The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to receive a passing score on the June 2001 dental licensure examination?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for administering the dental licensure examination. Petitioner was an unsuccessful candidate for the June 2001 dental licensure examination in that she failed the clinical portion of the June 2001 dental examination. Originally Petitioner received a score 1.89 on the Clinical portion, but on re-grade received a score of 2.10. However, a score of 3.00 was required to pass the Clinical portion. The June 2001 dental licensure examination consists of two parts: (1) the Clinical portion; and (2) the Laws and Rules portion. The Clinical portion consists of nine procedures. Petitioner challenges five of the nine procedures, which are: (1) Periodontal procedure; (2) Class IV Composite Restoration; (3) Class II Composite Restoration; (4) preparation for a three- unit fixed partial denture; and (5) Class II Amalgam Restoration on a model. The Department selects three examiners to independently grade each candidate’s performance, and the average of the three scores from each examiner produces the overall grade for that procedure. The average grade for each procedure is then weighted in accordance with Rule 64B5-2.013, Florida Administrative Code, which produces an overall score for the entire Clinical portion of the examination. This procedure provides for a more reliable indication of the candidate’s competency. Each examiner must be a licensed dentist for a minimum of five years without having any complaints or disciplinary actions against the examiner’s license. The examiners are not allowed to have any contact with the candidates they are grading. Each examiner must attend, and successfully complete, a standardization session, which trains each examiner to use the same internal grading criteria. In this standardization session, the examiners are thoroughly taught specific grading criteria, which instruct the examiners on how to evaluate the work of the candidates. 8. Examiners numbers 005, 316, 346, 360, 361, and 375, who graded Petitioner’s examination, successfully completed the standardization session. The Department’s post-exam check found these examiners' grading to be reliable. Petitioner received a score of 1.66 on the Class IV Composite Restoration. Petitioner contested this score contending that she was downgraded on this procedure because she mistakenly stained that procedure. The Class IV Composite Restoration consists of the restoration of a chipped tooth. The grading is based on the candidate’s ability to restore the tooth as it appeared before restoration. The goal is to restore the tooth to its proper contact and to restore the contact between the teeth. The fact that Petitioner stained the Class IV Composite Restoration did not result in the examiners downgrading the Petitioner’s procedure. Examiner 005 gave Petitioner a score of 2.00, which was based on the contact being open and not having a flushed fit (marginal error). Examiner 316 gave Petitioner a score of 2.00, which was based on Petitioner’s problems with the functional anatomy, the proximal contour, and with the margin. Examiner 346 gave Petitioner a score of 1.00, which was based on Petitioner’s problems with functional anatomy, proximal contour, and mutilation of opposing or adjacent teeth. Petitioner received a score of 0.00 on the Class II Composite Restoration. Petitioner contested this score contending that she was downgraded twice for the same mistake. A Class II Composite Restoration is a procedure that involves the candidate’s ability to fill an opening inside the tooth with composite, which is a tooth-colored filling. The Candidates were instructed, for security reasons, to place dye in the composite and that failure to place dye in the composite would result in a failing grade. Petitioner failed to place dye in the composite. In addition to his comment concerning no dye in the composite, Examiner 005 also commented that Petitioner’s occlusion was very high, which would result in the premature failure of the restoration. Examiner 005 gave Petitioner a score of 0.00. Examiner 316 also gave Petitioner a score of 0.00, which was based on the absence of dye in the composite and the occlusion being high, which would result in the premature failure of the restoration. Examiner 346 also gave Petitioner a score of 0.00, which was based on the absence of dye in the composite. Petitioner contested the score she received on the Preparation for a 3-unit Fixed Partial Denture procedure claiming that the examiners’ comments regarding insufficient and excessive reduction were conflicting comments. The Preparation for a 3-unit Fixed Partial Denture procedure is a procedure that involves the candidate’s ability to replace a missing tooth with a fixed partial denture or fixed bridge. Petitioner received a score of 2.00 on this procedure. A tooth has five surfaces (front, back, top, inside and outside). Therefore, one surface of the tooth may have insufficient reduction, while another surface of the tooth may have excessive reduction. It is not unusual for examiners to see and comment on different errors. Examiner 316 gave Petitioner a score of 2.00 on this procedure because there was a problem with the outline form, insufficient reduction on the preparation and errors on the marginal finish. Examiner 005 gave Petitioner a score of 2.00 on this procedure because there was a problem with the outline form and there was both insufficient reduction and excessive reduction on the preparation. Examiner 346 gave Petitioner a score of 2.00 on this procedure because there was excessive reduction on the preparation, marginal finish, and mutilation of opposing or adjacent teeth. Petitioner contested the score of 0.66 that she received on the Class II Amalgam Restoration on a model procedure. This procedure is similar to Class II Composite, which involves the candidate’s ability to restore a cavity in the tooth so that the finished product restores proper form and function to the tooth. The difference is that amalgam rather than composite is used for the restoration. The restored tooth should closely resemble its original size and shape. Examiner 316 gave Petitioner a score of 1.00 on this procedure because there was a gingival overhang on the distal lingual aspect of the restoration, which could cause tooth decay and gingivitis. Examiner 346 also gave Petitioner a score of 1.00 because of problems with functional anatomy, proximal contour, margin, and gingival overhang. Examiner 005 gave Petitioner a score of 0.00 because of problems with proximal contour and gingival overhang. Petitioner contested the score of 1.66 that she received on the Periodontal procedure alleging that she was graded unfairly because she could not remove all of the calculus on this procedure, and that one examiner gave her a score of 3.00. The Periodontal procedure involves the candidate’s ability to completely remove any stains, calculus deposits or any foreign debris from the surface of the tooth. Patient selection is very important for the periodontal procedure. It is the candidate’s responsibility to select a suitable patient as clearly outlined in the Candidate’s Information Booklet, which is mailed to the candidate prior to the examination. Petitioner chose a difficult patient, considered to have heavy calculus deposits and severe periodontal disease. Petitioner admitted that she did not remove all of the calculus deposits on her patient. Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to show that it was impossible to remove all of the calculus on the patient she had chosen. Examiner 360 gave Petitioner a score of 3.00, but commented that sub-gingival calculus remained on the tooth, and there was root roughness. Examiner 375 gave Petitioner a score of 2.00 because sub-gingival calculus remained on the tooth and there was root roughness. Examiner 361 gave Petitioner a score of 0.00. The basis for this score was that there were heavy deposits of calculus and root roughness on teeth number 19, 29, and 30, and that the procedure was of little value to the patient. The Department provides a re-grade process for all candidates who timely request a hearing. The purpose of the re- grade is to determine if any of the grades rendered were inconsistent. The Department selects the top three examiners who had the highest reliability from that examination to participate in the re-grade. On re-grade, Petitioner’s overall grade increased slightly from 1.89 to 2.10 but not enough for Petitioner to receive a passing grade. The Department’s post-standardization statistics of the examiners’ performance indicated that Petitioner’s examiners graded reliably. The post-standardization statistics indicate the examiner’s performance on grading of models during standardization. In addition, the Department calculates post- examination statistics for the examiners who graded the Petitioner’s challenged procedures. They are: Examiner Accuracy Index & Rating 361 94.2 – Very Good 360 95.1 – Excellent 375 96.0 – Excellent 005 94.3 – Very Good 316 97.0 – Excellent 346 97.2 – Excellent All examiners’ reliability was significantly above the minimum acceptable accuracy index of 85.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly Recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner’s challenge to the grades she received on the Clinical portion of the June 2001 dental licensure examination and denying Petitioner licensure as a dentist in the State of Florida due to her failure to receive a passing grade on the June 2001 dental licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecilia Diaz 8810 Memorial Highway Tampa, Florida 33615 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health Office of the General Counsel BIN A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk 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 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be issued a license to practice dentistry pursuant to Chapter 466, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Dr. Lester Altman is a licensed dentist in the State of New York who practices dentistry in Brooklyn , New York. He has been in the private practice of dentistry since 1948. (Testimony of Petitioner) Petitioner applied for licensure as a dentist in Florida on two occasions in 1976 and took the necessary examinations for such licenses. On both occasions, he failed to achieve a satisfactory grade of 75 on the clinical examinations. He applied again in March, 1978, and was examined in June, 1978. He was informed by Respondent on July 5, 1978, that he had not achieved a final grade of 75 on the clinical examination and therefore did not qualify for licensure. Petitioner thereafter filed a petition for an administrative hearing which was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 27, 1979. (Testimony of Petitioner, Case pleadings, Exhibit 13) The June, 1978, clinical examination was conducted in Gainesville, Florida, by a group of examining dentists which consisted of certain members of the Board of Dentistry and other selected Florida dentists. Approximately 75 percent of the group had served previously as examiners. The clinical examination extends for a period of two days and applicants are tested in the areas of cast gold restoration, amalgam restoration, laboratory, denture setup, periodontal evaluation, and professional evaluation. Two separate grades are given for the cast gold restoration, amalgam restoration, and laboratory portions of the examination. Each of the six major parts of the examination is weighted for grading purposes and all scores are considered in arriving at a total score for the test. Each scored portion of the examination receives a grade ranging from 0 to 5, with 5 representing 100 percent and 3 being an average grade of 75 percent. The subject matter of the examination is determined by the Board of Dentistry and the individual grades for each portion of the examination are entered by two examiners on a grading form designed by a professional testing organization in conjunction with the Board for computer scoring. In order to ensure the validity and fairness of the examination, it is necessary that grading procedures be standardized by the examiners. This process is to preclude to the extent possible widely divergent scores being assigned to a particular portion of the examination by individual examiners. Such a standardization process takes place a short time prior to the administration of the examination at which all examiners are in attendance. At that time various criteria are established and the examiners practice grading various parts of the examination using models of teeth, slides, and the like. Grades are compared among the examiners and guidelines are established so that all examiners will be grading on the same criteria. During these sessions, Department Heads and other faculty personnel of the University of Florida Dental School participate and lecture to the examiners. The "professional evaluation" portion of the examination includes grading criteria for clinical judgment, professional judgment, instruments, patient management, clinical examination, and operatory arrangement. "Clinical judgment" deals primarily with the applicant's competence in diagnosing and performing the necessary dental work required in the examination. "Professional judgment" includes considerations of the applicant's concern for and demeanor toward patients as to prevention of pain, courtesy in avoiding appointment delays, and other matters reflecting his interest in the patient. Similarly, the applicant's treatment of his dental assistants is considered in this category. The other areas of patient management, instruments, clinical examination, and operatory arrangement deals with the cleanliness and appropriateness of instruments, extent of dental knowledge and decision making, and treatment of patients. In particular, the areas of clinical judgment, professional judgment, and patient management overlap one another in varying degrees. The professional evaluation segment of the examination is standardized at the early meetings of the examiners by full discussion of the grading criteria among the participants and arrival at a consensus as to uniformity. The examiners are instructed to make notations or check marks on the grading form in cases where a below average grade is entered. The standardization procedures were employed for the June 1978 clinical examination. (Testimony of Hite, Bliss, Santin, (Deposition - Exhibit 2), Dannahower (Deposition- Exhibit 3), Mullens (Deposition - Exhibit 1), Exhibits 4, 8, 12) At the time an applicant reports for the examination, he is assigned a random number which is placed on the various examination forms to provide anonymity. He is assigned his own operatory or treatment area to work in and his own laboratory desk. Various periods of the two-day examination session are spent in the laboratory and clinic areas. Two examiners grade the laboratory work. In the clinic there is an examiner in charge and normally two other examiners who view the candidates's work after each step of the examination and independently enter a grade on the scoring form. After the second examiner has entered the grade, he notes the grade given by the first examiner and, in rare instances where there is more than one grade difference between the two, a third examiner is called in to enter an independent grade of his own. Such an instance did not occur with respect to Petitioner's examination. The "professional evaluation" grade is entered during the last clinic session based on the examiners' observations of the applicants during the cast gold and amalgam restoration and periodontal parts of the examination. The two examiners who grade professional evaluation will have graded the applicant for at least 50 percent of the clinical subjects from which the professional evaluation grade is derived. These examiners also may observe notes or deficiencies entered by other examiners for other clinical portions of the examination and may take these into consideration when entering the professional evaluation grade. Each applicant retains a check sheet throughout the examination on which each step is initialed by the examiner contemporaneously with entry of the grade on the grade sheet to ensure that the applicant has completed each successive step of the examination. The check sheets are monitored by examination assistants to verify that each section of the examination has been completed and graded. There is no place on the check sheet concerning the "professional evaluation" segment of the examination because the grade is entered by the examiners without any prior request from the applicant to be graded in that area. The examiner in charge of the clinic at the time the professional evaluation grade is entered always is one of the graders for that part because he is an experienced Board member. In the case of Petitioner, two Board members graded the professional evaluation part of the examination. (Testimony of Hite, Bliss, Santin (Deposition) Dannahower (Deposition) , Mullens (Deposition), Exhibit 11) After completion of the examination, the scores on the grade sheets are tabulated and weighted to arrive at a final grade. Various statistical studies are made concerning the grading by new examiners to determine if their grading practices produce valid results. The two Board members who graded Petitioner's "professional evaluation" portion of the examination are experienced and considered to be valid graders by Respondent's testing consultant. Each examiner is assigned a number which is entered on the grading form by him at the time he grades a segment of the examination. As a matter of Board policy, the grade for "professional evaluation" is considered by the examiners to be a "3" which is a passing score unless the examiner determines that the grade should be raised or lowered based on the applicant's performance during the examination. Although a computer error was made on a December 1978 examination, none was made on Petitioner's grade sheet for the June 1978 examination. The 1978 computer error was corrected and the applicant was eventually permitted to retake a portion of his examination based on a separate erroneous grading procedure and thereafter obtained a license. The grading form includes blocks at the top of each segment of the examination which the examiner may use to enter his number and a grade for the second time. Although the entry of such items would be helpful in the event there is a conflict in the computer grade marked below the block, such entry is not required of the examiner and would not be "read" by the computer. One of Petitioner's examiners who was examiner Number 5 incorrectly entered the number "4" on the grade sheet portion of the examination. In the opinion of the Board testing consultant, such an entry by an examiner of an incorrect examiner number on the grade sheet would not affect the validity of any grade entered at that time. (Testimony of Hite, Bliss, Santin (Deposition), Dannahower (Deposition, Exhibits 8-9, 11) Petitioner's scores for the June 1978 practical examination were as follows: Amalgam Restoration 81.25; Cast Gold Restoration 70.87; Periodontal Evaluation 79.12; Professional Evaluation 62.50; Laboratory Evaluation 68.75; Denture Set-up 56.25. His overall average for the examination was 72.61. (Exhibit 12) Petitioner was unsatisfactory in four parts of the six-part clinical examination. These were denture setup, laboratory, professional evaluation, and cast gold restoration. Notations or check marks were entered on the grading form by examiners as to the deficiencies which prompted the unsatisfactory grades. As to cast gold restoration, one examiner noted "watch calculus" on the cavity preparation segment, and both examiners checked "margins" and reflected "open contact." Although the latter deficiency obviously existed at the time of the examination, a subsequent check of the patient after the examination revealed that the lack of contact was cured by the passage of time. In the laboratory portion both examiners observed "no contact" in the wax pattern portion, but only one examiner noted bubbles, pits, and sprueing in the casting part of the laboratory work. One examiner entered seven check marks on the denture setup portion of the examination and the other examiner entered four check marks for that part. In professional evaluation, one examiner checked "clinical judgment" and the other examiner checked both "clinical judgment" and "professional judgment." The one who entered a deficiency for clinical judgment did so due to the fact that calculus was present during the cavity preparation portion of the cast gold restoration procedure. The second examiner did not recall why he had entered the professional evaluation deficiencies on the grade sheet. Six different examiners participated in the grading of Petitioner's examination. In four of the nine areas which were graded by two examiners, the same grade was entered by both examiners. In the remaining five portions, the two examiners did not deviate by more than one grade score. Three examiners graded the Petitioner in the three areas of work upon which the professional evaluation grade was based. Two of these three examiners graded the professional evaluation portion of the examination. The patients upon whom Petitioner performed dental work during the examination experienced no pain or discomfort during the examination and are of the opinion that Petitioner treated them in an exemplary and professional manner at that time. (Testimony of Hite, Bliss, Dannahower (Deposition) Santin (Deposition), Weissman, Solomon, Exhibits 8-9, supplemented by Exhibits 5-7) Petitioner's scores for the December 1976 clinical examination were higher that those on the June 1978 examination for laboratory and professional evaluation. They were the same for periodontal evaluation and amalgam restoration. The cast gold restoration score was lower in the December 1976 examination. (Exhibits 12-13) Petitioner has had an active practice for many years in Brooklyn, New York, with an average of 15 to 20 patients per day and an annual gross income of over $100,000. The former owner of a large dental laboratory in New York City which produced dental appliances for Petitioner over many years found him to be extremely competent in the work provided to the laboratory. Several of his patients attested to Petitioner's excellent dental work and professional demeanor, and expressed the desire to have him serve as their dentist in Florida. (Testimony of Tauman, Karlin, Cohen, Solomon, supplemented by Exhibit 5)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application for a license to practice dentistry be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Hixson, Esquire Room 1501 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John P. Fuller, Esquire Fuller, Feingold, Weil and Scheer No. 802 Flagship Bank Building 1111 Lincoln Road Mall Miami, Florida 33139 Florida State Board of Dentistry Attn: Leah Hickel Administrative Assistant 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DR. LESTER ALTMAN, Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS vs. CASE NO. 79-1639 BOARD OF DENTISTRY, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should receive a passing score on the December 2001 dental license examination.
Findings Of Fact In December 2001, Petitioner took the dental licensure examination and failed to pass the clinical portion of the exam. The examination is a three-day process involving two days of clinical examination. Those two days of clinical examination consist of nine procedures. Four of the nine procedures were challenged by Petitioner. The clinical portion is where the candidate is required to perform certain patient procedures. The work product of the student, or candidate, is evaluated following the performance of those procedures by three examiners. Each examiner grades the candidate independently of whatever score the other examiners may award on a particular procedure. Then the average grade for each procedure is weighted in accordance with requirements of Rule 64B5-2.013, Florida Administrative Code. This produces the overall score for the entire clinical exam. The Department uses three examiners' scores because this provides a more reliable indication of the candidate's competency and true score. Further, each examiner must be a licensed dentist for a minimum of five years and have no complaints or disciplinary actions against their license. Examiners have no contact with the candidate taking the examination and, accordingly, have no idea of who they are grading. To further ensure fairness, each examiner must attend and successfully complete a standardization session. The purpose of these sessions is to ensure that each examiner is trained to use the same internal grading criteria. In standardization, each examiner is thoroughly taught specific grading criteria with the result that examiners are instructed on how to evaluate the work of the candidates. The examiners who graded Petitioner’s examination had successfully completed the foregoing standardization session. Also, the Department’s post-exam check found these examiners’ grading to be reliable. Petitioner contested the score he received on Procedure 4, the Endodontic procedure, a root canal. The Endodontic procedure required removal of infected nerve tissue and blood vessels pulp from the tooth. Petitioner was required to access the canal and pulp tissue from the outside. Then, Petitioner was required to remove the bad nerve and cleanse the canal. Finally, Petitioner was required to seal the canal to prevent recurring bacteria. Petitioner failed to observe a fracture in the tooth. He claimed that a fracture to the root of the tooth was caused by the Department after he reviewed his examination and that no one advised him the root was fractured. Petitioner requested a score of 3.00 for this procedure. However, the Department's witness, Dr. William F. Robinson, a licensed dentist for 32 years who examined the tooth and X-ray prepared by Petitioner, testified that the fracture to the root was noticed in both the X-ray and on the tooth when he examined the same. Additionally, two of the three re-graders also noted the fracture of the root. With regard to Petitioner's preparation of the X-ray at the conclusion of the examination, Dr. Robinson opined that Petitioner caused the fracture to the root during the examination and not the Department, as alleged by Petitioner. Dr. Robinson further opined that even without a fracture to the root of the tooth, Petitioner failed the procedure and the failing grade he received was fair. Dr. Robinson would not recommend that Petitioner receive a passing score of 3.00 on the procedure. The examiners' comments and grades and the testimony of Dr. William F. Robinson establish that Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure. The grade Petitioner received was fair. Petitioner challenged the grade he received on Procedure 5, the Class IV Composite Restoration of the front tooth, but did not offer any testimony at the hearing as to why the score was not correct for the procedure. Petitioner requested that the score of 1.00 given by one of the examiners be thrown out, thus giving him a passing grade on this procedure. Procedure 5 of the dental licensure examination is a procedure that involves the candidate’s ability to replace the edge of the front tooth with a composite resin material, which is a tooth-colored filling. As established by the examiners’ comments and grades and the testimony of Dr. William F. Robinson, Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure and the grade Petitioner received was fair. Specifically, the examiners found that the tooth was abraded and the re-grader noted, as did the examiners, the excessive “flash” on the tooth. Dr. Robinson also noted both deficiencies in the procedure. Petitioner contested the score he received on Procedure 6, the Class II Composite Restoration procedure in his original petition, but offered no testimony at the hearing concerning this procedure. Dr. Robinson reviewed the examiners' grades and the tooth prepared by Petitioner and opined that Petitioner’s grade of 2.66 for this procedure is fair. Based on the examiners’ comments and grades and the testimony of Dr. Robinson, Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure and the grade Petitioner received was fair. Petitioner contested the score he received on Procedure 7, the preparation for a 3-unit Fixed Partial Denture, claiming that on the re-grade one of the examiners reviewed the wrong procedure. The Preparation for a 3-unit Fixed Partial Denture procedure of the dental licensure examination is a procedure that involves the candidate’s ability to provide preparations of two (2) teeth in order to replace a missing tooth with a fixed bridge. Dr. Robinson established that Petitioner’s work on this procedure resulted in one tooth, No. 29, being grossly over reduced and tooth No. 31 was insufficiently reduced. The result of such work is that it is impossible to place a bridge on such an improper preparation. As established by testimony of Dr. Robinson, Petitioner's problem with this procedure resulted from Petitioner’s undercut. This undercut indicated that Petitioner’s preparations were not properly aligned to accept a bridge. Based on the examiners’ comments and grades, and the testimony of Dr. Robinson, Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure and the grade Petitioner received was fair. The Department's “re-grade” process was utilized in this case. Used to give all candidates who timely request a hearing another chance at passing, the re-grade process allows the Department to go back and determine whether any grades rendered were inconsistent. The Department selects the top three examiners who had the highest reliability from that examination to participate in the re-grade process. The Department maintains post-standardization statistics of the examiners’ performance. In this case, those statistics indicated that Petitioner’s examiners graded reliably. In addition, the Department calculates post- examination statistics for the examiners, which are as follows for the examiners who graded Petitioner’s challenged procedures: Examiner Accuracy Index & Rating #206 95.8-Excellent #375 98.8-Excellent #380 92.1-Good #334 97.8-Excellent #298 95.9-Excellent #375 98.8-Excellent-was an original and a re-grader. All of Petitioner's examiners exhibited a reliability significantly above the minimum acceptable accuracy index of 85.0.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the grade assigned him for the December 2001 dental licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Jason S. Baker, D.M.D. Westchester Medical Center 95 Grasslands Road, Box 572 Valhalla, New York 10595 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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Jennifer Lee Brown, D.M.D., should receive a passing grade on the December 1997 Florida dental licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jennifer Lee Brown, D.M.D., is a graduate from the University of Florida College of Dentistry. Respondent, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is responsible for the licensure of dentists in the State of Florida. In December 1997 the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on behalf of the Department, administered the Florida dental licensure examination which persons wishing to practice dentistry in the State were required to pass. Dr. Brown took the December 1997 dental examination (hereinafter referred to as the "Examination"). The Examination consisted of clinical, Florida laws and rules, and oral diagnosis parts. The clinical portion of the Examination consisted of 8 procedures: procedures 1-3 and 5-9. Each procedure was graded by three separate examiners. The scores awarded by the three examiners on each procedure were averaged, resulting in a truer score. Each procedure had standardized "comments" concerning a candidate's performance on the procedure which examiners could note. Examiners were selected from individuals recommended by existing examiners or members of the Board of Dentistry (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). Prospective examiners could not have any complaints against their license and they were required to have actively practiced dentistry and to be licensed as a dentist in Florida for a minimum of five years. Prospective examiners were required to file an application with the Board's examination committee. Prior to the Examination, a "standardization" session was conducted for the examiners selected. During the session, examiners were trained how to grade the Examination using the same internal criteria. The standardization session was conducted by assistant examiner supervisors appointed by the Board. After completion of the standardization session, and before the Examination, examiners were required to grade five mannequin models in order to evaluate the examiners' understanding of the grading criteria. Each examiner's performance was evaluated to determine whether the examiner should be used during the Examination. The examiners who graded Dr. Brown's clinical part of the Examination were designated as Examiners 168, 176, 195, 207, 264, 290, 298, and 299. All of these examiners completed the standardization session and the post-standardization evaluation. During the clinical part of the Examination, the examiners were required to grade each procedure independently, without conferring with each other. The clinical part of the Examination was "double blind" graded. Examiners did not see the candidates they were grading or watch their work. The test procedures were performed in a clinic in the presence of a licensed dentist. After the procedure was completed, the patient or tooth was taken to another clinic where the examiners reviewed the work performed on the patient and graded the procedure. The examiners had no direct contact with any candidate. Candidates were permitted to use "monitor-to-examiner" notes to convey information to the examiners that a candidate wanted the examiners to take into consideration when grading a procedure. Any such notes were read by the examiners and initialed "SMN" (saw monitor note) before they actually looked at the patient or tooth. For the clinical part of the Examination the following grading system was used: Zero: complete failure; One: unacceptable; Two: below minimally acceptable. Three: minimally acceptable. Four: better than minimally acceptable. Five: outstanding. After the Examination was graded, all examiners underwent a post-examination evaluation. Grades awarded by each examiner were compared to other examiners for consistency. All of the examiners who graded Dr. Brown's clinical part of the Examination were found to have performed acceptably. Dr. Brown was subsequently informed that she had failed to obtain the minimum passing grade of 3.00 for the clinical part of the Examination. Dr. Brown was informed that she had been awarded a score of 2.67. Dr. Brown was also informed that she passed the other two parts of the Examination. Dr. Brown challenged the scores she had been awarded on the clinical part of the Examination for procedures 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The procedures challenged were graded by examiners 176 (graded all the challenged procedures), 195 (graded procedures 5- 9), 207 (graded procedure 2), 298 (graded procedure 2), and 299 (graded procedures 5-9). The Department conceded that the scores awarded Dr. Brown on procedures 7 and 8 were incorrect. As a result, the Department agreed that Dr. Brown's overall score for the clinical part of the Examination should be raised to 2.82. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Brown should have received a higher score on procedures 7 and 8. Procedure 2 consisted of an amalgam (filling)n preparation on a human patient. Dr. Brown was required to select a tooth and, after the selected tooth was checked by an examiner, complete preparation for the amalgam. Dr. Brown wrote three monitor-to-examiner notes during procedure 2. All three examiners wrote "SMN" on all three notes. Dr. Brown received an average score on procedure 2 of 3.66. Dr. Brown was awarded the following individual scores for her performance on procedure 2: Examiner Score 176 4 207 4 298 3 Examiners 176 and 298 noted the following comment concerning Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 2: "Depth Prep." Examiner 298 also noted the following comment: "Marginal Finish." Examiner 207 noted the following comment: "Retention Form." Dr. Brown admitted that her performance on procedure 2 was not ideal, but expressed concern that she was graded down for matters dealt with in the monitor-to-examiner notes. Dr. Shields opined that it was possible for the examiners to have reduced the score awarded to Dr. Brown on procedure for depth preparation, marginal finish, and retention form and not have graded her down for the monitor-to-examiner notes. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Shields' opinion was not reasonable or accurate. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Brown should have received a higher score for procedure 2 of the clinical part of the Examination. Dr. Brown received a fairly consistent score from all three graders. Procedure 5 was a "class IV composite restoration." This procedure involved the selection of a tooth by Dr. Brown which she was then required to make a slice cut on to replicate a fracture. Dr. Brown was then required to restore the simulated fractured tooth to its normal contour and function. The procedure was performed on a mannequin. Dr. Brown received an average score of 1.66 on procedure 5. Dr. Brown was awarded the following individual scores for her performance on procedure 5: Examiner Score 176 3 195 0 299 2 Examiners 176 and 195 noted the following comment concerning Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 5: "Proximal Contour." Examiners 176 and 299 noted the following comment concerning Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 5: "Margin." Finally, the following additional comments were noted by the examiners: Examiner Comment: 195 Functional Anatomy Mutilation of Adjacent Teeth 289 Gingival Overhang Dr. Brown's challenge to her score for procedure 5 was essentially that Examiner 199 had given her such a low score on this procedure and procedures 7 through 9 when compared to the scores awarded by Examiners 176 and 298. Dr. Shields opined that Dr. Brown should not have received a higher score for her performance on procedure 5. Dr. Shields' opinion was based generally upon his 21 years of experience as a dentist. More specifically, Dr. Shields based his opinion upon his examination of the actual tooth that Dr. Brown performed procedure 5 on. Dr. Shields found excess material left at the gingival or gum portion of the tooth. Dr. Shields also found that Dr. Brown attempted to polish the material off and had flattened some of the surface of the tooth. Apparently, based upon Examiner 195's comment notes, Examiner 195 was the only examiner to catch these deficiencies in Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 5. Dr. Shields also found slight damage on the mesial, the approximating surface of the lateral incisor, the tooth next to the tooth that was restored. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Shields' opinions concerning Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 5 were not reasonable and accurate. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Brown should have received a higher score for procedure 5 of the clinical part of the Examination. Procedure 6 required that Dr. Brown perform an Endodontic Evaluation of the Maxillary First Premolar. Dr. Brown was required to select an extracted tooth, a maxillary tricuspid, examine x-rays of the tooth, and then perform a root canal on the tooth. The tooth had two roots. The root canal involved creating an opening in the tooth and removing the pulpal tissue from the two nerve canals of the tooth (a debridement). The canals were to be shaped for an obturation or the filling of the canal. A final x-ray of the tooth was taken after the procedure was completed. Dr. Brown received an average score on procedure 6 of 1.00. Dr. Brown was awarded the following individual scores for her performance on procedure 6: Examiner Score 176 3 195 0 299 0 All three examiners noted the following comment for Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 6: "Proper Filling of Canal Spaces with Gutta Percha." Gutta Percha is the material that was used by Dr. Brown to fill the canal of the roots after she completed the debridement. Examiner 195 noted the following additional comment for Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 6: "Access Preparation." Examiner 299 noted the following additional comment: "Shaping of Canals." Dr. Brown's challenge to her score for procedure 6 was based in part on her concern that Examiners 199 and 299 had given her a score of 0 on this procedure while Examiner 176 had given her a score of 3. Dr. Brown admitted that she had caused the gutta percha to extrude through the apex of the canals. She argued, however, that gutta percha is reabsorbed by the patient. Therefore, Dr. Brown suggested that her performance was "clinically acceptable." Dr. Brown questioned how one examiner, Examiner 176, could conclude that her performance was in fact clinically acceptable, while the other two examiners concluded it was not. The difficulty with Dr. Brown's position with regard to procedure 6 is that she assumes that the only deficiency with her performance was the extrusion of gutta percha and that it was not a significant deficiency. The evidence failed to support this position. Dr. Shields opined that Dr. Brown should not have received a higher score for her performance on procedure 6. His opinion was based upon the fact that the extrusion of gutta percha was very significant on one of the canals: it extended a millimeter and a half. On the other canal it was a half of a millimeter. Filling the canal one half millimeter to a millimeter is considered ideal. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Shields' opinion was not reasonable or accurate. During the standardization session, examiners were told that extrusion of gutta percha more than a half millimeter through the apex was to be considered an error of major consequence. Candidates who extruded guttal percha more than a half millimeter were not to receive a grade higher than one. In light of the instructions during the standardization session, it was more likely that Examiner 176 gave Dr. Brown too high of a score on procedure 6. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Brown should have received a higher score for procedure 6 of the clinical part of the Examination. Procedure 9 was a pin amalgam final restoration. Although this procedure involved, in a lay person's terms, a filling, what exactly was involved in this procedure was not explained during the formal hearing. Dr. Brown received an average score on procedure 9 of 1.66. Dr. Brown was awarded the following individual scores for her performance on procedure 9: Examiner Score 176 4 195 0 299 1 All three examiners noted the following comment concerning Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 9: "Functional Anatomy." Examiners 195 and 299, who both graded Dr. Brown below minimal acceptability, also noted the following comments: "Proximal Contour," "Contract," and "Margin." Dr. Brown failed to present any evidence to support her claim that she should have received a higher score for procedure Dr. Brown simply questioned the fact that Examiner 195 had graded her low on all the clinical procedures. Dr. Shields opined that Dr. Brown should not receive a higher score on procedure 9. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Shields' opinion was not reasonable or accurate. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Brown should have received a higher score for procedure 9 of the clinical part of the Examination. Dr. Brown's challenge in this case was based largely on the fact that Examiner 195 had graded her performance on procedures 5, 6, and 9 as a zero, procedure 7 as a one, and procedure 8 as a two. Other than the fact that Examiner 195's scores were consistently low, the evidence failed to prove that Examiner 195 improperly graded Dr. Brown except as conceded by the Department on procedures 7 and 8. Comparing the scores awarded by Examiner 195 to Examiner 176 does raise some question as to why there was such a discrepancy in the two examiners' scores. When the scores on procedures 5, 6, and 9 of all three examiners are compared, however, Examiners 195 and 298 generally were consistently below acceptable, while Examiner 176's scores were generally higher on these three procedures: Examiner Procedure 5 Score Procedure 6 Score Procedure 9 Score 176 3 3 4 195 0 0 0 299 2 0 1 This simple mathematical comparison, however, is not sufficient to conclude that Examiner 195 scored too low or that Examiner 176 scored too high. Other than a simple comparison of the scores of the three examiners, the only evidence concerning whether Examiner 195 graded too low based upon the scores alone was presented by Ms. Carnes, an expert in psychometrics. Ms. Carnes opined that Examiner 195's performance was acceptable, except with regard to procedures 7 and 8. The evidence failed to refute Ms. Canres' opinion. Based upon the weight of the evidence, Dr. Brown's score for the clinical portion of the Examination, as adjusted by the Department during the final hearing of this case, was reasonable and accurate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, dismissing Dr. Brown's challenge to the amended grade awarded for the clinical part of the December 1997 Dental Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Brown Post Office Box 39 Starke, Florida 32091-0039 Anna Marie Williamson, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent regrade Petitioner's examination and give equal numerical point value to each criterion; it should also regrade procedure 3 giving consideration only to the grades of examiners 038, 02 and 048; all other requests for relief should be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 10th day of January, 1983.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated the applicable standard of care in the practice of dentistry in violation of section 466.028(1), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed in each of the consolidated cases; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43, and chapters 456 and 466, Florida Statutes. Stipulated Facts Respondent is a licensed dentist in the state of Florida, having been issued license number DN14223 on or about December 1, 1995. Respondent’s address of record is 530 East Howard Street, Live Oak, Florida 32064. Respondent was licensed to practice dentistry in the state of Florida during all times relevant to the administrative complaints underlying this case. Patient T.C. was a patient of Respondent. Patient S.S. was a patient of Respondent. Patient G.H. was a patient of Respondent. Patient J.D. was a patient of Respondent. Patient J.A.D. was a patient of Respondent. Other Findings of Fact On July 23, 2004, Respondent entered into a Stipulation in Department Case No. 2002-25421 to resolve an Administrative Complaint which alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (z). The Stipulation was adopted by a Final Order, dated January 31, 2005, which constitutes a first offense in these cases as to each of the sections cited. On September 21, 2007, the Department issued a Uniform Non-disciplinary Citation for an alleged violation of section 466.028(1)(n), related to the release of patient dental records. The Department offered no evidence of its disposition and, in any event, since these cases do not involve alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(n), the citation is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B5-13.005(1). On January 19, 2017, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in Case No. 2015-10804 for alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (mm). The Department offered no evidence of its disposition of the Administrative Complaint and, as a result, the Administrative Complaint is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under rule 64B5-13.005(1). On January 19, 2017, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in Case No. 2015-23828 for alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (z). The Department offered no evidence of its disposition of the Administrative Complaint and, as a result, the Administrative Complaint is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under rule 64B5-13.005(1). Case No. 19-2898PL - The T.C. Administrative Complaint Patient T.C. was a patient of Respondent from June 14, 2011, to on or about August 12, 2013. During the period in question, Respondent owned Smile Designs, a dental practice with offices in Jacksonville, Lake City, and Live Oak, Florida. The Department, in the T.C. Administrative Complaint, recognized that “Respondent, along with an associate, [Dr. Morris], are . . . licensed dentists known to work at Respondent’s practice.” The Department’s expert witness, Dr. Brotman, was also aware that Dr. Morris practiced with Respondent. Patient T.C. suffered a stroke in 2009. During the period that she was seen by Respondent, she was in “decent health,” though she was on medication for her post-stroke symptoms, which included a slight problem with aphasia, though she was able to communicate. The stroke and the aphasia are neurological issues, not mental health issues. Patient T.C. was accompanied by her husband, L.C. during her visits to Respondent’s practice. He generally waited in the waiting area during Patient T.C.’s procedures though, as will be discussed herein, he was occasionally brought back to the treatment area. L.C. testified that he had never been advised that Patient T.C. experienced a seizure while under Respondent’s care, and had no recollection of having been told that Patient T.C. ever became unresponsive. Patient T.C. died in 2015. Count I Case No. 19-2898PL, Count I, charges Respondent with failing to immediately refer Patient T.C. to a medical professional or advise Patient T.C. to seek follow-up care for the management of what were believed to be seizures while Patient T.C. was in the dental chair. From Patient T.C.’s initial visit on June 14, 2011, through her visit on September 23, 2011, Patient T.C. was seen at Respondent’s practice on five occasions. Respondent testified that the office was aware of Patient T.C.’s history of seizures because the medical history taken at her first visit listed Diazapam, Levetiracetam, Diovan, and Lyrica as medications being taken by Patient T.C., all of which are seizure medications. Nonetheless, the dental records for the four visits prior to September 23, 2011, provide no indication that Patient T.C. suffered any seizure or period of non- responsiveness during those visits. On September 23, 2011, Patient T.C. presented at Smile Designs for final impressions for crowns on teeth 20, 21, 28, and 29. Respondent testified that she was not the treating dentist on that date. Patient T.C. was given topical anesthetics, and her pulse and blood pressure were checked. The treatment notes then provide, in pertinent part, the following: Patient had seizures on the dental chair - may be due to anxiety. Seizures last 2-3 minutes. No longer. After 30 minutes, patient was calm. Able to proceed with dental procedure . . . . During seizures pt. was responsive; she was able to respond to our commands. The medical records substantiate Respondent’s unrebutted testimony that she was not the treating dentist at the September 23, 2011, appointment. The June 14, July 19, and October 7, 2011, treatment notes made by Respondent all start with “Dr. Gerry,” and are in a notably different style and format from the September 23, 2011, treatment notes. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Dr. Morris, and not Respondent, was the treating dentist when Patient T.C. experienced seizures on September 23, 2011. Much of Dr. Brotman’s testimony as to Respondent’s violation of a standard of care was based on his interpretation that, since the September 23, 2011, notes did not specifically identify the treating dentist (as did the other treatment notes described above), the notes must be presumed to be those of the business owner. Neither Dr. Brotman nor the Department established a statutory or regulatory basis for such a presumption and, in any event, the evidence adduced at hearing clearly rebutted any such presumption. Dr. Brotman testified that if another dentist had been identified in the records as having performed the treatment on September 23, 2011, that may have changed his opinion. The evidence established that Dr. Morris performed the treatment on September 23, 2011. Thus, Dr. Brotman’s opinion that Respondent violated the applicable standard of care was effectively countered. The T.C. Administrative Complaint charged Respondent with failing to comply with the applicable standard of care on September 23, 2011. The Department failed to establish that Respondent was the treating dentist on September 23, 2011, and, in fact, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that she was not. Thus, the Department failed to establish that Respondent violated the standard of care for failing to refer Patient T.C. to an appropriate medical professional for her seizures as alleged in Count I of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. Count II Case No. 19-2898PL, Count II, charges Respondent with delegating the task of intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to a person not qualified by training, experience, or licensure to perform such intraoral repair. July 17, 2012 Repair On July 17, 2012, Patient T.C. presented to Respondent because her lower partial denture was broken and the O-ring was out. The device included a female end within Patient T.C.’s jaw, and a male end with a plastic “gasket” on the denture. Respondent testified that the repair of the partial denture was performed outside of Patient T.C.’s mouth. Then, at the next scheduled visit, the treatment plan was for Respondent to “eval/repair partial denture on lower arch.” Respondent offered unrebutted testimony that “Tia of precision attachments” performed no work in Patient T.C.’s mouth. Dr. Brotman testified that, in his opinion, any repair of a precision attachment must be done by placing the attachment in the patient’s mouth to align with the teeth. However, Dr. Brotman did not know what kind of repair was done on July 17, 2012. He indicated that if a gasket or housing is missing, it can be repaired with an acrylic. Dr. Brotman testified that if acrylic was placed in the denture outside of the patient’s mouth, it would not be a violation of Florida law. The Department failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent delegated the task of adjusting or performing an intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to “Tia” or any other unlicensed person on July 17, 2012, as alleged in Count II of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. June 11, 2013 Repair On June 11, 2013, Patient T.C. presented to Respondent for an evaluation of her lower precision partial denture. Patient T.C. complained that the partial denture did not have the metal housing to connect it with the bridges to its sides. Patient T.C. was a “bruxer,” i.e. she ground her teeth, and had worn out the denture’s metal attachment. Respondent evaluated the situation, and decided to attempt a chairside repair or replacement of the denture’s male attachments. If the chairside repair was unsuccessful, a complete new partial denture would have to be prepared by a dental laboratory. Respondent attempted the chairside repair. Respondent testified that she instructed her dental assistant to add acrylic into the slot where the male attachment was to be placed in the denture. There was no evidence of any kind to suggest that the dental assistant then placed the denture into Patient T.C’s mouth. Because too much acrylic was placed in the denture, it became stuck in Patient T.C.’s mouth. Patient T.C. became understandably upset. Her husband, L.C., was brought into the room, Patient T.C. was administered local anesthesia, and the precision partial denture was removed. Respondent’s testimony regarding the incident was generally consistent with her prior written statement offered in evidence. Dr. Brotman testified that making repairs to a precision denture must be performed by a licensed dentist, except for placing acrylic into the denture outside of the patient’s mouth, which may be done by a non-dentist. The evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent’s dental assistant did anything more than place acrylic into the denture outside of Patient T.C.’s mouth. The Department failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent delegated the task of adjusting or performing an intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to her dental assistant on June 11, 2013, as alleged in Count II of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. Case No. 19-2899PL - The S.S. Administrative Complaint Count I Case No. 19-2899PL, Count I, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(m) by: Failing to keep a written record of Patient S.S.’s medical history; and/or Failing to keep an accurate written record of any consent forms signed by Patient S.S. Count II Case No. 19-2899PL, Count II, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30; Failing to adequately diagnose the condition of the roots of tooth 30; Failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 30 during root canal treatment; Failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment; Failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following changes to the tooth’s margins; and/or Failing to adequately assess and correct the crown on tooth 31 when the fit was compromised. On May 15, 2014, Patient S.S. presented to Respondent for a root canal and crown on tooth 30. Upon examination, Respondent advised Patient S.S. that she also needed a root canal and a crown on tooth 31. Patient S.S. denied that she was required to provide her medical history at the May 15, 2014, office visit, or that she was provided with an informed consent form prior to the root canal on tooth 30. Respondent’s records do not include either a medical history or an informed consent form. However, the records, which were offered as a joint exhibit, were not accompanied by a Certificate of Completeness of Patient Records, including the number of pages provided pursuant to Respondent’s investigatory subpoena, as is routine in cases of this sort, and which was provided with the records of the subsequent dentists involved in Patient S.S.’s care. Many of the records offered in these consolidated cases, including Respondent’s licensure file, include the certification attesting to their completeness. The records for Patient S.S. do not. Petitioner elicited no testimony from Respondent establishing the completeness of the records. The records offered were, by appearance, not complete. Respondent indicated that medical history and consent forms were obtained. Entries in the records introduced in evidence indicate “[m]edical history reviewed with patient” or the like. Entries for May 16, 2014, provide that “[c]rown consent explained and signed by patient” and “root canal consent explained and signed by patient.” The record for June 4, 2014, indicates that “[r]oot canal consent form explained to and signed by patient.” Patient S.S. testified that she had no recollection of having filled out a medical history, or of having signed consent forms after having Respondent’s recommended course of treatment explained to her. However, Patient S.S.’s memory was not clear regarding various aspects of her experience with Respondent and with subsequent providers. Much of her testimony was taken from notes she brought to the hearing, and some was even based on what she read in the Administrative Complaint. Her testimony failed to clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent failed to collect her medical history or consent to treatment. Respondent testified that, at the time Patient S.S. was being seen, her office was in the midst of switching its recordkeeping software and converting records to digital format. The new company botched the transition, and by the time the issue was discovered, many of the records being converted to digital format were lost, in whole or in part. Respondent surmised that, to the extent the records were not in her files provided to the Department, that they were affected by the transition. The greater weight of the evidence suggests that medical history and signed consent forms were provided. Given the issues regarding the records as described by Respondent, and given the Department’s failure to produce a certification or other evidence that the records it was relying on to prove the violation were complete, the Department failed to meet its burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent failed to keep a written record of Patient S.S.’s medical history and signed consent forms. Respondent also testified that the office notes were supplemented with handwritten notations made when a patient returned for a subsequent appointment. Several of Patient S.S.’s printed records carried handwritten notes. Respondent testified that those notes were made at some time in 2014 after Patient S.S.’s first office visit up to the time of her last visit, and were based on further discussion with Patient S.S. However, those records, Joint Exhibit 2, pages 1 through 17, bear either a date or a “print” date of March 12, 2015. Dr. Brotman testified that he knew of no software on the market that would allow contemporaneous handwriting on electronic records. Thus, the evidence is compelling that the handwritten notes were made on or after the March 12, 2015, date on which the records were printed, well after Patient S.S.’s last office visit. A root canal involves removing a tooth’s pulp chamber and nerves from the root canals. The root canals are smoothed out and scraped with a file to help find and remove debris. The canals are widened using sequentially larger files to ensure that bacteria and debris is removed. Once the debris is removed, an inert material (such as gutta percha) is placed into the canals. A “core” is placed on top of the gutta percha, and a crown is placed on top of the core. The risk of reinfection from bacteria entering from the bottom of an underfilled tooth is significantly greater than if the tooth is filled to the apex of the root. Patient S.S. returned to Respondent’s office on May 16, 2014, for the root canal on tooth 30 and crown preparations for teeth 30 and 31, which included bite impressions. Temporary crowns were placed. Respondent’s printed clinical notes for May 16, 2014, gave no indication of any obstruction of the canals, providing only the lengths of the two mesial and two distal root canals. Respondent’s hand-written notes for May 16, 2014 (which, as previously explained, could have been made no earlier than March 12, 2015), stated that the canals were “[s]ealed to as far as the canal is open. The roots are calcification.” Dr. Brotman indicated that the x-rays taken on May 15, 2014, showed evidence of calcification of the roots. However, Dr. Brotman convincingly testified that the x-rays taken during the root canal show working-length files extending to near the apices of the roots. Thus, in his opinion, the canals were sufficiently open to allow for the use of liquid materials to soften the tooth, and larger files to create space to allow for the canals to be filled and sealed to their full lengths. His testimony in that regard is credited. Patient S.S. began having pain after the root canal on tooth 30 and communicated this to Respondent. On June 5, 2014, Patient S.S. presented to Respondent to have the crowns seated for teeth 30 and 31. Patient S.S. complained of sensitivity in tooth 31. The temporary crowns were removed, and tooth 31 was seen to have exhibited a change in color. The area was probed, which caused a reaction from Patient S.S. Respondent examined the tooth, and noted the presence of soft dentin. A root canal of tooth 31 was recommended and performed, which included removal of the decay in the tooth’s dentin at the exterior of the tooth. Respondent’s removal of decay changed the shape of tooth 31, and would have changed the fit of the crown, which was made based on the May 16, 2014, impressions. There were no new impressions for a permanent crown taken for tooth 31 after removal of the decayed dentin. Respondent testified that she could simply retrofill the affected area with a flowable composite, which she believed would be sufficient to allow for an acceptable fit without making new bite impressions and ordering a new crown. There was no persuasive evidence that such would meet the relevant standard of performance. Temporary crowns were placed on teeth 30 and 31, and placement of the permanent crowns was postponed until the next appointment. Upon completion of the tooth 31 root canal on June 5, 2014, x-rays were taken of the work completed on teeth 30 and 31. Dr. Brotman testified that the accepted standard of care for root canal therapy is to have the root canal fillings come as close to the apex of the tooth as possible without extending past the apex, generally to within one millimeter, and no more than two millimeters of the apex. His examination of the x-rays taken in conjunction with Respondent’s treatment of Patient S.S. revealed a void in the filling of the middle of the distal canal of tooth 31, an underfill of approximately five millimeters in the mesial canal of tooth 31, an underfill of approximately four millimeters in the distal canal of tooth 30, and an underfill of approximately six millimeters in the two mesial root canals of tooth 30. The x-ray images also revealed remaining decay along the mesiobuccal aspect of the temporary crown placed on tooth 31. His testimony that the x-ray images were sufficiently clear to provide support for his opinions was persuasive, and was supported by the images themselves. A day after the placement of the temporary crowns, they came off while Patient S.S. was having dinner in Gainesville. She was seen by Dr. Abolverdi, a dentist in Gainesville. Dr. Abolverdi cleaned the teeth, took an x-ray, and re-cemented the temporary crowns in place. Patient S.S. next presented to Respondent on June 10, 2014. Both of Patient S.S.’s permanent crowns were seated. The permanent crown for tooth 31 was seated without a new impression or new crown being made. Patient S.S. was subsequently referred by her dentist, Dr. James Powell, to be seen by an endodontist to address the issues she was having with her teeth. She was then seen and treated by Dr. John Sullivan on July 25, 2014, and by Dr. Thomas Currie on July 29, 2014, both of whom were endodontists practicing with St. Johns Endodontics. As to the pain being experienced by Patient S.S., Dr. Sullivan concluded that it was from her masseter muscle, which is consistent with Respondent’s testimony that Patient S.S. was a “bruxer,” meaning that she ground her teeth. Dr. Sullivan also identified an open margin with the tooth 31 crown. His clinical assessment was consistent with the testimony of Dr. Brotman. The evidence was clear and convincing that the defect in the tooth 31 permanent crown was an open margin, and not a “ledge” as stated by Respondent. The evidence was equally clear and convincing that the open margin was the result of performing a “retrofill” of the altered tooth, rather than taking new bite impressions to ensure a correct fit. As a result of the foregoing, Respondent violated the accepted standard of performance by failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following the removal of dentin on June 4, 2014, and by failing to assess and correct the open margin on the tooth 31 crown. Radiographs taken on July 25, 2014, confirmed that canals in teeth 30 and 31 were underfilled, as discussed above, and that there was a canal in tooth 31 that had been missed altogether. On July 29, 2014, Dr. Currie re-treated the root canal for tooth 31, refilled the two previously treated canals, and treated and filled the previously untreated canal in tooth 31. The evidence, though disputed, was nonetheless clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the standard of performance in the root canal procedures for Patient S.S.’s teeth 30 and 31, by failing to adequately diagnose and respond to the condition of the roots of tooth 30; failing to adequately fill the canals of tooth 30 despite being able to insert working-length files beyond the area of calcification to near the apices of the roots; and failing to adequately fill the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment. The Administrative Complaint also alleged that Respondent failed to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30. Case No. 19-2900PL - The G.H. Administrative Complaint Case No. 19-2900PL charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by failing to adequately diagnose issues with the crown on tooth 13 and provide appropriate corrective treatment. On May 15, 2014, Patient G.H. presented to Respondent with a complaint that she had been feeling discomfort on the upper left of her teeth that was increasingly noticeable. Respondent diagnosed the need for a root canal of tooth 13. Patient G.H. agreed to the treatment, and Respondent performed the root canal at this same visit. Patient G.H. also had work done on other teeth to address “minor areas of decay.” On July 7, 2014, Patient G.H.’s permanent crowns were seated onto teeth 8, 9, and 13, and onlay/inlays placed on teeth 12 and 14. On July 29, 2014, Patient G.H. presented to Respondent. Respondent’s records indicate that Patient G.H. complained that when she flossed around tooth 13, she was getting “a funny taste” in her mouth. Patient G.H.’s written complaint and her testimony indicate that she also advised Respondent that her floss was “tearing,” and that she continued to experience “pressure and discomfort” or “some pain.” Respondent denied having been advised of either of those complaints. Respondent flossed the area of concern, and smelled the floss to see if it had a bad smell. Respondent denied smelling anything more than typical mouth odor, with which Patient G.H. vigorously disagreed. Respondent took a radiograph of teeth 11 through 15, which included tooth 13 and the crown. The evidence is persuasive that the radiograph image revealed that the margin between tooth 13 and the crown was open. An open margin can act as a trap for food particles, and significantly increases the risk for recurrent decay in the tooth. Respondent adjusted the crown on tooth 9, but advised Patient G.H. that there was nothing wrong with the crown on tooth 13. She offered to prescribe a rinse for the smell, but generally told Patient G.H. that there were no complications. Patient G.H. began to cry and, when Respondent left the room, got up from the chair and left the office. Respondent indicated in her testimony that she would have performed additional investigation had Patient G.H. not left. The contemporaneous records do not substantiate that testimony. Furthermore, Respondent did not contact Patient G.H. to discuss further treatment after having had a full opportunity to review the radiograph image. On March 10, 2015, after her newly-active dental insurance allowed her to see a different in-network provider, Patient G.H. sought a second opinion from Dr. Ada Y. Parra, a dentist at Premier Dental in Gainesville, Florida. Dr. Parra identified an open distal margin at tooth 13 with an overhang. Dr. Parra recommended that Patient G.H. return to Respondent’s practice before further work by Premier Dental. Patient G.H. called Respondent’s office for an appointment, and was scheduled to see Dr. Lindsay Kulczynski, who was practicing as a dentist in Respondent’s Lake City, Florida, office. Patient G.H. was seen by Dr. Kulczynski on March 19, 2015. Upon examination, Dr. Kulczynski agreed that the crown for tooth 13 “must be redone” due to, among other defects, “[d]istal lingual over hang [and] open margin.” The open margin was consistent with Patient G.H.’s earlier complaints of discomfort, floss tearing, and bad odor coming from that tooth. The evidence was persuasive that further treatment of Patient G.H. was not authorized by Respondent after the appointment with Dr. Kulczynski. Dr. Brotman credibly testified that the standard of care in crown placement allows for a space between the tooth and the crown of between 30 and 60 microns. Dr. Brotman was able to clearly identify the open margin on the radiograph taken during Patient G.H.’s July 29, 2014, appointment, and credibly testified that the space was closer to 3,000 microns than the 30 to 60 microns range acceptable under the standard of performance. His testimony is accepted. An open margin of this size is below the minimum standard of performance. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent fell below the applicable standard of performance in her treatment of Patient G.H., by seating a crown containing an open margin and by failing to perform appropriate corrective treatment after having sufficient evidence of the deficiencies. Case No. 19-2901PL - The J.D. Amended Administrative Complaint Case No. 19-2901PL charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations; Failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing an implant in the area of tooth 14; Failing to appropriately place the implant by attempting to place it into a curved root, which could not accommodate the implant; Failing to react appropriately to the sinking implant by trying to twist off the carrier instead of following the technique outlined in the implant’s manual; and/or Paying, or having paid on her behalf, an indemnity in the amount of $75,000 as a result of negligent conduct in her treatment of Patient J.D. Patient J.D. first presented to Respondent on June 28, 2014. At the time, Respondent was practicing with Dr. Jacobs, who owned the practice. Patient J.D. had been a patient of Dr. Jacobs for some time. Respondent examined Patient J.D. and discovered problems with tooth 14. Tooth 14 and tooth 15 appeared to have slid into the space occupied by a previously extracted tooth. As a result, tooth 14 was tipped and the root curved from moving into the space. Tooth 14 had been filled by Dr. Jacobs. However, by the time Respondent examined it, the tooth was not restorable, and exhibited 60 percent bone loss and class II (two millimeters of movement) mobility. Respondent discussed the issue with Patient J.D., and recommended extraction of the two teeth and replacement with a dental implant. Patient J.D. consented to the procedure and executed consent forms supplied and maintained by Dr. Jacobs. The teeth at issue were in the upper jaw. The upper jaw consists of softer bone than the lower jaw, is more vascular, and includes the floor of the nose and sinuses. The periapical radiographs taken of Patient J.D. showed that he had a “draped sinus,” described by Respondent as being where “the tooth is basically draped around the sinuses. It’s almost like they’re kind of one.” Prior to Patient J.D., Respondent had never placed an implant in a patient with a draped sinus. The x-rays also indicated that, as a result of the previous extraction of teeth and the subsequent movement of the remaining teeth, the roots of tooth 14 were tipped and curved. The evidence was persuasive that Respondent did not fail to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, the extent of available bone support, and the configuration of the roots. Dr. Kinzler testified credibly that the pneumatized/draped sinus, the 60 percent bone loss around tooth 14, and the tipped and curved roots each constituted pre- operative red flags. Respondent extracted teeth 14 and 15. When she extracted the teeth, she observed four walls. She was also able to directly observe the floor of the sinus. She estimated the depth of the socket to be 12 millimeters. Sinus penetration is a potential complication of implant placement. Being able to see the sinus floor was an additional complicating factor for implant placement. Dr. Kinzler credibly testified that if Respondent was going to place an implant of the size she chose (see below), then the standard of care required her to first do a sinus lift before placing the implant. A sinus lift involves physically lifting the floor of a patient’s sinus. Once the sinus has been lifted, material typically consisting of granulated cortical bone is placed into the space created. Eventually, the bone forms a platform for new bone to form, into which an implant can be inserted. The evidence established that the standard of care for bone replacement materials is to place the material into the space, close the incision, and allow natural bone to form and ultimately provide a stable structure to affix an implant. The implant may then be mechanically affixed to the bone, and then biologically osseointegrate with the bone. In order to seal off Patient J.D.’s sinus, Respondent used Bond Bone, which she described as a fast-setting putty-like material that is designed to protect the floor of the sinus and provide a scaffold for bone to grow into. She did not use cortical bone, described as “silly sand,” to fill the space and provide separation from the sinus because she indicated that it can displace and get lost. Respondent’s goal was to place the implant so that it would extend just short of the Bond Bone and Patient J.D.’s sinus. She also intended to angle the implant towards the palate, where there was more available bone. Bond Bone and similar materials are relatively recent innovations. Dr. Fish was encouraged by the possibilities of the use of such materials, though he was not familiar with the Bond Bone brand. The evidence was clear and convincing that, although Bond Bone can set in a short period, and shows promise as an effective medium, it does not currently meet minimum standards of performance for bone replacement necessary for placement and immediate support of an implant. Bond Bone only decreases the depth of the socket. It does not raise the floor of the sinus. As such, the standard practice would be to use a shorter implant, or perform a sinus lift. Respondent was provided with an implant supplied by Dr. Jacobs. She had not previously used the type of implant provided. The implant was a tapered screw vent, 4.7 millimeters in diameter, tapering to 4.1 millimeters at the tip with a length of 11.5 millimeters. Respondent met with and received information from the manufacturer’s representative. She used a 3.2 millimeter drill to shape the hole, as the socket was already large enough for the implant. The 3.2 millimeter drill was not evidence that the receiving socket was 3.2 millimeters in diameter. Respondent then inserted the implant and its carrier apparatus into the hole. The implant did not follow the root, and had little bone on which to affix. The initial post-placement periapical radiograph showed “placement was not correct.” Despite Respondent’s intent, the implant was not angled, but was nearly vertical, in contrast with the angulation of the socket which was tipped at least 30 degrees. Given the amount of bone loss, and the other risk factors described herein, the risk of a sinus perforation, either by having the implant extend through the root opening or by a lateral perforation through one of the sides of the socket, was substantial. After adjusting the implant, Respondent went to remove the carrier. The carrier would not release, and the pressure exerted caused the implant to loosen and begin to sink through the Bond Bone. Dr. Kinzler testified credibly that, because of the mechanics of the implant used, had it been surrounded by bone, it would not have been possible for the implant to become loose. In his opinion, which is credited, the loosening of the implant was the result of the lack of bone to hold it in place. Respondent was so intent on removing the carrier that she was not paying attention to the implant. As a result, she screwed the implant through the Bond Bone and into Patient J.D.’s sinus. By the time she realized her error, the implant had sunk in to the point it was not readily retrievable. She was hesitant to reaffix the carrier “because [she] knew [she] had no support from the bone, that it was just a matter of air.” Nonetheless, she “stuck the carrier back in, but it would not go back in.” She then turned to get forceps or a hemostat but, by that time, the implant was irretrievably into Patient J.D.’s sinus. At the hearing, Respondent testified that she could have retrieved the implant but for Patient J.D. doing a “negative pressure sneeze” when the implant was already into the sinus. At that point, she stated that the implant disappeared into Patient J.D.’s sinus, where it can be seen in Petitioner’s Exhibit 9, page 35. There is nothing in Respondent’s dental records about Patient J.D. having sneezed. Respondent further testified that Patient J.D. “was very jovial about it,” and that everyone in the office laughed about the situation, and joked about “the sneeze implant.” That the patient would be “jovial” about an implant having been screwed into his sinus, resulting in a referral to an oral surgeon, and that there was office-wide joking about the incident is simply not credible, particularly in light of the complete absence of any contemporaneous records of such a seemingly critical element of the incident. Respondent believed that the implant must have been defective for her to have experienced the problem with removing the carrier, though her testimony in that regard was entirely speculative. There is no competent, substantial, or persuasive evidence to support a finding that the implant was defective. After determining that the implant was in Patient J.D.’s sinus, Respondent informed Patient J.D. of the issue, gave him a referral to an oral surgeon, prescribed antibiotics, and gave Patient J.D. her cell phone number. Each of those acts was appropriate. On July 29, 2014, an oral surgeon surgically removed the implant from Patient J.D.’s sinus. Patient J.D. sued Respondent for medical malpractice. The suit was settled, with the outcome including a $75,000.00 indemnity paid by Respondent’s insurer on her behalf. The Office of Insurance Regulation’s Medical Malpractice Closed Claims Report provides that the suit’s allegations were based on “improper dental care and treatment.” The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance prior to the procedure at issue by failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations prior to the procedure. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance by failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing the implant in the area of tooth 14, and by placing the implant into a curved root which could not accommodate the implant. The placement of Bond Bone was not adequate to address these issues. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the standard of care by failing to pay attention while trying to twist off the carrier and by failing to appropriately react to the sinking implant. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent paid, or had paid on her behalf, an indemnity of $75,000 for negligent conduct during treatment of Patient J.D. The perforation of Patient J.D.’s sinus was not, in itself, a violation of the standard of care. In that regard, Dr. Kinzler indicated that he had perforated a sinus while placing an implant. It was, however, the totality of the circumstances regarding the process of placing Patient J.D.’s implant that constituted a failure to meet the minimum standards of performance as described herein. Case No. 19-2902PL - The J.A.D. Amended Administrative Complaint Count I Case No. 19-2902PL, Count I, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to take adequate diagnostic imaging prior to placing an implant in the area of Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8; Failing to pick an appropriately-sized implant and placing an implant that was too large; and/or Failing to diagnose and/or respond appropriately to the oral fistula that developed in the area of Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8. Count II Case No. 19-2902PL, Count II, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(m) by: Failing to document examination results showing Patient J.A.D. had an infection; Failing to document the model or serial number of the implant she placed; and/or Failing to document the results of Respondent’s bone examination. Patient J.A.D. first presented to Respondent on March 3, 2016. His first appointment included a health history, full x-rays, and an examination. Patient J.A.D.’s complaint on March 3, 2016, involved a front tooth, tooth 8, which had broken off. He was embarrassed by its appearance, and desired immediate care and attention. Respondent performed an examination of Patient J.A.D., which included exposing a series of radiographs. Based on her examination, Respondent made the following relevant diagnoses in the clinical portion of her records: caries (decay) affecting tooth 7, gross caries affecting fractured tooth 8, and caries affecting tooth 9. Patient J.A.D. was missing quite a few of his back teeth. The consent form noted periodontal disease. The evidence is of Patient J.A.D.’s grossly deficient oral hygiene extending over a prolonged period. A consent form signed by Patient J.A.D. indicates that Patient J.A.D. had an “infection.” Respondent indicated that the term indicated both the extensive decay of Patient J.A.D.’s teeth, and a sac of pus that was discovered when tooth 8 was extracted. “Infection” is a broad term in the context of dentistry, and means any bacterial invasion of a tooth or system. The consent form was executed prior to the extraction. Therefore, the term “infection,” which may have accurately described the general condition of Patient J.A.D.’s mouth, could not have included the sac of pus, which was not discovered until the extraction. The sac of pus was not otherwise described with specificity in Respondent’s dental records. A pre-operative radiograph exposed by Respondent showed that tooth 8 had a long, tapering root. Respondent proposed extraction of tooth 8, to be replaced by an immediate implant. The two adjacent teeth were to be treated and crowned, and a temporary bridge placed across the three. Patient J.A.D. consented to this treatment plan. The treatment plan of extracting tooth 8 and preparing the adjacent teeth for crowns was appropriate. Respondent cleanly extracted tooth 8 without fracturing any surrounding bone, and without bone adhering to the tooth. When the tooth came out, it had a small unruptured sac of pus at its tip. Respondent irrigated and curretted the socket, and prescribed antibiotics. Her records indicated that she cleaned to 5 millimeters, although a radiograph made it appear to be a 7 millimeter pocket. She explained that inflammation caused the pocket to appear larger than its actual 5 millimeter size, which she characterized as a “pseudo pocket.” She recorded her activities. The response to the sac of pus was appropriate. Respondent reviewed the earlier radiographs, and performed a physical examination of the dimensions of the extracted tooth 8 to determine the size of the implant to be placed into the socket. Dr. Kinsler and Dr. Fish disagreed as to whether the radiographic images were sufficient to provide adequate information as to the implant to be used. Both relied on their professional background, both applied a reasonable minimum standard of performance, and both were credible. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to take adequate diagnostic imaging prior to placing an implant to replace Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8. Respondent placed an implant into the socket left from tooth 8. The implant was in the buckle cortex, a “notoriously thin” bone feature at the anterior maxilla. The fact that it is thin does not make it pathological, and placement of an implant near a thin layer of bone is not a violation of the standard of performance as long as the implant is, in fact, in the bone. The implant used by Respondent was shorter than the length of tooth 8 and the tooth 8 socket, and did not have a full taper, being more truncated. The evidence of record, including the testimony of Dr. Kinzler, indicates that the length of the implant, though shorter than the tooth it was to replace, was not inappropriate. The evidence of record, including pre-extraction and post-implantation scaled radiographs offered as a demonstrative exhibit, was insufficient to support a finding that the implant diameter was too great for the available socket. Patient J.A.D. felt like the implant was too close to the front of his maxillary bone because it felt like a little bump on the front of his gums. That perception is insufficient to support a finding that the placement of the implant violated a standard of performance. Subsequent x-rays indicated that there was bone surrounding the implant. Clinical observations by Respondent after placement of the implant noted bone on all four walls of the implant. Her testimony is credited. The evidence that the tooth 8 implant was not placed in bone, i.e., that at the time the implant was placed, the implant penetrated the buccal plate and was not supported by bone on all four sides, was not clear and convincing. Respondent’s records document the dimensions and manufacturer of the implant. Implants are delivered with a sticker containing all of the relevant information, including model and serial number, that are routinely affixed to a patient’s dental records. It is important to document the model and serial number of implants. Every implant is different, and having that information can be vital in the case of a recall. Patient J.A.D.’s printed dental records received by the Department from Respondent have the implant size (5.1 x 13 mm) and manufacturer (Implant Direct) noted. The records introduced in evidence by the Department include a page with a sticker affixed, identified by a handwritten notation as being for a “5.1 x 13mm - Implant Direct.” (Pet. Ex. 11, pg. 43 of 83). The accompanying sticker includes information consistent with that required. Dr. Fish testified to seeing a sticker that appears to be the same sticker (“The implant label of 141, it just has the handwritten on there that it should be added.”), though it is described with a deposition exhibit number (page 141 of a CD) that is different from the hearing exhibit number. Dr. Fish indicated the sticker adequately documented the implant information. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the sticker was not in Patient J.A.D.’s records, or that Respondent failed to document the model or serial number of the implant she placed. Later in the day on March 3, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was fitted for a temporary crown, which was placed on the implant and the adjacent two teeth, and Patient J.A.D. was scheduled for a post-operative check. Patient J.A.D. appeared for his post-operative visit on March 10, 2016. He testified that he was having difficulty keeping the temporaries on, and was getting “cut up” because the two outer teeth were sharp and rubbed against his lip and tongue. Respondent noticed that Patient J.A.D. was already wearing a hole in the temporary. Since Patient J.A.D. was missing quite a few of his back teeth, much of his chewing was being done using his front teeth. His temporaries were adjusted and reseated. On March 17, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was seen by Respondent for a post-operative check of the tooth 8 extraction and implant placement. The notes indicated that Patient J.A.D. had broken his arm several days earlier, though the significance of that fact was not explained. He was charted as doing well, and using Fixodent to maintain the temporary in place. The records again noted that Patient J.A.D. had worn a hole in the back of the tooth 9 temporary crown. A follow up was scheduled for final impressions for the permanent crowns. On March 10 and March 17, 2016, Patient J.A.D. complained of a large blister or “zit” that formed over the area above the end of the implant. Patient J.A.D. had no recollection of whether Respondent told him he had an infection. He was prescribed antibiotics. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the “zit” was causally related to the placement of the implant. Patient J.A.D. also testified that the skin above tooth 9 was discolored, and he thought he could almost see metal through the skin above his front teeth. Patient J.A.D. next appeared at Respondent’s office on June 2, 2016, for final impressions. Respondent concluded that the site had not healed enough for the final impression. She made and cemented a new temporary, and set an appointment for the following month for the final impression. Patient J.A.D. did not return to Respondent. On September 28, 2016, Patient J.A.D. presented to the office of Dr. Harold R. Arthur for further treatment. The records for that date indicate that he appeared without his temporary restoration for teeth 7 through 9, stating that he had several at home, but they would not stay on. Dr. Arthur probed a “[s]mall (1.0 x 1.0 mm) red spot in facial keratinized gingiva communicating with implant.” After probing the opening in the gingiva and the “shadow” in the gingiva, he believed it was at the center of the implant body and healing screw. Dr. Arthur’s dental records for Patient J.A.D. over the course of the following year indicate that Dr. Arthur made, remade, and re-cemented temporary crowns for teeth 7, 8, and 9 on a number of occasions, noting at least once that Patient J.A.D. “broke temps” that had been prepared and seated by Dr. Arthur. On December 1, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was reevaluated by Dr. Arthur. He noted the facial soft tissue at the implant was red, with an apparent fistula. A periapical radiograph was “unremarkable.” The temporary crowns, which were loose, were removed, air abraded to remove the cement, and re-cemented in place. Patient J.A.D. was prescribed an antibiotic. He was again seen by Dr. Arthur on December 13, 2016. The temporary on tooth 9 was broken, which was then remade and re-cemented. The fistula was smaller but still present. Patient J.A.D. was seen by Dr. Arthur on February 2, 2017, with the tooth 9 temporary crown fractured again. The fistula was still present. Patient J.A.D. advised that “the bone feels like it’s caving in around where she put that implant.” That statement is accepted not for the truth of the matter asserted, but as evidence that the complaint was first voiced in February 2017. On April 4, 2017, more than a year after the placement of the implant, Patient J.A.D was seen by Dr. Arthur. Dr. Arthur determined that the implant for tooth 8 was “stable and restorable in current position.” The fistula was still present and, after anesthesia, a probe was placed in the fistula where it contacted the implant cover screw. Although Dr. Arthur replaced the implant abutment, he ultimately placed the final crown on the implant placed by Respondent, where it remained at the time of the final hearing. The fact that incidents of Patient J.A.D. breaking and loosening the temporary crowns that occurred with Respondent continued with Dr. Arthur supports a finding that the problems were, more likely than not, the result of stress and overuse of Patient J.A.D.’s front teeth. On October 24, 2016, a series of CBCT radiographs was taken of the implant and its proximity to tooth 7. Dr. Kinzler testified that, in his opinion, the implant was of an appropriate length, but was too large for the socket. Much of his testimony was based on the October 24 radiograph and his examination of the resulting October 29, 2016, report. Although the report indicated that there was minimal bone between the implant and the root of tooth 7, and that the buccal cortex appeared thinned or eroded, those observations are of limited persuasive value as to whether the standard of performance was met almost eight months prior. Patient J.A.D. obviously worked, and overworked, his dental appliances. Without more, the evidence is not clear and convincing that his subsequent and repeated problems, including “thinned or eroded” bone in the buccal cortex, were the result of a violation of the standard of performance in the sizing and placement of the tooth 8 implant by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, enter a Final Order: Dismissing the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 19-2898PL and the Amended Administrative Complaint in Case No. 19-2902PL; With regard to Case No. 19-2899PL: 1) dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint; 2) determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient S.S. by: failing to adequately diagnose the condition of the roots of tooth 30; failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 30 during root canal treatment; failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment; failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following changes to the tooth’s margins; and failing to adequately assess and correct the crown on tooth 31 when the fit was compromised, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; and 3) determining that Respondent did not fail to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient S.S. by failing to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; With regard to Case No. 19-2900PL, determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient G.H. by seating a crown containing an open margin on tooth 13 and failing to adequately diagnose issues with the crown on tooth 13, and by failing to perform appropriate corrective treatment after having sufficient evidence of the deficiencies, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; With regard to Case No. 19-2901PL: 1) determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient J.D. by: failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing an implant in the area of tooth 14; failing to appropriately place the implant by attempting to place it into a curved root which could not accommodate the implant; failing to react appropriately to the sinking implant by trying to twist off the carrier instead of following the technique outlined in the implant’s manual; and paying, or having paid on her behalf, an indemnity in the amount of $75,000 as a result of negligent conduct in her treatment of Patient J.D., as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and 2) determining that Respondent did not fail to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient J.D. by failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations; Suspending Respondent’s license in accordance with rule 64B5-13.005(1)(x) and rule 64B5-13.005(3)(e), to be followed by a period of probation, with appropriate terms of probation to include remedial education in addition to such other terms that the Board believes necessary to ensure Respondent’s practical ability to perform dentistry as authorized by rule 64B5- 13.005(3)(d)2.; Imposing an administrative fine of $10,000; and Requiring reimbursement of costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: George Kellen Brew, Esquire Law Office of George K. Brew Suite 1804 6817 Southpoint Parkway Jacksonville, Florida 32216 (eServed) Kelly Fox, Esquire Department of Health 2585 Merchant’s Row Tallahassee, Florida 32311 (eServed) Octavio Simoes-Ponce, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Chad Wayne Dunn, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Jennifer Wenhold, Interim Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health Bin C-08 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3258 (eServed) Louise Wilhite-St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
