Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Respondent, John W. Delk, held a license to practice dentistry, number DN 0005106, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation's Board of Dentistry. James Whisman was a patient at the Delk Dental Center from July 14, 1981 until May 22, 1984. Dr. John W. Delk was the dentist of record for James Whisman. On July 14, 1981, Dr. John W. Delk prepared teeth #6, 7, and 8 for crown and bridgework which included the placement of a post in tooth #8. On July 29, 1981, James Whisman returned to the Delk Dental Center to have the crowns on #6, 7, and 8 seated. On July 29, 1981, Don Berman seated permanent crowns on teeth #6, 7, and 8 for James Whisman using a permanent cement. Don Berman was a technician (dental assistant) for the Delk Dental Center and was not a licensed dentist or dental hygienist. He did not have an expanded duties certificate. On August 11, 1981, Respondent diagnosed a need, and had Berman prepare a treatment plan, for future dental work for James Whisman. During the establishment of Mr. Whisman's August 11, 1981 treatment plan, there was no documentation or oral advisement that an abnormality, such as a retained root tip or abscess, existed at tooth #10. Later, the bridge work on teeth #6, 7, 8 became loose, and Whisman called for an appointment with the Delk Dental Center. On September 21, 1981, the crowns on teeth #6, 7, and 8 were re-cemented with a permanent cement, zinc phosphate, by technician Don Berman. Dr. John W. Delk did not supervise Don Berman when he used the permanent cement to seat the crowns on teeth #6, 7, and 8 for a second time. From February 8, 1982 through February 25, 1982, Dr. James Costello provided dental services to James Whisman, specifically preparing teeth #9-15 and teeth #1-5 for crowns and bridgework and seating the crowns and bridgework. Dr. Costello did not advise James Whisman that an abnormality, specifically a retained root tip or abscess, was present at tooth #10. The patient chart for James Whisman failed to document that tooth #10 had a retained root tip and abscess present. The failure to chart a retained root tip and abscess at tooth #10 is critical to diagnosis and treatment. Fourteen months later, James Whisman returned to the Delk Dental Center for continued dental work. Respondent on March 6, 1984, diagnosed the need, and had Berman prepare a treatment plan, for fixed bridge-splints on teeth #19-22 and #27- 30. On March 7, 1984, Dr. John W. Delk prepared teeth #19- 22 and #27-30 for crown and bridgework. On March 9, 1984, Don Berman cemented temporary crowns on teeth #27-30 without supervision from Dr. John W. Delk. On March 12, 1984, Don Berman re-cemented temporary crowns on teeth #27-30, using a permanent cement called Durelon, without supervision from Dr. John W. Delk. On April 19, 1984, Don Berman used a permanent cement, Durelon, to seat the crown and bridgework on teeth #19-22 and #27-30 without supervision from Dr. John W. Delk. On May 15, 1984, James Whisman returned to the Delk Dental Center complaining of loose teeth in the area of #7 and 8. On May 22, 1984, James Whisman returned to the Delk Dental Center continuing in his complaint that teeth #7 and 8 were loose. On May 22, 1984, Don Berman did an oral inspection of teeth #7 and 8 and with the aid of a dental instrument removed said teeth. Teeth #7 and 8 fractured off inside the crowns. On May 22, 1984, based on what Don Berman had reported to him, Respondent diagnosed the need, and had Berman prepare a treatment plan, for Mr. Whisman which encompassed an estimate for two crowns, one root canal filling and two pin and core build-ups for a total fee of $708.00. On May 22, 1984, Dr. John W. Delk did not examine Mr. Whisman nor did Dr. Delk supervise the actions of Don Berman. Don Berman re-cemented the crowns for teeth #7 and 8 using a permanent cement, Durelon, with no supervision from Dr. John W. Delk. James Whisman suffered from areas of sensitivity around the bridgework, poor dental work and an unnoticed abscess and retained root tip. James Whisman discontinued the dental work with the Delk Dental Center and sought a second opinion from Dr. Albert P. Hodges on June 7, 1984. After the services performed by Dr. Delk and/or his employees, an examination of James Whisman's teeth revealed dental work that fell below the standard of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. The standard of care for crown and bridgework recognized by the prevailing dental peer community is as follows: No open or shy margins around the crowns; no active decay present; proper retention in multiple-unit splints; proper dowel lengths in crowns that are needed to support multiple unit bridges; proper occlusal contact and recognition; and treatment of any pathological condition prior to crown and bridge placement. Specifically, tooth #7 had margins that were open and shy, active decay was present and there was a distinct lack of retention to support the two-unit splint. The dental treatment provided on tooth #7 fell below the minimum acceptable standards of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. Specifically, tooth #8 had margins that were open, active decay was present and the dowel length was totally inadequate for useful retentive support. The dental treatment provided on tooth #8 fell below the minimum acceptable standards of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. Specifically with tooth #10, Dr. Delk failed to diagnose and treat a retained root tip and a pathological condition which was visible and discoverable. The retained root tip and abscess were clearly visible radiographically as early as the July 14, 1981 visit to Dr. Delk's facility. James Whisman was not advised during the course of his treatment that a retained root tip existed and that the pathological condition should be treated prior to the placement of a crown over tooth #10. James Whisman's records, made at Dr. Delk's facility, failed to reflect the existence of the retained root tip and abscess at tooth #10. Failing to chart or notify the patient of the existence of a retained root tip and the accompanying cyst falls below the standard of care as recognized in the prevailing dental community. The dental treatment provided on tooth #10 fell below the minimum acceptable standards of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. Specifically, tooth #20 had margins that were open and shy, it was sensitive to probing, and it was out of occlusion because it had no contact with the opposing tooth when the mouth was in the closed position. The dental treatment provided on tooth #20 fell below the minimum acceptable standards of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. Specifically, tooth #21 had margins that were open and shy. The dental treatment provided on tooth #21 fell below the minimum acceptable standards of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. Specifically, tooth #22 had margins that were shy. The dental treatment provided on tooth #22 fell below the minimum, acceptable standards of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. Specifically, tooth #27 had margins that were shy and the crown was over-contoured causing potential gum irritation and food impaction. The dental treatment provided on tooth #27 fell below the minimum acceptable standards of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. Specifically, tooth #29 had margins that were open and shy. The dental treatment provided on tooth #29 fell below the minimum acceptable standards of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. Cementing crowns with permanent cement is an irremediable procedure. Cementing temporary crowns with permanent cement is justified on a short-term basis but only if the procedure is done by a licensed dentist. To be within acceptable dental standards, a dentist must do a physical oral examination of a patient before developing a treatment plan. Failure to do a physical oral examination in the development of a treatment plan falls below the minimum standards as recognized in the prevailing peer community. An assistant with an expanded duties certificate may use temporary cement only to seat temporary crowns provided a licensed dentist provides direct supervision.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Board of Dentistry enter a final order: (1) holding the Respondent guilty on both counts of the Administrative Complaint; (2) fining Respondent $1000 for each count, said amount to be paid within 30 days from the signing of the final order or Respondent's license automatically to be suspended until the fine is paid; (3) suspending Respondent's license to practice dentistry for 6 months for each count of the Administrative Complaint, to run consecutively; (4) placing Respondent on probation for 12 months subsequent to the expiration of the suspension period; and (5) conditioning reinstatement of Respondent's license to practice dentistry on successful completion of 100 hours of university credit course work in crown and bridge restorations by the end of the probation period and on an appearance by Respondent before the Board to provide evidence of compliance with the final order. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of March, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy M. Snurkowski, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, F1 32399-0750 Michael T. Hand, Esq. 230 East Marks Street Orlando, F1 32803 John W. Delk, D.D.S. 2918 North Pine Hills Drive Orlando, F1 32808 Pat Guilford Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, F1 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, F1 32399-0750 Wings T. Benton, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, F1 32399-0750 APPENDIX To comply with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), the following rulings are made on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact (Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact): 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated. 4. Accepted but unnecessary. 5.-8. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but unnecessary. Rejected as not proved. The evidence suggested that Respondent examined the patient and instructed Berman how to prepare the plan. 11.-15. Accepted and incorporated. 16. Rejected as not proved. Dr. Costello testified he seated the crowns and bridgework, and the office notes do not reflect that Berman was involved at all. Whisman's memory probably was in error on this point. 17.-20. Accepted and incorporated. 21. Rejected. See 10 above. 22.-29. Accepted and incorporated except the correct date in 24 is March 12, 1984, and the correct teeth in 25 are #19-22, not #19-20. 30. Rejected. See 10 above. 31.-56. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but cumulative. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as conclusion of law. 60.-61. Accepted but unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but cumulative. 64.-65. Accepted and incorporated.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner may be granted a passing grade upon her Dental Mannequin Examination dated June, 1986, a precursor to further examination for licensure. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE Petitioner is a post-1962 graduate of the University of Havana (Cuba) Dental School. At the commencement of formal hearing, Petitioner raised as a constitutional challenge, the bar existing in Section 466.006, Florida Statutes, to persons in her circumstances taking the Florida Dental Board Mannequin Examination an unlimited number of times whereas similar graduates prior to 1962 are permitted unlimited examination attempts. She also raised a further challenge to the recent amendment, effective 1991, barring any examination whatsoever of unaccredited dental school graduates. These challenges were treated by the undersigned as a single motion to hold a statute unconstitutional and denied as without jurisdiction and authority. The parties stipulated to the admission in evidence of 10 joint exhibits. Petitioner testified on her own behalf, presented the oral testimony of Lucinda Richards, and had one exhibit admitted in evidence. Respondent presented the oral testimony of Dr. Theodor Simkin, D.D.S., and had admitted one exhibit. The transcript was duly filed and each party has timely filed post-hearing proposals, the proposed findings of fact of which have been ruled upon in the Appendix to this Recommended Order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a 1978 graduate of the University of Havana, was an applicant for licensure by examination to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. As a foreign graduate of a non-accredited school, Petitioner had taken the Manual Skills, or Mannequin, portion of the examination on two previous occasions in 1982 and 1983, and failed on both occasions. After taking a remedial course, Petitioner was eligible under current law to take the examination for a third and final time. Petitioner took that examination for the third time in June 1986, and received a grade of 2.74. A grade of 3.0 is considered a minimum passing grade. Petitioner filed objections to the examination results, which were reviewed by Respondent and confirmed, and this proceeding followed. The Manual Skills, or Mannequin, portion of the dental examination, consists of nine procedures which are graded by three dental examiners who qualify under the requirements of Rule 21G-2.020, Florida Administrative Code. All examiners attend standardization courses, are evaluated, and are assigned randomly for the grading of applicants. In the instant case, the examiners for Petitioner were No. 6, Dr. Levy; No. 64, Dr. Robinson; and No. 150, Dr. Boyar, each of whom examined and graded all of Petitioner's nine procedures. The procedures are graded in a holistic manner and not as a numeric point deduction for errors or mistakes. Each examiner assigns a grade for the procedure and must document on the portion of the grade sheet any failing grade. The examiner then assigns one of the following grades for each procedure: - Complete failure - Unacceptable dental procedure - Below minimal acceptable dental procedure - Minimally acceptable dental procedure - Better than minimally acceptable dental procedure - Outstanding dental procedure Each procedure is graded by averaging the three examiners' scores to come up with a single average grade for each procedure. Procedure grades are then individually weighed and combined for an overall clinical grade, which grade must be 3.0 or above in order to achieve a passing score. All scores for examiners are reported and evaluated in Report For The State of Florida Dental Manual Skills Examination, June 1986, (Joint Exhibit F). At Page 3 of said Report, entitled "Histograms And Frequency Distribution", a set of graphs indicates that failing grades of "0", "1" or "2", should be given 18% of the time, and same would be considered a "realistic example of what might be considered ideal". A review of the 24 examiners assigned to the June 1986 Examination, however, further indicated that there was a range in the frequency of the rendering of failing grades from examiner 47, who gave a failing grade 19.4% of the time, to examiner 135, who gave a failing grade 70.7% of the time. The range for the Petitioner's three examiners, who rendered failing grades were examiner 6, 32.9% of the time; examiner 64, 51.6% of the time; and examiner 150, 29.9% of the time. All three examiners of Petitioner had given failing grades higher than the ideal curve, (51.6% to 29.9%), and all 24 examiners rendered failing grades substantially higher than the ideal curve (70.7% to 19.4%). It is Petitioner's contention that although Respondent has made efforts to standardize its examiners' techniques and grading, the admitted range for the specific examiners who rendered failing grades were from a high of 70.7% to a low of 19.4%, when the ideal rendering of such failing grades should have been only 18%, and conversely, the range for examiners who rendered passing grades, were from a low of 29.3% to a high of 80.6%, thus establishing that "standardization" of grading has not been achieved, and that the June 1986 grades assigned to Petitioner were subjective and not reasonable and fair. Petitioner's contention, although correct in its arithmetic, is not sound in light of other mathematical principles enunciated by Lucinda Richards, an examination development specialist for the Department of Professional Regulation who was qualified and accepted as Petitioner's expert witness in testing and measurement. Petitioner's theory is a plausible inference but not a necessary one. It is not a necessary inference due to the holistic nature of the examination, because it cannot be ruled out that any three examiners were randomly assigned to grade those candidates who performed overly poorly or overly well, and because the examiner evaluation relied on by Petitioner is based on a very small number of evaluations and is for this single examination only and not for all examinations these examiners have done. Ms. Richards specifically testified that it was a possibility that on the June 1986 examination or any examination the three examiners assigned to Petitioner were randomly assigned to overly poor students and that Dr. Robinson, Petitioner's examiner whose failure rate was highest on this examination always does well on standardization testing and that, in fact, Dr. Robinson has deviated less than any other examiner in his several standardization tests over time. The undersigned accepts Ms. Richards' detailed factual evidence that the June 1986 Mannequin examination was conducted in accord with standard procedures and that Petitioner was not treated differently from other examination candidates. The undersigned further accepts Ms. Richards' expert opinion that the examination process is standardized and fair. Moreover, Dr. Theodor Simkin's testimony does not support Petitioner's analysis. Dr. Simkin, called by Respondent, has been a licensed Florida dentist since 1950. Until the last few years he has been actively engaged in dental practice. He has also been actively engaged in the training and standardization procedures for the dental examination continuously since 1979 and has served as an examiner seventeen times. For the 1986 examination in dispute, Dr. Simkin was an examination supervisor and reviewer. He is thoroughly acquainted with all the latest and accepted techniques involving the nine procedures in which Petitioner was tested in 1986. In the course of formal hearing, Dr. Simkin examined the mannequin prepared by Petitioner during her examination. Although Respondent did not tender Dr. Simkin as an expert, this formality is primarily for the purpose of permitting counsel to pose hypothetical questions, and the undersigned finds that even without the formality of tender and acceptance, Dr. Simkin's evidence is entitled to the weight and credibility accorded an expert dentist. Although he felt some examiners had individually given Petitioner better scores than she deserved, Dr. Simkin's opinion substantially supported and confirmed the individual grades assigned Petitioner by the regular examiners, and he determined that the average grade for each procedure complied with the objective criteria which examiners are required to apply. Utilizing his education, training, and experience, Dr. Simkin concurred that the appropriate overall clinical grade for Petitioner's mannequin portion of the examination should be less than the passing grade of 3.0. This evidence was not refuted. Together, Ms. Richards and Dr. Simkin established that the grading of Petitioner's examination was in accord with standard procedures.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order affirming Petitioner's test scores and denying her a license to practice dentistry. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 8th day of February, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4839 The following constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) are hereby made in accord with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's PFOF 1-7. Accepted in FOF 1-7 respectively. Respondent's PFOF Accepted except as cumulative and unnecessary in FOF 1-2. Covered in FOF 3. Except as unnecessary covered in FOF 3. 4-8. Accepted, but none of these matters is necessary to a resolution of the issues at bar as presented or argued by Petitioner. Covered in FOF 4. Covered in FOF 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Pat Guilford, Executive Director Board of Dentistry 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Robert Koltnow, Esquire One Datran Center, Suite 502 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Chester G. Senf, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Ronald M. Marini, D.M.D., P.A. (Respondent), received Medicaid overpayments that the Agency for Health Care Administration is entitled to recover; and whether sanctions and costs should be imposed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Medicaid program (Medicaid) is a federal and state partnership that funds health care services for qualified individuals. Petitioner is the state agency charged with administering Medicaid in Florida. Petitioner is legally authorized to monitor the activities of Medicaid providers and to recover “overpayments.” Overpayments include reimbursement for services that are not medically necessary, as verified by records existing at the time of service. Petitioner is also empowered to impose sanctions and recover costs against offending providers. During all times relevant hereto, Respondent was a Florida Medicaid provider authorized to provide dental care to Medicaid beneficiaries and to receive reimbursement for covered services. The dental practice of Ronald M. Marini, D.M.D., P.A., is owned by Ronald M. Marini, D.M.D. Dr. Marini has continuously practiced dentistry since graduating in 1967 from the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine. Dr. Marini’s practice focuses primarily on the treatment of children who have dental coverage through Medicaid. Dr. Marini is not board-certified in any specialty. Pursuant to what is commonly referred to as the “pay- and-chase” system, Petitioner pays Medicaid providers under an honor system for services rendered to Medicaid recipients. If Petitioner subsequently determines that the provider was paid for services rendered which were not in compliance with Medicaid requirements, then Petitioner seeks reimbursement from the provider. The Medicaid Provider Agreement is a voluntary contract between Petitioner and a Medicaid provider. Paragraph 3 of the Medicaid Provider Agreement states that “[t]he provider agrees to comply with local, state, and federal laws, as well as rules, regulations, and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program, including the Medicaid Provider Handbooks issued by AHCA.” During the audit period, Respondent was an enrolled Medicaid provider and had a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement with Petitioner. By correspondence to Respondent dated February 27, 2014, Petitioner requested records related to claims billed to Medicaid by Respondent for the audit period March 1, 2010, through August 31, 2012. Respondent provided documents in response to Petitioner’s request for records. Petitioner completed a review of the records that Respondent submitted, and on July 9, 2014, issued a Preliminary Audit Report (PAR). Petitioner advised in the PAR that it believed Respondent was overpaid in the amount of $590,008.15. In response to the PAR, Respondent submitted additional information to the Agency. After receipt and evaluation of Respondent’s additional information, Petitioner issued its FAR finding that Respondent was overpaid $590,008.15 during the audit period (later reduced to $513,246.91). The FAR also informed Respondent that Petitioner was imposing a fine of $118,001.63 as a sanction for violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(7)(e), and was seeking reimbursement of costs in the amount of $2,223.64. The FAR states six grounds on which Petitioner seeks to recoup monies paid to Respondent, and provides as follows: The 2007 and 2011 Dental Services Coverage and Limitations Handbooks, page 2-2, specify that Medicaid reimburses for services that are individualized, specific, consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury under treatment, not in excess of the recipient's needs, and reflect the level of services that can be safely furnished. A review of your records by a peer consultant revealed that the level of service for some claims submitted was not supported by the documentation. The appropriate code was applied and the payment adjusted. Payments made to you for these services, in excess of the adjusted amount, are considered an overpayment. The 2008 Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook, pages 5-8 and 2-57, defines incomplete records as records that lack documentation that all requirements or conditions for service provision have been met. A review of your records revealed that documentation for some services for which you billed and received payment was incomplete or not provided. Payments made to you for these services are considered an overpayment. The 2008 Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook, page 5-4, states that when presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to present a claim for goods and services that are medically necessary. A review of your records revealed that the medical necessity for some claims submitted was not supported by the documentation. Payments made to you for these services are considered an overpayment. The 2008 Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook, page 5-4, requires that when presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to present a claim that is true and accurate and is for goods and services that have actually been furnished to the recipient. A review of your records revealed that some services were double billed. Payments made to you for these services are considered an overpayment. The 2008 Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook, page 5-4, requires that when presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to present a claim that is true and accurate and is for goods and services that have actually been furnished to the recipient. A review of your records revealed that some services rendered were erroneously coded. The appropriate code was applied and the payment adjusted, if applicable. Payments made to you for these services, in excess of the adjusted amount, are considered an overpayment. The 2007 and 2011 Dental Services Coverage and Limitations Handbooks, pages 2- 34 and 2-35 respectively, limit reimbursement for restorative services to essential services necessary to restore and maintain dental health; one restoration per tooth surface except for the occlusal surface of permanent maxillary 1st and 2nd molars; one resin restoration for a mesial or distal lesion; and one posterior one-surface resin restoration every three years per tooth number or letter per tooth surface. A review of your dental records revealed that you billed and received payment for a restoration in excess of the maximum. Payment made to you for this service is considered an overpayment. Mark Kuhl, D.M.D., was offered and accepted as Petitioner's expert in the areas of rendering dental care and dental medical necessity with respect to Medicaid overpayment cases. Dr. Kuhl was also offered and accepted as a peer reviewer pursuant to section 409.9131, Florida Statutes. Since 1985, Dr. Kuhl has been continuously licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. Dr. Kuhl is not board-certified in any specialty and operates a general dentistry practice where he treats pediatric patients. W. Michael Ingalls, D.D.S., was offered and accepted as Respondent's “expert in dentistry with a focus on pediatric dentistry.” Dr. Ingalls was not, however, recognized as an expert as to matters pertaining to Medicaid coding for services rendered. Dr. Ingalls has practiced dentistry continuously since graduating from the University of Washington School of Dentistry in 1984. Dr. Ingalls has been board-certified by the American Board of Pediatric Dentistry since 1997. Dr. Ingalls has owned and operated his own pediatric dental practice in Lake Mary, Florida, since 1987. During the audit period, there were two versions of the Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook in effect. As applied to the instant dispute, there are no material differences between the two General Handbooks so, unless otherwise indicated, they will collectively be referred to as the General Handbook. During the audit period, there were also two versions of The Florida Medicaid Provider Dental Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook in effect. As applied to the instant dispute, there are no material differences between the two Dental Handbooks so, unless otherwise indicated, they will collectively be referred to as the Dental Handbook. Missing or Incomplete Documentation The General Handbook provides, in part, as follows: When presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to . . . present a claim . . . that is for goods and services that . . . [a]re documented by records made at the time the goods or services were provided demonstrating the medical necessity for the goods or services rendered. Medicaid goods or services are excessive or not medically necessary unless both the medical basis and the specific need for them are fully and properly documented in the recipient’s medical record. The General Handbook also provides that “[m]edical records must state the necessity for and the extent of services provided [and] the following requirements may vary according to the service rendered: Description of what was done during the visit; History; Physical assessment; Chief Complaint on each visit; Diagnostic tests and results; Diagnosis; Treatment plan, including prescription; Medications, supplies, scheduling frequency for follow-up or other services; Progress reports, treatment rendered; The author of each (medical record) entry must be identified and must authenticate his entry by signature, written initials or computer entry; Dates of service; and Referrals to other services. The General Handbook does not define what constitutes a medical record. The General Handbook further provides that a Medicaid provider has an affirmative duty to provide services “in accord with applicable provisions of all Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies and in accordance with federal, state and local law.” For the applicable audit period, section 466.018(3), Florida Statutes (2011), required, in part, that “[e]very dentist shall maintain written dental records and medical history records which justify the course of treatment of the patient.” Additionally, section 466.028(1)(m) subjects a dentist to disciplinary action for “[f]ailing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient.” Section 466.018(3) makes clear that dental records and medical history records must justify, or explain why, a particular course of treatment was undertaken by a dental care provider. Respondent utilizes software to capture the services provided to his patients. The software has a “patient notes master” section, which allows the user to post narrative information about a patient, including information related to patient evaluation and insurance claims status. The software also has a “patient chart” section which reflects information such as dates of service, a description of services provided (with Current Dental Terminology codes, hereinafter CDT code(s)), the tooth and surface involved, and the treatment status of the affected tooth. The patient chart section also has a colorized tooth chart that visually depicts information found in the description, tooth, and surface sections of the patient chart. The “patient notes master” section and all parts of the “patient chart,” collectively and substantively, comprise the patient medical record contemplated by the General and Dental Handbooks, respectively. There is nothing in Petitioner’s rules, regulations, General or Dental Handbooks, or section 466.018(3), that requires patient treatment information to be gleaned only from the patient notes section of a patient’s dental record. Recipient 1 (Not in Patient Notes) On January 14, 2011, patient K.A., who at the time was an existing patient, was treated by Respondent. According to the dental records, Respondent performed a “periodic oral evaluation [CDT code 0120],” took several x-rays, and removed “plaque, calculus and stains from the tooth structures in the primary and transitional dentition [CDT code 1120].” The results of the evaluation revealed that K.A. had “decay” in teeth “S” and “A.” K.A. was given a topical fluoride treatment (CDT code 1203) and oral hygiene instructions (CDT code 1330). Petitioner denied treatment related to CDT codes 1203 and 1330 on the basis that there is no documentation in the “patient notes” to warrant payment for these services. While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for K.A. offers no justification or otherwise documents the need for CDT codes 1203 and 1330, the “patient chart” portion of K.A.’s dental record clearly documents that these services were provided to K.A. Payment for these services should be allowed. On February 15, 2012, K.A. was treated by Respondent. According to the dental record, Respondent performed a “periodic oral evaluation [CDT code 0120],” took several X-rays, and removed “plaque, calculus and stains from the tooth structures in the primary and transitional dentition [CDT code 1120].” The results of the evaluation revealed that K.A. had “decay” in teeth 14, 19 and 30. K.A. was given a topical fluoride treatment (CDT code 1203) and oral hygiene instructions (CDT code 1330). Petitioner denied treatment related to CDT codes 0120, 1203 and 1330 on the basis that there is no documentation in the “patient notes” to warrant payment for these services. While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for K.A. offers no justification or otherwise documents the need for CDT codes 0120, 1203 and 1330, the “patient chart” portion of K.A.’s dental record clearly documents that these services were provided by Respondent to K.A. Payment for these services should be allowed. On March 9, 2012, K.A. was treated by Respondent. According to the patient chart, Respondent applied a resin-based composite to K.A.’s teeth 14, 19 and 30 (CDT codes 2391 and 2392). Petitioner denied payment for treatment related to these services on the basis that there is no documentation in the “patient notes” to warrant payment. While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for K.A. fails to mention that these services were provided, the “patient chart” portion of K.A.’s dental record clearly documents that these services were provided by Respondent to K.A. and payment for these services should be allowed. Recipient 2 (Not in Patient Notes) On April 5, 2011, E.B. was treated by Respondent. According to the dental record, Respondent performed a “comprehensive oral evaluation [CDT code 0145]” and removed “plaque, calculus and stains from the tooth structures in the primary and transitional dentition [CDT code 1120].” E.B. was given a topical fluoride treatment (CDT code 1203) and oral hygiene instructions (CDT code 1330). Petitioner denied payment for the fluoride treatment on the basis that there is no documentation in the “patient notes” for these services. While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for E.B. fails to mention the fluoride treatment, the “patient chart” portion of E.B.’s dental record clearly documents that these services were provided by Respondent to E.B. and payment for these services should be allowed. Recipient 11 (Not in Patient Notes) On April 26 and May 23, 2012, P.D. was treated by Respondent. According to the dental record, Respondent, during these visits, applied “resin-based composite – two surface, posterior [CDT code 2393],” to the distal and occlusal surfaces of teeth 4 and 5, and the mesial and occlusal surfaces of tooth 3. Petitioner denied payment for treatment related to these services on the basis that there is no documentation in the “patient notes” to warrant payment. While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for P.D. fails to mention that these services were provided, the “patient chart” portion of P.D.’s dental record clearly documents that these services were provided and payment for these services should be allowed. Recipient 20 (Not in Record) On February 7, 2012, M.J. was treated by Respondent. According to the dental record, Respondent performed an “extraction, erupted tooth or exposed root [CDT code 7140]” for teeth D and E. Petitioner denied payment for treatment related to these services on the basis that there is no documentation in the patient record to warrant payment. The “patient chart” portion of M.J.’s dental record clearly documents that these services were provided and payment for the same should be allowed. Recipient 23 (Not in Patient Notes) On July 5, 2012, M.M. was treated by Respondent. According to the dental record, Respondent applied a “resin-based composite – three surfaces, anterior [CDT code 2393]” to teeth E and F. The dental record also reflects that behavior management techniques (CDT code 9920) were applied during the procedure. Petitioner denied payment for treatment related to these services on the basis that there is no documentation in the “patient notes” to warrant payment. While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for M.M. fails to mention that these services were provided, the “patient chart” portion of M.M.’s dental record clearly documents that these services were provided and payment for these services should therefore be allowed. Recipient 24 (Not in Patient Notes) On October 19, 2010, A.M. was treated by Respondent. According to the dental record, Respondent applied a “resin-based composite – two surfaces, posterior [CDT code 2392],” to teeth A and J. The dental record also shows that a “pulp cap – indirect [CDT code 3120]” was applied to tooth A. Petitioner denied payment for treatment related to the application of the pulp cap on the basis that there is no documentation of the same in the patient “notes.” While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for A.M. fails to mention the application of a pulp cap, the “patient chart” portion of A.M.’s dental record clearly documents that this service was provided and payment for should therefore be allowed. Recipient 25 (Not in Patient Notes) On February 16, 2011, I.O. was treated by Respondent. According to the dental record, Respondent applied a “resin-based composite – two surfaces, posterior [CDT code 2392],” to the occlusal/lingual and distal/buccal surfaces of tooth A. Petitioner denied payment for these services on the basis that there is no documentation of the same in the “patient notes.” While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for I.O. fails to mention that these services were provided, the “patient chart” portion of I.O.’s dental record clearly documents that these services were provided and payment for the same should be allowed. Recipient 26 (Not in Patient Notes) On November 1, 2010, C.R. was treated by Respondent. According to the dental record, Respondent, during these visits, applied “resin-based composite – one surface, posterior [CDT code 2391],” to the occlusal surfaces of teeth L and S, and both the occlusal and buccal surfaces of teeth K and T. Petitioner denied payment for treatment related to the application of the resin- based composite to the occlusal surface for tooth S on the basis that there is no documentation of this service in the “patient notes.” While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for C.R. fails to mention that this service was provided, the “patient chart” portion of C.R.’s dental record clearly documents that this service was provided and payment for the same should be allowed. Services Billed at Lower Level The Dental Handbook provides in part that “[a] comprehensive oral evaluation is used by a dentist when evaluating a patient comprehensively. This applies to new patients and to established patients who have a significant change in health conditions or who have been absent from treatment for three or more years.” The Dental handbook also states that “[a] provider may only be reimbursed for a comprehensive oral evaluation once every three years for the same recipient.” Respondent contends that Petitioner erroneously adjusted payment for this service because the comprehensive evaluations were conducted more than three years apart. Recipient 20 – J.M. On February 2, 2012, Respondent treated J.M. For this service date, Respondent billed for a comprehensive oral evaluation (CDT code 0150). According to J.M.’s dental record, Respondent previously performed a comprehensive evaluation on January 5, 2009. J.M.’s dental record also indicates that between these dates, Respondent treated her on seven different occasions. While it is true that the time between comprehensive evaluations is more than three years, Petitioner properly adjusted payment for the February 2, 2012, service because J.M. was not absent from treatment during this interval. Recipient 22 – S.M. On July 18, 2011, Respondent treated S.M. For this service date, Respondent billed for a comprehensive oral evaluation (CDT code 0150). According to S.M.’s dental record, Respondent previously performed a comprehensive evaluation on January 14, 2011. Petitioner adjusted the July 18, 2011, service to a “periodic oral evaluation [CDT code 0120],” which reimburses at a lower rate. Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner properly adjusted the reimbursement rate for this service. Not Medically Necessary Applicable Medicaid regulations require that “medical necessity” be documented by specific records made at the time the services were provided, and that the records fully identify the medical basis and the need for the services. In other words, a provider must document the rationale for conducting a particular service at the time of making the decision to perform the same. Petitioner asserts that Respondent failed to submit sufficient documentation to establish that the disputed charges were for "medically necessary" services. FAR Finding No. 3 involves CDT codes 0240, 0250 and 0260. These codes reflect services for radiograph/diagnostic imaging procedures that “[s]hould be taken only for clinical reasons as determined by the patient’s dentist.” According to the Dental Handbook, these radiographs will not, however, be reimbursed for caries (decay) detection. The Dental Handbook also states that “[r]eimbursement for a complete series of intraoral radiographs is limited to once in a three (3) year period, per recipient.” Petitioner asserts that Respondent failed to establish that the use of CDT codes 0240, 0250, and 0260 was medically necessary for certain claims related to patients 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, 20, 22, 26, 31, and 32. Respondent contends that services related to the disputed charges were necessary to monitor growth and development and screen for oral pathology because children’s dentition is rapidly changing during early adolescence. In other words, Respondent suggests that medical necessity exists for the radiographs essentially for no other reason than because the child is of a particular age. According to Dr. Kuhl, the ADA Guidelines, which are authoritative and instructive, provide that for radiographs to be medically necessary there should be sufficient documentation in the dental record to indicate the specific, individualized indication for why Respondent billed for the radiograph procedure and any results that were obtained pursuant to that procedure. Dr. Kuhl testified that Respondent’s dental records for each of the disputed claims provide no indication for or need as to why the X-rays were taken. According to Respondent’s expert, Dr. Ingalls, the standard of care for taking occlusal X-rays is that they are to be taken “when there was decay present or trauma had occurred” and that they are not taken simply as screening X-rays. The following testimony from Dr. Ingalls is instructive: Q: Okay. If you were to take an intraoral occlusal radiograph, would you document why you took it? A: I would have a description of what was found from taking it, which would say why you took it. You’d have a reason to take it to begin with and then you write a comment of what was found. Q: And do you write that in the narrative form? A: I have it in the narrative form. Sometimes, again, if I gave you an example, a child comes who’s fallen and hit their front teeth on the floor at home and displaced or broken a tooth or even the parent was concerned with bleeding from the gumline, I would take an occlusal radiograph to record what was there, partly to assure that there was nothing that required treatment and also to provide a baseline for future comparison where I would take future occlusal radiographs to monitor any changes over time. And I would have a record of that traumatic incident, every part of it; where it occurred, how it occurred, all of the examination findings around it on a trauma evaluation and the outcome of the findings in the x-ray and any treatment plan and instructions given to the parent. Q: Would you say that approach to medical records is standard? A: Within my specialty, that is the guideline that is taught to us that we follow so that we do not miss anything. Hearing Transcript pp. 411-413. The opinions of Dr. Kuhl and Dr. Inglass are consistent and provide that a medical basis and need for the X-rays at issue must be established and documented, and that the X-rays in question are not to be used as a screening device as suggested by Respondent. Recipient 1 Recipient 1, K.A., had four claims that were denied as to CDT codes 0240, 0250, and 0260. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of these claims. Recipient 5 Recipient 5, S.C., had a single claim that was denied as to CDT code 0240. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of this claim. Recipient 8 Recipient 8, D.C., had a single claim that was denied as to CDT code 0240. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of this claim. Recipient 9 Recipient 9, D.D., had two claims that were denied as to CDT code 0240. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of these claims. Recipient 10 Recipient 10, G.D., had two claims that were denied as to CDT code 0240. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of these claims. Recipient 14 Recipient 14, E.E., had a single claim that was denied as to CDT code 0240. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of this claim. Recipient 20 Recipient 20, M.J., had six claims that were denied as to CDT codes 0240, 0250, and 0260. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of these claims. Recipient 22 Recipient 22, K.A., had two claims that were denied. Each claim was billed using CDT code 0250. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of these claims. Recipient 26 Recipient 26, C.R., had a single claim that was denied as to CDT code 0240. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of this claim. Recipient 31 Recipient 31, J.R., had two claims that were denied. Each claim was billed using CDT code 0240. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of these claims. Recipient 32 Recipient 32, J.R., had a single claim that was denied as to CDT code 0240. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of this claim. Erroneous Coding According to the Dental Handbook, “[s]ealants are applied to pits and fissures of permanent teeth to prevent caries [and] [t]he enamel surface of the tooth may be mechanically or chemically[,] or mechanically and chemically prepared.” The Dental Handbook also states that “[s]ealants applied to deciduous (primary) teeth will not be reimbursed by Medicaid.” CDT code D1351 (sealant – per tooth) describes this service as “[mechanically and/or chemically prepared enamel surface sealed to prevent decay.” As for resin restorations, the Dental Handbook provides that “Medicaid may reimburse for . . . [r]esin restorations . . . [and that] [t]he fee for resin restorations includes local anesthesia, tooth preparation, routine lining and base, polishing, and the use of any adhesive, such as amalgam bonding agents.” As a restriction on the use of resin restorations, the Handbook provides that “[r]esin restorations may be used to restore carious lesions that extend into the dentin or areas that are deeply eroded into dentin.” CDT codes 2391/2392 provide that the resin composite is “[u]sed to restore a carious lesion into the dentin or a deeply eroded area into the dentin.” In comparing sealant and resin restoration services, it is evident that sealants are for the enamel surface of the tooth whereas restorations, when undertaken to eliminate carious lesions, are appropriate only when the lesions extend into the dentin. In understanding the sealant and restoration provisions of the Dental Handbook, it is also evident that in order to be reimbursed for either CDT code 2391 or 2392 there must be sufficient justification of carious intrusion into the dentin and in the absence of such justification it may be appropriate to adjust the service to CDT code 1351, unless, of course, the service relates to a deciduous tooth. FAR finding No. 5 involves CDT codes 2391, 2392 and 1351 and applies to recipients 8, 13, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, and 32. Petitioner, based on Dr. Kuhl’s analysis, adjusted reimbursement for CDT codes D2391 and D2392 downward to CDT code D1351 when the following criteria were present: X-rays did not show any decay, Respondent’s dental record for the recipient did not specifically indicate that any decay was removed, Respondent’s dental record for the recipient stated that only a “flowable” resin was used, and Respondent’s dental record for the recipient did not indicate that anesthesia was used. Dr. Kuhl evaluated the criteria and, when all four were met, he concluded that it was very likely that any decay present did not extend into the dentin as required for CDT code descriptions and applicable Florida Medicaid Handbooks. Dr. Kuhl’s protocol for identifying claims that do not meet the requirements for codes 2391 and 2392 is consistent with the requirements of Florida Medicaid Handbooks and is credited. There are, however, instances where Dr. Kuhl made downward adjustments for claims when, according to the requirements of the Dental Handbook, the claims should not have been paid. Recipient 8 For recipient 8, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code 2391 or 2392 for claims 6 through 11. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl erred, however, in adjusting these claims to CDT code 1351 because the teeth involved in these claims (A, J, K, L, S, and T) are deciduous teeth that are not eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied. In accordance with the Dental Handbook, these claims should be denied. Recipient 13 For recipient 13, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code 2391 or 2392 for claims 8 through 13, 18, 20, 21, and 24 through 26. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl erred, however, in adjusting claims 8, 9, 12, 13, and 24 through 26 to CDT code 1351 because the teeth involved in these claims (A, I, J, K, S, and T) are deciduous teeth that are not eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied. In accordance with the Dental Handbook, these claims should be denied. As for claims 10, 11, 18, 20, and 21, Dr. Kuhl correctly adjusted these claims downward to CDT code 1351 because the permanent teeth involved in these claims are eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied under appropriate circumstances. Recipient 19 For recipient 19, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code 2391 or 2392 for claims 1 through 5. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl erred, however, in adjusting these claims to CDT code 1351 because the teeth involved in these claims (A, B, J, K, and T) are deciduous teeth that are not eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied. In accordance with the Dental Handbook, these claims should be denied. Recipient 22 For recipient 22, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code D2391 or D2392 for claims 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16. This opinion is credited. As for claims 10, 11, 13, and 16, Dr. Kuhl correctly adjusted these claims downward to CDT code 1351 because the permanent teeth involved in these claims are eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied under appropriate circumstances. Claim 15 involved tooth 20, which is not identified in the Dental Handbook as a tooth that is eligible for reimbursement when a sealant is applied. Accordingly, claim 15 should be denied. Recipient 23 For recipient 23, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code D2391 or D2392 for claims 13 through 15, and 17. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl erred, however, in adjusting these claims to CDT code 1351 because the teeth involved in these claims (K, L, S, and T) are deciduous teeth that are not eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied. In accordance with the Dental Handbook, these claims should be denied. Recipient 24 For recipient 24, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code 2391 or 2392 for claims 13, 17, and 21. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl erred, however, in adjusting claims 13 and 17 to CDT code 1351 because the teeth involved in these claims (A and J) are deciduous teeth that are not eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied. In accordance with the Dental Handbook, these claims should be denied. As for claim 21, Dr. Kuhl correctly adjusted this claim downward from CDT code 2392 to CDT code D2940 because the patient record reflects that a sedative filling was applied and not a resin-based composite restoration as billed. Recipient 26 For recipient 26, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code 2391 or 2392 for claims 9 through 11. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl erred, however, in adjusting these claims to CDT code 1351 because the teeth involved (K, L, and T) are deciduous teeth that are not eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied. In accordance with the Dental Handbook, these claims should be denied. Recipient 28 For recipient 28, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code 2391 or 2392 for claims 8, 9, and 11. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl correctly adjusted these claims downward to CDT code 1351 because the permanent teeth involved (3, 14, and 30) are eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied under appropriate circumstances. Recipient 29 For recipient 29, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code 2391 or 2392 for claims 4, 5, 8, and 10. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl erred, however, in adjusting claims 8 and 10 to CDT code 1351 because the teeth involved in these claims (K and T) are deciduous teeth that are not eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied. In accordance with the Dental Handbook, these claims should be denied. As for claims 4 and 5, Dr. Kuhl correctly adjusted these claims downward to CDT code 1351 because the permanent teeth involved in these claims (3 and 19) are eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied under appropriate circumstances. Recipient 32 For recipient 32, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code 2391 or 2392 for claims 9 through 12, 28, 30, and 32. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl erred however in adjusting claims 11 and 32 to CDT code 1351 because the teeth involved in these claims (J and S) are deciduous teeth that are not eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied. In accordance with the Dental Handbook, these claims should be denied. As for claims 12 and 28, Dr. Kuhl correctly adjusted these claims downward to CDT code 1351 because the permanent teeth involved in these claims (14 and 30) are eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied under appropriate circumstances. As for claim 30, Dr. Kuhl erred in adjusting this claim downward to CDT code 1351 because it involves tooth 30 which was addressed in claim 12. The Handbook provides that “[s]ealants may be reimbursed once per three years, per tooth.” The date of service for claim 12 is October 19, 2010, and the date of service for claim 30 is March 28, 2012. Claim 30 was not submitted more than three years after claim 12, and it should therefore be denied. Duplicate Claims Certain claims were denied by Petitioner as being duplicates of other claims. These claims relate to FAR finding No. 4, which involves CDT Codes 2391, 2392, and 1351. Recipient 8 For recipient 8, claims 12 and 13 were billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2391 for teeth K and T. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 for services related to these teeth. Because tooth K was addressed in claim 8 (as previously discussed) and tooth T was addressed in claim 11 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that claims 12 and 13 are duplicate claims that should be denied. Recipient 13 For recipient 13, claims 14 through 17, and 19, were billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2391 for teeth K, T, 3 and 30. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 for services related to these teeth. Because tooth K was addressed in claim 12 (as previously discussed), tooth T was addressed in claim 13 (as previously discussed), tooth 3 was addressed in claim 18 (as previously discussed), and tooth 30 was addressed in claim 11 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that claims 14 through 17, and 19 are duplicate claims that should be denied. Recipient 19 For recipient 19, claim 6 was billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2391 for tooth K. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 for services related to this tooth. Because tooth K was addressed in claim 8 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that this claim is a duplicate claim that should be denied. Recipient 22 For recipient 22, claims 12 and 14 were billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2392 for teeth 14 and 15. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 for services related to these teeth. Because the patient record does not support the use of code 2391, it also does not support the use of code 2392. Because tooth 14 was addressed in claim 11 (as previously discussed) and tooth 15 was addressed in claim 13 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that claims 12 and 14 are duplicates that should be denied. Recipient 23 For recipient 23, claim 16 was billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2391 for tooth T. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 for services related to this tooth. Because tooth T was addressed in claim 15 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that this claim is a duplicate that should be denied. Recipient 26 For recipient 26, claims 13 and 14 were billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2391 for teeth K and T. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 for services related to these teeth. Because tooth K was addressed in claim 9 (as previously discussed) and tooth T was addressed in claim 10 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that claims 13 and 14 are duplicates that should be denied. Recipient 28 For recipient 28, claim 10 was billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2391 for tooth 3. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 for services related to this tooth. Because tooth 3 was addressed in claim 8 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that this claim is a duplicate that should be denied. Recipient 29 For recipient 29, claims 6 and 7 were billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2392 for teeth 3 and 14. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 for services related to these teeth. Because the patient record does not support the use of CDT code 2391, it also does not support the use of CDT code 2392. Because tooth 3 was addressed in claim 4 (as previously discussed) and tooth 14 was addressed in claim 15 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that claims 6 and 7 are duplicates that should be denied. Recipient 32 For recipient 32, claims 13 and 31 were billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2391 for teeth 19 and 30, and claim 29 was billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2392 for tooth 14. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 and 2392 for services related to these teeth. Because tooth 14 was addressed in claim 28 (as previously discussed) tooth 19 was addressed in claim 10 (as previously discussed), and tooth 30 was addressed in claims 12 and 30 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that claims 13, 29, and 31 are duplicates that should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order that: Revises the Final Audit Report consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein; Recalculates the total overpayment consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein; Requires Respondent to pay interest at the statutorily mandated rate on the recalculated overpayment; and Requires Respondent to pay a fine in the amount of 20 percent of the recalculated overpayment. Pursuant to section 409.913(23)(a), Petitioner is entitled to recover all investigative, legal and expert witness costs. Petitioner has documented costs of $2,223.64, but advises that “[a]dditional costs have been incurred in preparing for and attending the final hearing.” Jurisdiction is retained to determine the amount of appropriate costs, if the parties are unable to agree. Within 30 days after entry of the final order, either party may file a request for a hearing on the amount. Failure to request a hearing within 30 days after entry of the final order shall be deemed to indicate that the issue of costs has been resolved. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 29th day of August, 2017.
The Issue Whether or not on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent, James P. Haas, was offering to practice dentistry, and indeed practicing dentistry at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center, in violation of Sections 466.24(3)(n) and 466.36, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent, James P. Haas, maintained a telephone listing whereby he offered to practice dentistry as D.A.D. Denture Center at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, and whether or not he continues to maintain said listing, in violation of Sections 466.24(3)(g) and 466.27(5), Florida Statutes. Whether or not since January 1, 1978, or prior to that date, one Bernie Morlock has been employed by the Respondent, James P. Haas, to perform dental services at a time when the said Bernie Morlock was not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene in the State of Florida. Further, whether or not Bernie Morlock, while employed by the Respondent, practiced dentistry as defined in Section 466.04, Florida Statutes, to the extent of: Taking impressions of the human teeth and jaws. Placing dentures and dental appliances in patients' mouths and adjusting or attempting to adjust same. Diagnosing or professing to diagnose the physical condition of the teeth and jaws of patients. Finally, whether or not the Respondent knowingly allowed the practice of dentistry by Bernie Morlock in violation of Section 466.02, Florida Statutes, and in further violation of Section 466.24(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes. Whether or not since January 1, 1978, or prior to that date, the Respondent, James P. Haas, has employed unlicensed personnel to perform dental services for patients, to-wit: orthodontic treatment, which services constitute the practice of dentistry under Section 466.04, Florida Statutes. Further, whether or not if these services were performed by unlicensed persons, were they performed with the full knowledge and consent of the Respondent, thereby constituting a violation on the part of the Respondent of Sections 466.24(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes. (The Amended Accusation which charges the Respondent contained a certain Count III; however, no testimony was offered in support of that allegation and at the conclusion of the formal hearing, the Petitioner, through its counsel, voluntarily withdrew that count from consideration. This voluntary dismissal was unopposed by the Respondent.)
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, Division of Professions, Board of Dentistry, is an agency of the state created for the purposes of protecting the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the State of Florida, to the extent that practice of dentistry in the state and dental hygiene are subject to the regulation and control of the Petitioner in the public interest. The authority for such regulation is set forth in Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and those rules of the Florida Administrative Code related thereto. The Respondent, James P. Haas, is licensed by the Florida State Board of Dentistry to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. The Petitioner, by an Amended Accusation, has charged the Respondent, James P. Haas, with various violations of provisions of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and the Respondent has requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, which request has been granted and a hearing held on February 15 and 16, 1979. The first of the allegations states that on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent was offering to practice dentistry and indeed practicing dentistry at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center. The facts reveal that Dr. Haas made an arrangement with an organization known as Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., of Harredsberg, Kentucky, wherein he agreed to coordinate the placement of advertisements for the benefit of that corporation and in turn the corporation agreed to refer patients to Dr. Haas for his treatment. The advertising spoken of consisted of an ad in the Winter Park, Florida, telephone directory yellow pages and certain newspaper advertising through the Orlando Sentinel of Orlando, Florida. The advertising in the telephone directory was placed in the fall of 1977 and a copy of that yellow page advertising may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence contains a copy of the format for the telephone yellow page advertising, as contemplated by Dr. Haas through his agreement with Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., of Harredsberg, Kentucky. The listing of the telephone number was of the number in Harredsberg, Kentucky, and those individuals at that number in turn made the referrals to Dr. Haas's office located at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida. An example of the newspaper advertising may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence at page 161-I, a copy of the Sentinal Star Progress Edition of December 18, 1977. In that advertising the same number is given as indicated in the aforementioned telephone telephone ad, with the difference being that Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., is given as the trade name as opposed to D.A.D. Denture Center, which was found in the telephone advertisement. Dr. Haas maintained a separate checking account for D.A.D. Denture Center, the name of his affiliation with Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc. The payments for services made by those patients referred through the D.A.D. Denture Center process, were placed into the D.A.D. Denture Center operating account of Dr. Haas. Those persons authorized to make withdrawals from that account were Dr. Haas and his employee, Bernie Morlock, and checks were drawn from that account under the authority of Dr. Haas. The overall income and expanses of D.A.D. Denture Center, operated by Dr. Haas, and of his general practice in the name of James P. Haas-sole proprietor, were combined and were under the control and authority of Dr. Haas. The dental office located in Longwood, Florida, was identified as the office of James P. Haas, D.D.S., and also by a placard indicating the office to be a D.A.D. Denture Center. Finally, those patients who called for service under D.A.D. Denture Center were charged by different fee structure and were listed in a separate appointment book, than that appointment hook for the Respondent through his general practice, James P. Haas, D.D.S. The Respondent was knowledgeable of the arrangement to treat patients under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center at the address in Longwood, Florida, and in fact practiced dentistry under that assumed name and at that location as alleged in Count I of the Amended Accusation. This constituted a violation of Section 466.36, Florida Statutes, which states: "Practicing dentistry under assumed name; penalties.-- On and after the passage of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to practice or offer to practice dentistry under any name except his or her own proper name, which shall be the name used in his or her license certificate granted to him or her as a dentist as provided in this chapter, and unlawful to use the name of any company, association, corporation, clinic, trade name, or business name in connection with the practice of dentistry as defined in this chapter, provided, nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent two or more licensed dentists from associating to- gether for the practice of dentistry, each in his or her own proper name. The violation of any of the provisions of this section by any dentist shall subject such dentist to suspen- sion or revocation of his or her license." The advertisement placed in the Winter Park, Florida, telephone directory, which is sham as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence, was placed with the knowledge of the Respondent and with the intention by the Respondent that the advertisement be made. This advertisement pertained to the 1978 telephone directory for Winter Park, Florida. Under these facts, the Petitioner has charged the Respondent with a violation of Section 466.27(5), Florida Statutes. That provision reads: "466.27(5) Telephone listings shall be con- fined to the local telephone directories. Such listings shall be limited to the den- tist's name, dental degree, 'D.D.S.' or 'D.M.D.,' using the abbreviation only, the word 'dentist,' 'dentistry,' or 'general dentistry,' any specialty as approved by the board to which the dentist confines his practice exclusively, office location, resi- dence and office telephone numbers, and residence address and may include his member- ship in a local dental society if in accord with local customs." A review of the language of this section, in view of the fact that the advertising in the telephone directory inured to the benefit of the Respondent by the process of the referral system spoken of above, demonstrates that the telephone listing was for the benefit of Dr. Haas and was not in keeping with the requirements of this subsection. This constituted advertising professional services and the practice of dentistry in a manner not expressly authorized by Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and was therefore in violation of Section 466.24(3)(g), Florida Statutes. One of the employees of the Respondent who worked in the office at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, was Bernie Morlock. Morlock was not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene in the State of Florida at any time relevant to the allegations in the Amended Accusation. Nonetheless, Morlock practiced dentistry as defined by Section 466.04, Florida Statutes, and did so in the office of the Respondent in Longwood, Florida, with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent. The arrangement which was condoned by the Respondent allowed for Morlock to have patients scheduled for him for the purpose of the preparation of dentures through the referral system, D.A.D. Denture Center, which was part of Dr. Haas's Longwood, Florida, office. (An example of the written schedules may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence.) Dr. Haas had instructed that these patients be scheduled to be seen by Bernie Morlock. Some of these patients were being seen by Dr. Haas's office for the first time and were attended by Bernie Morlock from this initial visit to the conclusion of the case, at which time the patients were given their dentures. Morlock's involvement with patients included diagnosis of the physical condition of the teeth and jaws of the patients; taking impressions of patients' teeth, both algenate and working model impressions; the placement of dentures and other dental appliances in the patients' mouths and the adjustment to those dentures and dental appliances, and the discussion of the case with the patient. Most of the work that Morlock did was done at a time when Dr. Haas was not in attendance in the aforementioned office and was done without supervision from any licensed dentist. This process undertaxen by Bernie Morlock happened on numerous occasions. The patients were considered to be Morlock's patients and the patients only saw licensed dentists for the purpose of extracting teeth or other dental procedures unconnected with the fabrication and try-in and adjustment to the dentures. These actions on the part of Bernie Morlock took place during the time period alleged in Count IV of the Amended Accusation. By allowing Bernie Morlock to attend patients in the fashion that Morlock did, the Respondent was willfully negligent in the practice of dentistry within the moaning of Section 466.24(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and in addition was guilty of a violation of Section 466.24(e), Florida Statutes, which states: "Employing or permitting any unlicensed per- son or persons to perform any work in his office which would constitute the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene, except a dental auxiliary pursuant to the provisions of this chapter." During the period of time alleged in Count V of the Amended Accusation, the Respondent employed dental hygienists Vic Simmons and Mary Simmons at his office in Longwood, Florida. Although they wore dental hygienists, these individuals were not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene within the State of Florida. Notwithstanding this absence of a license, the Simmonses practiced dentistry in the Longwood office within the meaning of Section 466.04, Florida Statutes. This included having certain schedules set for them as indicated by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. This is an example of the schedule for the Simmonses under the title, "Ortho". This scheduling was with the knowledge of Dr. Haas, who had arranged for the Simmonses to come and treat orthodontic patients in his office. The Simmonses came to the location of the Respondent's office two days a month, of which Dr. Haas was in the Longwood office one of those days. These orthodontic patients would be seen initially by Dr. Haas and then treated for their condition by the Simmonses. Some of the patients first seen by the Simmonses arrived at the office without any form of braces in the mouth of the patient. The procedures that the Simmonses then performed were done without supervision by a licensed dentist. By that it is meant that the Simmonses were performing the dental services without the licensed dentist being in the room. The Simmonses, in the pursuit of orthodontic dental practice, placed bands and changed beads, cemented hands and placed arch wires; all with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent. Under the circumstances involved in the employment of the Simmonses, it has been demonstrated that the Respondent is guilty of willful negligence in the practice of dentistry as prescribed in Section 466.24(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is also guilty of a violation of Section 466.24(3)(e), Florida Statutes, in that he employed and permitted unlicensed persons to perform work in his office which would constitute the practice of dentistry. The proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation offered by the parties have been revied prior to the rendition of this Recommended Order. To the extent that the proposals conform to the findings herein, they have been utilized in developing the Recommended Order. To the extent that the proposals are inconsistent with the findings herein, they are rejected.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Colette Michele Gatward (Petitioner) should receive a passing score on the Florida Dental Hygiene Clinical Examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was a candidate for licensure as a dental hygienist by the State of Florida. All candidates for Florida licensure as dental hygienists are required to pass the Florida Dental Hygiene Clinical Examination. The Petitioner took the exam on November 5, 2010. Information and instructions related to the exam were provided to candidates through a "Candidate Information Booklet" (CIB) that was posted on the Respondent's Internet website approximately 60 days prior to the date of the exam. Candidates were expected to review the information contained in the CIB. The Petitioner was aware of the information in the CIB. Part of the exam required that each candidate perform certain clinical procedures to the teeth of a human patient. The CIB stated that each candidate was responsible for providing their own human patient upon whom the clinical procedures could be performed. A panel of three examiners reviewed and scored each candidate's performance of the clinical procedures. In relevant part, the CIB stated that each candidate must submit a patient with 12 surfaces of explorer-detectable moderate subgingival calculus. An explorer is a piece of equipment used in dental practice. The CIB stated that 6.5 points would be awarded for each of the 12 surfaces of subgingival calculus detected and removed by the candidate during the exam. The CIB also stated that failure to detect and remove a minimum of nine surfaces of moderate subgingival calculus would result in a candidate receiving less than a passing score on the exam. The CIB specifically stated that "[p]oor patient selection and management is a common reason for examination failure." The Petitioner brought her sister-in-law to the exam to serve as her patient. After the applicable portion of the exam was completed, the panel of three examiners evaluated the Petitioner's clinical performance. Two of the three examiners determined that the Petitioner had detected and removed subgingival calculus from only eight surfaces of her patient's teeth. There was no evidence presented to indicate that the Petitioner neglected to remove subgingival calculus from her patient's teeth. The Petitioner was aware at the time of the exam that her sister-in-law did not have sufficient subgingival calculus to meet the patient requirements for the clinical demonstration. The insufficient degree of subgingival calculus present in the Petitioner's patient prior to the clinical exam precluded the Petitioner from passing the exam. The Petitioner received a total deduction of 26 points (6.5 points deducted for each of the four surfaces upon which no subgingival calculus was detected) and failed the exam with a score of 74. The Petitioner offered no credible evidence that the panel of examiners improperly reviewed her performance on the exam or that the score she received on the November 5, 2010, administration of the exam was in any manner incorrect. At the hearing, the Petitioner testified that she is licensed as a dental hygienist in another state, that the examinations in both states were conducted by the same regional testing agency, and that the scores from the other state should be accepted by the Respondent for licensure of dental hygienists in Florida. Florida law does not provide for dental hygienist license reciprocity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the scoring of the exam referenced herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Morris Shelkofsky, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Colette Michele Gatward 2212 Margarita Court Kissimmee, Florida 34741 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 H. Frank Farmer, M.D., Ph.D., Secretary State Surgeon General Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 E. Renee Alsobrook, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Bassette A. Cayasso, age 46, was born in Nicaragua, where he lived until April, 1983, when he came to the United States and settled in Miami, Florida. The Petitioner graduated from University Nationale de Nicaragua in 1966. He practiced dentistry in Nicaragua for 17 years, and was a resident on the hospital ship SS Hope where he practiced oral surgery. The Petitioner has taken the Florida Dental Mannequin Examination three times, the last time being in May, 1986. He failed this examination each time. The mannequin examination is a dental skills examination wherein the examinee demonstrates his ability to perform various dental procedures on a mannequin. The mannequin is a set of teeth. Graduates of dental colleges or schools which are not accredited by the American Dental Association are required to take and pass this mannequin examination prior to being permitted to take the regular dental examination. The school of dentistry from which the Petitioner graduated is not an accredited institution. On the nine procedures which constituted the May, 1986, mannequin examination, the Petitioner passed four, and failed five. His final composite score was 2.72. A score of 3.00 is necessary in order to pass the examination. The Petitioner presented no evidence from which it might be found that the grades he received on the mine dental procedures were erroneous. The examination was graded by three graders. One grader gave the Petitioner a passing score on all nine procedures, one passed him on five procedures, and one grader passed him on three procedures. All three grade independently, and their scores are averaged to produce one score for each procedure. The procedure scores are then weighed to produce a final overall score. When a review is requested, a reviewer goes over the scores for all procedures to see if the average grade is justified. In the review of the Petitioner's scores, there was found to be no irregularity in the balancing of the Petitioner's scores, and the overall grade was found to be fair and reasonable, thus not warranting a re- grade of any procedure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition of Bassette A. Cayasso for a review of his May, 1986, dental mannequin examination. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 29th day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Bassette A. Cayasso 20236 Southwest 123rd Place Miami, Florida 33177 Chester G. Senf, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Pat Guilford, Executive Director Board of Dentistry 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether the score that Respondent assigned to the Patient Amalgam Preparation and Periodontal sections of the clinical part of Petitioner's June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination taken was arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination. A passing score for the clinical part of the examination is 3.0. Petitioner received a score of 2.94, so he failed the clinical part of the examination. Petitioner has challenged the grades of 2.0 that he received on the Patient Amalgam Preparation and Periodontal sections of the clinical part of the examination. In both sections, the score of 2.0 is derived from averaging the 3s that Petitioner received from two evaluators and the 0 that he received from one evaluator. For both procedures, Petitioner challenges only the scores of 0, and he needs two additional points to pass the clinical part of the examination. The administration of the clinical part of the dental examination requires Respondent to recruit and train numerous examiners and monitors, all of whom are experienced, licensed dentists. The training process includes standardization exercises designed to ensure that all examiners are applying the same scoring criteria. The evaluation of specific procedures are double-blind, with scoring sheets that identify candidates by test numbers, so examiners do not know the identity of the candidate whose procedures they are scoring. The two sections that are the subject of this case require the candidate to demonstrate certain skills on a live patient. While working with the patient, the candidate is supervised by a monitor. When the candidate has completed the required dental work to his satisfaction, he so advises the monitor, who sends the patient to the dental examiners. For each section that is the subject of this case, three dental examiners examine the patient and score the procedure. These examiners do not communicate with each other, and each performs his or her examinations and scores the procedure in isolation from the other examiners. Communication between examiners and candidates is exclusively through monitor notes. For each section that is the subject of this case, the maximum possible score that a candidate may receive is a 5. Passing grades are 3, 4, or 5. Nonpassing grades are 0, 1, or A score of 3 indicates minimal competence. The Periodontal section of the clinical part of the dental examination required Petitioner to debride five teeth. Removing calculus from teeth, especially below the gums, is an important procedure because the build-up of tartar and plaque may cause pockets to form between the tooth and gum. Eventually, the gum tissue may deteriorate, ultimately resulting in the loss of the tooth. Prior to the examination, written materials explain to the candidates and examiners that the debridement is to remove all supragingival and subgingival foreign deposits. For the Periodontal procedure, Examiners 207 and 296 each gave Petitioner a 3, and Examiner 394 gave him a 0. The scoring sheets provide a space for preprinted notes relevant to the procedure. All three examiners noted root roughness. However, Examiner 394 detected "heavy" subgingival calculus on four teeth and documented his findings, as required to do when scoring a 0. Petitioner contends that two examiners and he correctly detected no calculus, and Examiner 394 incorrectly detected calculus. As an explanation, Petitioner showed that Examiner 394 knows Petitioner in an employment setting, and their relationship may have been tense at times. However, Petitioner never proved that Examiner 394 associated Petitioner's candidate number with Petitioner. Thus, personal bias does not explain Examiner 394's score. On the other hand, Examiners 296 and 207 are extremely experienced dental examiners. Examiner 296 has served nine years in this capacity, and Examiner 207 has served ten years, conducting 15-20 dental examinations during this period of time. By contrast, Examiner 394 has been licensed in Florida only since 1995 and has been serving as a dental examiner for only three years. However, the most likely explanation for this scoring discrepancy is that Examiner 394 explored more deeply the subgingival area than did Examiners 207 and 296 or Petitioner. Examiner 394 testified with certainty that he found the calculus at 5-6 mm beneath the gums. This is likely deeper than the others penetrated, but not unreasonably deep. For the Periodontal procedure, an examiner who found calculus on four teeth would be entitled to award the candidate 0 points. Examiners may deduct two points per tooth that has been incompletely cleaned, although the lowest score is 0. Examiner 394's score of 0 is therefore legitimate and at least as reliable as the other scores of 3. The Amalgam Preparation section of the clinical part of the examination required Petitioner to remove caries from one tooth and prepare the tooth for restoration. These procedures are of obvious importance to dental health. Poor preparation of the tooth surface will probably result in the premature failure of the restoration. A restoration following incomplete removal of caries will probably result in ongoing disease, possibly resulting in the loss of the tooth. Written materials, as well as Respondent's rules, which are discussed below, require a 0 if caries remain, after the candidate has presented the patient as ready for restoration. Other criteria apply to the Amalgam Preparation procedure, but this criterion is the only one of importance in this case. Examiners 207 and 417 each assigned Petitioner a 3 for this procedure, but Examiner 420 assigned him a 0. Examiners 207 and 417 noted some problems with the preparation of the tooth, but neither detected any caries. Examiner 420 detected caries and documented his finding, as required to do when scoring a 0. As noted above, Examiner 207 is a highly experienced evaluator, but the other two evaluators are experienced dentists. Examiner 417 graduated from dental school in 1979, and Examiner 420 has been licensed in Florida since 1981. The instructions to examiners emphasize that they are to detect caries "exclusively" tactilely, not visually. Tactile detection of the stickiness characteristic of caries is more reliable than visual detection. For example, caries assumes the color of dentin as the decay approaches the dentin. Examiner 420 testified definitively that he detected caries tactilely, not visually, in Petitioner's patient. This testimony is credited. It is difficult to reconcile Examiner 420's finding of caries with the contrary finding by the highly experienced Examiner 207. It does not seem especially likely that an experienced dentist would miss decay, especially in the artificial setting of a dental examination, in which everyone's attention is focused on one tooth. Examiner 207's finding of no caries is corroborated by the same finding of Examiner 417. However, Examiner 417's finding is given little weight. She readily suggested that she must have missed the caries. What at first appeared to be no more than a gracious gesture by a witness willing to aid Respondent's case took on different meaning when Examiner 417 testified, in DOAH Case No. 03-3955, first that she had detected visually and then retreated to testifying that she did not know if she had detected caries visually or tactilely--a significant concession because examiners were instructed explicitly not to rely on visual findings of caries. Returning, then, to the conflict between the findings of Examiner 420 and Examiner 207, substantially unaided by the corroborating findings of Examiner 417, either an experienced, credible dentist has found caries where none exists, or an experienced credible dentist has missed caries. The specificity of Examiner 420's testimony makes it more likely, as logic would suggest, that he did not imagine the existence of caries, and Examiner 207 somehow missed the caries. It is thus slightly more likely than not that Petitioner failed to remove the caries prior to presenting the patient. More importantly, though, for reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law, Examiner 420, in finding caries, adhered strictly to Respondent's rules and policies for evaluating candidates' work, and his finding was not arbitrary or capricious.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the scoring of the clinical part of the June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 James Randolph Quick Driftwood Plaza 2151 South U.S. Highway One Jupiter, Florida 33477 Cassandra Pasley Senior Attorney Department of Health Office of the General Counsel 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
Findings Of Fact Dr. Farah is a candidate for licensure by the Board of Dentistry, having taken the dental clinical examination in June 1985. The examination covers ten domains of dental knowledge and practice; each is separately graded, and then weighted according to an algorithm. Rule 21G-2.13(3), Florida Administrative Code. A weighted grade of 3.0 is required to pass the clinical dental examination. Rule 21G-2.13(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Dr. Farah received a grade of 2.96. The June 1985 examination was Dr. Farah's second attempt to pass the clinical examination. The grading scale for each procedure is established in Rule 21G- 2.13(1), Florida Administrative Code, as follows: complete failure unacceptable dental procedure below minimal acceptable dental procedure 3- minimal acceptable dental procedure better than minimally acceptable dental procedure outstanding dental procedure An examiner is required to record a comment in support of any grade below 5. Examiners for the dental examination are experienced licensed Florida dentists. Rule 21G-2.20(4), Florida Administrative Code. They are trained by the completion of 8 to 10 hours of standardization exercises. During the standardization exercises the examiners receive examination grading criteria, grade identical procedures, discuss any grade variance and attempt to eliminate any discrepancies in interpretations of the grading criteria in order to bring the examiners to a consensus on grading. In the periodontal portion of the examination there are five criteria which are accorded equal importance in grading. These are: (a) presence of stain on the assigned teeth, (b) presence of supra-gingival calculus on assigned teeth, (c) presence of sub-gingival calculus on assigned teeth, (d) root roughness on the assigned teeth, (e) improper management of tissue such as gums which may have been lacerated during the procedure. Rule 21G-2.13(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The grading is holistic and each examiner assigns a grade based on the examiner's evaluation of the overall procedure. Three examiner's grades are averaged to obtain a final grade score for the individual procedure. Rule 21G- 2.17(1), Florida Administrative Code. The score for that procedure is then weighted and added with the other weighted scores to obtain the overall grade on the clinical examination. As a standardization technique in grading the periodontal exercise, an examiner marks off for root roughness when use of an explorer on treated teeth reveals a tactile roughness but the examiner is unable to visually confirm the presence of sub-gingival calculus. Use of an explorer reveals the presence of root roughness or calculus below the gum level (i.e., calculus which is sub- gingival). Dr. Farah was assigned teeth number 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, l4 and 15 on her periodontal patient. A prior candidate (Candidate 20057) had treated the same patient in her periodontal exercise, and had been assigned some of the same teeth as Dr. Farah, viz., teeth 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Candidate 20057 received individual holistic grades of 4, 4 and 5, which average to a grade of 4.33 for the periodontal procedure. Dr. Farah received grades of 1, 2 and 3, which average to a grade of 2.00 for the procedure. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8) Examiner #006 graded both Dr. Farah and Candidate 20057 on their periodontal treatment. That examiner gave Candidate 20057 a holistic grade of 4 (better than minimally acceptable), noting a deduction for "root roughness," but there is no indication on the grade sheet of the tooth or teeth on which roughness was found. Examiner #015 also gave Candidate 20057 a grade of 4, and noted "root roughness" on the mesial side of tooth number 7, which was not one of the teeth later treated by Dr. Farah. The third examiner gave Candidate 20057 a grade of 5 with no comments. (All comments are found on Respondent's Exhibit 3.) After Dr. Farah's treatment of the patient, which occurred two days after the treatment provided by Candidate 20057, Examiner #006 gave Dr. Farah a grade of 3, and recorded that he found sub-gingival calculus on the mesial side of tooth number 3. Calculus is a mineral deposit on teeth which does not form in 48 hours; Examiner #006 missed the calculus on tooth 3 when grading Candidate 20057 (perhaps because it was obscured by the inflammation and bleeding of the gums which the patient testified about at the hearing) or the calculus was on a tooth other than tooth 3, and the wrong tooth was noted by Examiner #006 on Dr. Farah's grade report. Examiner #005 gave Dr. Farah a grade of 2, finding root roughness and sub-gingival calculus on the distal side of tooth number 12, a tooth not treated by Candidate 20057. Examiner #048 gave Petitioner a grade of 1, commenting on "several" instances of sub-gingival calculus on teeth treated by Dr. Farah, as well as the presence of root roughness. (All comments are found on Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) Examiner #006 gave Dr. Farah the highest of her grades on the periodontal procedure, which was that it was minimally acceptable. The other examiners determined that Dr. Farah's treatment left sub-gingival calculus, and was below minimally acceptable standards (the grade of 2) or was unacceptable (the grade of 1). At the hearing Dr. Farah agreed that if calculus remained the appropriate grade would be 2 or lower. There is no reason to adjust the grades assigned on the periodontal exercise. Dr. Farah also prepared a cast class II restoration onlay wax up on a posterior tooth on a stone mannequin of a lower jaw. She received grades of 5, 3 and 2, which average to 3.33. Examiner #080 assigned a grade of 2, wrote on the grading form "undercuts," and also noted that the procedure had a marginal surface finish. Examiner #133 assigned a grade of 3, and noted "poor outline form" but added no comment concerning an undercut. The third examiner, #048, made no deductions and assigned a grade of 5. An "undercut" is an improper preparation of a tooth surface which is to support a crown. During the preparation of the assigned tooth, the center portion of the tooth was reduced to create a trapezoidal shape, similar to an equilateral triangle, the top of which has been cut by a plane parallel to its floor. A wax model of the crown is then prepared. If the side walls of the trapezoid, when the prepared surface is viewed from the top, do not slope downward and slightly outward, when the wax cast is removed, the wax deforms, and the crown made from it will not seat correctly on the tooth. This may cause the crown to fail, and is a serious error. When a curved dental explorer is placed against the base of the tooth and against the surface of the tooth vertically, one may observe whether there is an angular displacement outward from the vertical at the top, indicating an undercut. On Dr. Farah's preparation this test reveals an undercut. The testimony of Dr. Farah's expert, Dr. Robert Murrell, was that a "surveyor" is the proper instrument to use to evaluate a tooth preparation surface for an undercut. Dr. Murrell did so and determined there was no undercut on the Petitioner's work. There are two difficulties in determining whether there is an undercut using the surveyor. The surveyor's rod is fixed in a vertical position and cannot reflect whether it is actually up against the base of the tooth or not, and viewing the rod from the top down does not give visual confirmation whether the top edge is wider than the bottom; neither can one visually inspect the vertical alignment from the side because the remaining portion of the tooth would prevent one from viewing the alignment from the side position. Secondly, as the expert for the Department, Dr. Theodor Simkin, testified, the surveyor is not a proper instrument for determining undercuts on a mannequin, but is meant to be used on castings and other bridge or denture work done outside the patient's mouth. Logic supports Dr. Simkin's assessment, because a surveyor simply cannot be inserted into a patient's mouth. Dr. Simkin's testimony is also more persuasive because he has been, for several years, an experienced dental examiner and examination grading consultant. Dr. Murrell, while certainly a well-qualified dentist, has never been trained to grade the Florida clinical dental examination. Laying aside the question whether the surveyor or the explorer is the better instrument for assessing whether there is an undercut on a tooth, the other method for determining an undercut explained by Dr. Simkin is persuasive. If no undercut is present, when the stone mannequin of the mouth on which Dr. Farah worked is viewed from directly above, it should be possible to view all four bottom corners of the preparation surface at the same time; if there is an undercut, the undercut bottom corner will be hidden when all of the other corners are viewed. Visual examination confirms the presence of an undercut in the front right corner of Dr. Farah's preparation.
Recommendation It is recommended that the petition for regrading of the failing score assigned to Dr. Farah on the June 1985 clinical dental examination be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of March 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 27th day of March 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 86-0235 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985) on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Findings of Fact (onlay) Rejected for the reasons stated in Findings of Fact 14 and 16. Accepted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected for the reasons stated in Finding of Fact 15. Findings of Fact (periodontal)1 Generally accepted in Findings of Fact 1 and 8, except for the final sentence, which is rejected as argument. Rejected for the reasons stated in Findings of Fact 10 and 11. In addition, the question of whether the performance of Candidate 20057 was properly graded does not arise in this proceeding. If Candidate 20057 received high grades although three of the seven teeth treated had to be retreated 48 ours later by Dr. Farah, this does not address the central question in this case: Did the treatment provided by Dr. Farah meet minimum standards? [page 7] Rejected because there is no competent substantial evidence that Dr. Simkin was Examiner #015, but if he was, the proposal is argument, not a finding of fact. Rulings on Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Accepted in Findings of Fact 4, 5 and 6. Accepted in Finding of Fact 5. Accepted in Finding of Fact 4. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Accepted in Findings of Fact 3 and 7. Accepted in Finding of Fact 8, 9 and 10. Accepted in Finding of Fact 11. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. Accepted, but clarified in Findings of Fact 13 and 14. Accepted in Finding of Fact 15. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Fred Varn Executive Director Board of Dentistry 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Mina Farah 21-32 Crescent Street #D-7 Astoria, NY 11105
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether Joseph M. Pelle, the Petitioner should be issued a dental teaching permit in conjunction with his duties as Dean of the Jacksonville University Dental School of Orthodontists (dental school) in accordance with the authority cited and treated below.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is Dr. Joseph M. Pelle. His business address is 2800 University Boulevard North, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, Florida. The Petitioner is not licensed to practice dentistry in Florida, but is licensed in three other states. His licensure is current and in good standing in those states. The Respondent is the Florida Board of Dentistry (Board). It is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure standards and practice standards for those engaged in the practice of dentistry in all its facets in the State of Florida. Its authority includes the authority, under the law cited below, to issue teaching permits in limited circumstances for professionals engaged in the teaching of clinical aspects of dentistry, at accredited institutions, offering advanced education to post-graduate dentists in Florida. The Petitioner filed an application for a teaching permit pursuant to Section 466.002, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B5-7.005, with the Respondent Board. The application is dated March 25, 2003. The teaching permit was proposed to be used at the Jacksonville University Dental School of Orthodontists in Jacksonville, Florida (Dental School). On June 25, 2003, the Board entered an order denying the application for the teaching permit. The Petitioner is the Dean of the Dental School of Orthodontics. The Petitioner is not currently licensed as a dentist in the State of Florida, but is licensed in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio with all those licenses being in good standing. The Petitioner has practiced orthodontics since 1971, and has been the chairman of dental programs at the University of Pittsburgh and at West Virginia University. He has a board specialty from the American Board of Orthodontics. Jacksonville University is a private, non-profit, accredited, liberal arts university in Jacksonville, Florida, that confers degrees at the undergraduate and graduate levels. It also offers advanced professional education programs. The Dental School of Orthodontics offers advanced education in orthodontics to post-graduate dentists that have already completed their dental program to receive the DMD or DDS degree. The dental school currently has four full-time faculty, eleven part-time faculty, and adjuncts, both outside and inside the Jacksonville University. There are fourteen students currently enrolled in the program. The advanced program offered consists of approximately 3700 hours of formal intense instruction over a twenty-four month period. The program results in conferring a certificate of advanced education in orthodontics on successful students. The Petitioner's duties as Dean of the Dental School of Orthodontics, are divided between administrative and teaching duties. Approximately 75 percent of his duties are attributable to administrative matters and 25 percent to teaching. If the teaching permit is issued, the Petitioner will participate in clinical instruction at the Dental School of Orthodontics. The accreditation body for dental programs in the United States is the Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association (the Commission). The Commission is a specialized programmatic accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education. It conducts all aspects of the accreditation process for the more than 1300 programs for dental, allied dental, and advanced dental education in the Untied States. The accreditation is for the program itself, and not for the sponsoring institution. The Petitioner, on behalf of the Dental School of Orthodontics, applied to the Commission for accreditation and personally participated in the accreditation review process. The Commission's accreditation standards are set forth in a document entitled "Accreditation Standards for Advanced Specialty Education Programs in Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics" that was introduced in Petitioner's Exhibit Two in evidence. The accreditation process requires compliance with six standards contained in that document. The standards address institutional commitment and program effectiveness, the program director and teaching staff, the facilities and resources, the curriculum and program duration, the advanced education student selection, and research. The Commission concluded that the Dental School of Orthodontics is in compliance with all accreditation standards. See Petitioner's Exhibit Four in evidence. The curriculum for the Dental School was developed in accordance with the self-study guide of the Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association. As a result of the accreditation process and evaluation, the Commission sent a letter dated August 5, 2003, to David L. Harlow, President of Jacksonville University, containing the following passage: The program in orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics is accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation [and has been granted the accreditation status of 'initial accreditation.'] The Commission is a specialized accrediting body recognized by the United States Department of Education. That letter from the Commission also contains the following passage: Based upon all the information presented, the Commission concluded that the program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standards, including Standard 1-1 regarding financial support from entities outside of the institution. Accordingly, the Commission adopted a resolution changing the accreditation classification of the educational program from 'preliminary provisional approval' to 'initial accreditation.' No additional information is requested at this time. See Petitioner's Exhibit Four in evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit Three consists of the listing of from the American Dental Association of all Florida programs currently accredited by the Commission. The School of Orthodontics is included on that list. The Petitioner has never failed the Florida Dental Licensure Examination. The Petitioner is also a full-time faculty member at the Dental School of Orthodontics at Jacksonville University. The Petitioner has agreed not to engage in the practice of dentistry pursuant to the teaching permit if it is issued, except under the programs of the Dental School of Orthodontics. The Petitioner has also agreed that if the teaching permit is issued, all records pertaining to the teaching practice shall be subject to review and available to the Board of Dentistry. The Petitioner has also agreed that if the teaching permit is issued, information requested by the Board of Dentistry will be submitted for the purpose of allowing the Board to evaluate compliance with applicable laws regulating the practice of dentistry. The Petitioner has provided proof of current CPR certification to the Board of Dentistry. The Board of Dentistry does not issue or grant accreditation to dental programs in the State of Florida. Rather, the Board defers to the Commission as to its accreditation decisions. As shown by Respondent's Composite Exhibit One in evidence (letter of May 12, 2003, from attorney Bruce D. Lamb to the Executive Director of the Board of Dentistry) the Commission voted to discontinue awarding preliminary provisional approval status as to accreditation. According to that letter the United States Department of Education does not consider preliminary provisional approval to constitute accreditation. In fact, the Commission Communications Update of Fall 2002 indicates that the Commission has a firm policy that a program is strongly encouraged not to enroll students/residents until "initial accreditation" status has been obtained. If a program enrolled students or residents without first having been granted "initial accreditation" status, the Commission will notify all students or residents enrolled of the possible ramifications of enrollment in a program operating without accreditation. Thus, at least implicitly, the Commission and the U.S. Department of Education considers "initial accreditation" status, conversely, to constitute accreditation, at least for purposes of admission of students and residents to such a program.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order determining that the Petitioner is in compliance with the above- referenced statute and Rule, relating to the issuance of a teaching permit and that the application of the Petitioner for the teaching permit at issue be granted. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence Curtin, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0810 Ann Cocheu, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Carl L. Altchiler holds licenses to practice dentistry in the States of New York (1957) and New Jersey (1973). From 1974 through 1977, petitioner was employed in Florida as an institutional dentist at the Sunland Center in Orlando and the Sumter Correctional Institution in Bushnell. He has not practiced dentistry since 1978. In June of 1980, petitioner was a candidate for Florida licensure and took the clinical or practical portion of the dentistry examination. A prerequisite for licensure is that a candidate receive a final total clinical grade of 3.0. Petitioner received a grade below 3.0 on six of the eleven procedures tested, giving him an overall grade of 2.70 on the clinical portion of the exam. A candidate for licensure with the Board of Dentistry must take both a written examination and a pracatical or clinical examination. The clinical exam consists of six parts and requires that eleven procedures be completed. These include the following: Amalgam preparation on a patient Amalgam restoration on a patient Periodontal exercise on a patient Occlusal registration and transfer Final impression Pin amalgam preparation Pin amalgam final restoration Endodontic anterior Endodontic posterior Cast gold preparation Cast gold restoration Prior to the June, 1980, clinical examination, all candidates were sent an instruction booklet which included information concerning the subject areas to be tested, the weight to be accorded each area, the procedures the candidates were to follow in taking each procedure and the grading system. The candidates also participated in a three to four hour orientation program prior to the exam, where protocol was discussed and questions regarding procedure were answered. Florida dentists who have practiced for at least five years are preselected to be examiners for the clinical portion of the dentistry exam. Approximately 23 examiners were utilized during the June, 1980, exam. Prior to arriving at the examination site, each examiner is sent the grade sheets to be utilized and the instructions to candidates. They also receive examiner and monitor instructions and forms. On the day prior to the exam, the examiners are given an 8-hour "standardization" course where the grading guidelines and procedures are discussed. This is to promote consistency and objectivity in grading. Examiners are instructed to independently grade each procedure assigned to them by awarding a grade of from 0 to 5 and indicating the appropriate number on the comment portion of the grading sheet to justify the grade assigned. They may also provide additional comments if they so desire. The grades of 0 to 5 represent the following: 0 = complete failure 1 = unacceptable dental procedure 2 = below minimal acceptable dental procedure 3 = minimal acceptable dental procedure 4 = better than minimally acceptable dental procedure 5 = outstanding dental procedure Each clinical procedure performed by a candidate is independently graded by three different examiners, and the three grades are then averaged to determine the total grade for that procedure. Among the forms which the examination monitors are instructed to utilize is a "Report of Equipment Failure." If utilized during the exam, this form is to be placed in the candidate's file containing the examiner's grade sheets. Four witnesses who were qualified and accepted as experts in the field of dentistry testified in this proceeding. Thomas Gerald Ford, Jr., D.D.S. and Allen M. Guy, D.D.S. were called on behalf of the petitioner. Dr. Ford has practiced general dentistry since 1972, is a member of various dental associations, is a dental consultant for various agencies and private organizations and has given testimony in all phases of forensic dentistry. Dr. Guy has practiced general dentistry since 1971 and is a member of various dental associations. Neither Dr. Ford nor Dr. Guy has served as a monitor or examiner for the Florida dentistry examination. Testifying on behalf of the respondent were Rupert Q. Bliss, D.D.S. and Louis Vodila, D.D.S. Dr. Bliss has practiced general dentistry since 1956, specializing in restorative dentistry, is a member of various dental associations, has taught dentistry, is currently a member of the,Florida Board of Dentistry and has served as an examiner for the Florida dental examination. Dr. Vodila has practiced general dentistry since 1956, is a former member of the Board of Dentistry and has served as Chairman of the Dental Examination for two or three exams. He presently serves, as he did in June of 1980, as the consultant and Chief Dental Examiner for the Department of Professional Regulation, Office of Examination Services. PROCEDURE NUMBER 5 Procedure Number 5, entitled "Complete Denture Evaluation" was a test of the candidate's ability to transfer the centric relation of a live patient's jaw to an articulator. The accurate transfer from the human jaw to the articulator is crucial since the denture will be constructed on the articulator and not in the patient's mouth. If the transfer is not accurate, the denture will not fit or function properly. Wax bite registrations were utilized for this procedure and the test was whether the candidate could accurately duplicate the patient's jaw relationship on an articulator. Hand articulation is not an acceptable means of determining the accuracy of the transfer and cannot simulate the articulation observed by the three examiners who graded this procedure. Petitioner received the grades of 3, 2 and 2, for an overall score of 2.33 on Procedure Number 5. The two examiners who assigned a grade of 2 noted that the centric relation was unacceptable. Other comments listed by the three examiners were that the appearance of the wax was overcontoured and that the interocclusal distance (space) was too little. Petitioner's live patient for this procedure, Beatrice King, testified that the wax bite registrations fit and felt comfortable during the June, 1980, examination. She felt that two of the three examiners were very rough with her. She noted that the one gentle examiner had no trouble placing the rims in her mouth, and that she had to blow to enable their removal. During the administrative hearing, Mrs. King inserted the wax registrations in her mouth and felt that they were still comfortable and that her bite was normal. The expert witnesses testifying for both petitioner and respondent observed the registrations inside Mrs. King's mouth during the hearing. Petitioner's two expert witnesses agreed that the wax bite registrations lacked in appearance and were overcontoured. However, they both felt from observing the registrations in Mrs. King's mouth, that the centric relation was acceptable and repeatable and that, if inserted properly, a full seating could be obtained on Mrs. King. They would have assigned a grade of 3 and 4, respectively. Respondent's expert witness observed that the rims of the wax did not match and that the back sides of the rims were touching, thus providing an obstruction to proper closing. It was also his observation that the inserted bite rims in Mrs.King's mouth had lateral movement. He felt that a grade of 2 was "very generous." PROCEDURE NUMBER 6 Procedure Number 6, entitled "(Final) Complete Denture Evaluation," consisted of the preparation of an impression of the mouth. of a completely endentulous patient. On this procedure, petitioner received grades of 1, 2 and 4, for an overall grade of 2.33. All of the examiners noted voids in the impression tray. Other comments made by the examiners included pressure areas, inablility to observe a post-dam area, the tray not being built u high enough into the vestibule and lack of retention and stability. The actual impression tray used by petitioner during the examination has been distorted by improper storage while in the custody of respondent. It therefore could not be inserted into the mouth of Mrs. King for observation by the expert witnesses who testified at the hearing. Nevertheless, upon observation of the impression tray, petitioner's two witnesses, while noting the voids and pressure areas, would assign grades of 3.5 and 4, respectively. Respondent's expert witness did not feel that the impression submitted by petitioner constituted good dentistry. Voids and pressure areas in the impression tray can cause distortions and inaccuracies in the final denture. Respondent's witness felt that the grades of 1 or 2 were "very generous." PROCEDURE NUMBER 8 Procedure Number 8, entitled "Cast Gold Cavity Preparation," was conducted on a mannequin and required candidates to complete a cavity preparation to receive a cast gold onlay. The instructions called for the preparation of an MOD onlay replacing the buccal and lingual cusps. Petitioner received grades of 2, 2 and 1 on this procedure, for an overall grade of 1.67. The comments noted on the grading sheets included a rough marginal finish, no gingival bevel, debris, the scarring of adjacent teeth, unsupported enamel and unacceptable outline form and depth preparation. Petitioner agrees that the marginal finish was rough and that the adjacent teeth were scarred. According to petitioner, this latter defect occurred when the head of the mannequin suddenly moved as a result of a loose neck screw causing the drill to slip and go through the metal bands on the adjacent teeth. Petitioner's expert witnesses observed the rough marginal finish, but found the remaining criteria satisfactory. They would assign grades of 3 and 4, respectively. Respondent's witness felt that the outline form did not match what was called for on the examination. Rather than the MOD onlay required, the outline form more resembled one for a three-quarter crown. He noted the other deficiencies marked by the examiners on the comment section of the grading sheet. He felt that the grades of 1 and 2 were consistent with what he observed. PROCEDURE NUMBER 9 Procedure Number 9, entitled "Final Gold Restoration," consisted of the candidate fabricating an onlay casting for an ivorine tooth from a dentoform in a mannequin. The procedure was graded with the gold onlay placed on the tooth within the mannequin jaw and with regard to the relationship of the onlay to the other teeth in the jaw. Petitioner received grades of 0, 1 and 2 for this procedure, for an overall grade of 1.00. The examiner who assigned a grade of 0 noted that the casting was not seated and rocked. The other two examiners did not check this comment, but did make comments pertaining to functional anatomy, proximal contour, contact and surface finish. Petitioner's expert witnesses did not observe the ivorine tooth with the gold on lay in the dentoform in the mannequin jaw. They did observe the ivorine tooth with the gold onlay and found that the onlay did not rock on the tooth. Dr. Ford, while noting a few rough edges on the casting and a little problem in the margin, found the gold to be an exact match of the tooth. He would assign a grade of 4 to this procedure. Dr. Guy, noting a rough surface finish, would assign a grade of 3.6. The ivorine tooth and the gold onlay were in the possession of the respondent until several weeks prior to the administrative hearing. Respondent's two witnesses observed the tooth and onlay prior to the last part of April, 1981, and found that the gold onlay had a slight rock to it at that time. They both admitted that the on lay now seated better on the tooth than when they first observed it, though Dr. Bliss still detected a slight rock. Dr. Vodila felt that the procedure still deserved a failing grade because of the deficiencies in the margins. Dr. Bliss, noting that the procedure could not be accurately graded outside the dentoform in the mannequin's mouth, as well as the lack of seating when he first observed it, felt that the grade of 0 was accurate and that the product failed to meet minimal standards for the practice of dentistry. PROCEDURE NUMBER 10 Procedure Number 10, entitled "Pin Amalgam Preparation," was conducted on a dentoform in a mannequin and consisted of the preparation of a tooth for amalgam restoration. Petitioner did not complete this procedure and received a grade of 0 from each of the three examiners. According to petitioner, during this procedure the head on his mannequin often made sudden movements due to a loose screw on the back of the mannequin's neck. He attempted to tighten the screw to fixate the head on several occasions, but the screw would not hold. He testified that he called the monitor over on several occasions and was told, at first, to do the best he could, and eventually, to go on to another procedure. This testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Suzette Rogers, who assisted petitioner during this procedure. A steady, stable working station is important in this type of procedure for an accurate preparation. A competent dentist is trained to and should be able to steady his work area and complete the procedure even with a loose mannequin head. As noted above, the monitors are instructed to complete a form when equipment failure is demonstrated and to insert that form into the candidate's file. No such form was found in petitioner's file. The lead examiner for the dental exam, Dr. Vodila, was never notified of any mannequin failure during the June, 1980, exam. The same mannequin head used by petitioner was also used by four other candidates before and after petitioner used it. PROCEDURE NUMBER 11 Procedure Number 11, entitled "Pin Amalgam Final Restoration," required the candidate to complete an amalgam restoration in an ivorine tooth with a pin. This procedure was to be accomplished on a prepared tooth placed in a mannequin by the monitor after the candidate turned on a light to indicate his readiness for this procedure. Petitioner apparently did not understand the directions for this procedure, no prepared tooth was placed in the mannequin, and no work product was turned in by the petitioner. A grade of 0 was assigned by all three examiners for Procedure Number 11.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the grades awarded to petitioner on Procedures Number 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the clinical portion of the dentistry examination held in June of 1980 be upheld. Respectfully submitted and entered this 29th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Dyer, Esquire Duckworth, Allen, Dyer and Pettis, P.A. 400 West Colonial Post Office Box 3791 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carol L. Gregg, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Shorstein Secretary, Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
