument about the state of the record and, in any event, as constituting irrelevant details. Portions of paragraph 20 are also contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 22: Rejected as subordinate and irrelevant details. Paragraph 23: Rejected as constituting legal argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 24: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 25: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 26: First sentence rejected as unnecessary reiteration of a portion of the Administrative Complaint. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted in substance, with unnecessary subordinate details deleted. Paragraph 27: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details and as consisting of an inference contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 28, 29, 30, and 31: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 32: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 33: Accepted. Paragraphs 34 and 35: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 36 and 37: Accepted. Paragraph 38: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 39: First sentence is accepted. Second sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 46: First sentence is rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a proposed finding. Second and third sentences are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The fourth sentence is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 47: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 48: The first sentence is rejected as incomplete and, therefore, unintelligible. Second sentence is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 49: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 50: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 51: Rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence. Paragraph 52: Rejected as irrelevant because there is no persuasive evidence that the patient did as suggested in this paragraph. Paragraph 53: Rejected as irrelevant due to insufficient evidence regarding Dr. Morton's charting and treatment. Paragraph 54: Accepted. Paragraphs 55, 56, and 57: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 58: Accepted in substance with additional clarifying details. Paragraph 59: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 60: Accepted in substance with additional clarifying details. Paragraph 61: Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate details; also rejected as suggesting inferences not warranted by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 62: Rejected because the opinion contained in this paragraph is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 63: Rejected as irrelevant in light of the totality of the evidence, especially the witness's other statements on this subject. Paragraphs 64 and 65: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Phillip B. Miller, Esquire Robert D. Newell, Jr., P.A. 102 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bill Salmon, Esquire Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1095 Gainesville, Florida 32602 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Pat Guilford, Executive Director Board of Dentistry 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
