The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, a dentist who owns a multidentist practice, (a) failed to keep dental records and medical history records justifying the course of a patient's treatment; (b) billed a patient for dental services that were not actually rendered, thereby committing fraud, deceit, or misconduct; or (c) caused a dental office to be operated in such a manner as to result in substandard dental treatment. If Respondent committed any of these offenses, it will be necessary to determine an appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Francisco Fonte, D.D.S., was licensed to practice dentistry in the state of Florida. Petitioner Department of Health (the "Department") has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed dentists such as Dr. Fonte. In particular, the Department is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint against a dentist, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Dentistry has found that probable cause exists to suspect that the dentist has committed a disciplinable offense. Here, the Department alleges that Dr. Fonte committed three such offenses. In Count I of the Administrative Complaint, the Department charged Dr. Fonte with the offense defined in section 466.028(1)(m), alleging that he failed to keep written dental records justifying the course of treatment of a patient named J.S. In Count II, Dr. Fonte was charged with committing fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry, an offense under section 466.028(1)(t). In support of this charge, the Department alleged that, as part of a systematic scheme to defraud patients, Dr. Fonte had sought payment from J.S. for services not actually rendered, and had done the same to "Patients P.W., J.M., E.T., A.C., A.H., F.C., M.S., D.L. and/or as many as 500 additional patients " In Count III, the Department charged Dr. Fonte with having caused a dental office to be operated in such a manner as to result in dental treatment that is below minimum acceptable standards of performance for the community, which is an offense defined in section 466.028(1)(ff). The events giving rise to this case began in the summer of 2008, when a young adult named J.S. went to the offices of Advanced Dental Innovations, P.A. ("ADI") for treatment of a painful tooth. ADI, which was owned by Dr. Fonte, operated a dental clinic in Royal Palm Beach, Florida. Several dentists practiced in ADI's premises——but not Dr. Fonte himself. He was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections as a Senior Dentist and worked at the Everglades Correctional Institution in Miami, where he treated the inmates. Dr. Fonte was not actively involved in the daily business or professional operations of ADI. To manage the clinic, ADI hired Martha Somohano, who held a Florida dental radiographer license and was purportedly experienced in running dental offices. Dr. Fonte trusted Ms. Somohano to manage the business competently and protect his investment in ADI. One of the dentists who saw patients for ADI was Dr. Idalmis Ramos-Abelenda. She worked in ADI's offices one day per week from around April 2008 to April 2009.2 Although J.S. was seen by at least one other dentist at ADI's clinic, Dr. Ramos- Abelenda became his treating dentist of record. Dr. Fonte never saw or treated J.S. During a five-month period, from July through November 2008, Dr. Ramos-Abelenda performed extensive dental work on J.S., which is documented in handwritten progress notes that ADI maintained in its records. Based on the opinion of the Department's expert witness, which was not disputed, the undersigned finds that the dental work which J.S. received met or exceeded the applicable minimum standards of performance. The bills for this dental work eventually totaled around $26,000. There is no evidence that this amount exceeded the fair market value of the services rendered.3 Initially, J.S. paid for his treatment using a regular credit card, rapidly incurring a debt of $4,685. Then, J.S. established a credit card account with CareCredit®, a credit service of GE Money Bank which provides financing for health related costs. Through CareCredit®, ADI was paid $21,429 for dental services rendered to J.S.4 A separate CareCredit® account was opened in the name of J.S.'s mother, D.S. The evidence fails to establish clearly the extent to which ADI submitted J.S.'s charges to D.S.'s CareCredit® account for payment, although there is evidence suggesting that this happened. More important, however, are the Department's allegations that D.S. never applied for a CareCredit® credit card, and that someone at ADI forged her signature on the application. The accusation that Dr. Fonte or his agent stole D.S.'s identity and fraudulently established a line of credit in her name is a very serious one, to be sure, but the undersigned is far from convinced of its veracity. The proof consists largely, if not exclusively, of D.S.'s testimony——an awfully thin evidential ground for this sort of wrongdoing, which should have left an incriminating paper trail. Further, the Department did not call a forensic document examiner to testify, for example, that a questioned document examination had established that the signature on the CareCredit® application is not D.S.'s, or to give an opinion that the application can be traced to another known source, e.g., Ms. Somohano. Thus, even if the undersigned were able to find based on clear and convincing evidence that D.S.'s signature had been forged on a credit application (which he is not), there is insufficient evidence to determine who was responsible for the purported fraud, and no basis for finding that Dr. Fonte was involved in——or even aware of——the alleged misdeed. Much of the Department's case against Dr. Fonte rests on a "Single Patient Ledger" (the "Ledger") that ADI maintained in the ordinary course of business, which showed the debits and credits entered upon J.S.'s account. Recorded on the Ledger are the dates on which dental services were rendered to J.S., a brief description of each service, the charge for each service, payments received, and J.S.'s current balance. The Ledger is clearly not a dental record or medical history record; it is, rather, a business record——and most likely was prepared primarily for internal purposes, as part of ADI's book of accounts. The Department alleges that the Ledger lists services that were not rendered to J.S. Plainly, the services shown on the Ledger are more extensive than those described in the handwritten progress notes, which are the dental records made by J.S.'s treating dentists. Based on the opinion of the Department's expert witness, which was credible in this regard, the undersigned finds that the Ledger identifies services that could not reasonably have been performed in J.S.'s mouth. The undersigned further finds, based primarily on the testimony of Dr. Ramos-Abelenda, that where the progress notes and the Ledger are in conflict, the progress notes are the accurate record of the dental services rendered to J.S. That the Ledger lists services not actually rendered to J.S. does not necessarily mean, however, that a fraud was committed, as the Department alleges. For one thing, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish that someone knowingly falsified the Leger with intent to deceive. The Ledger's inaccuracies, for instance, might have been the result of incompetence instead of malice. There is, moreover, insufficient evidence to identify clearly the person or persons who prepared the Ledger. The signs point to Ms. Somohano, who reportedly exercised tight control over the accounting systems at ADI. The evidence fails, however, to convince the undersigned that she was the only person who might have accessed the Ledger. More important, there is no persuasive (much less clear and convincing) evidence that Dr. Fonte had anything to do with the Ledger. Even assuming that Ms. Somohano or some other employee of ADI knowingly falsified the Ledger, there is not a sufficient evidential basis for finding that Dr. Fonte authorized, ratified, acquiesced to, or even knew about such wrongdoing, which affected only a single patient.5 Although the Department alleged that Dr. Fonte had "engaged in an organized scheme to systematically bill for dental services that were never rendered," there is no persuasive evidence that J.S. or any other patients were "defrauded." Besides J.S., only two patients——A.H. and O.R.—— gave testimony at the final hearing. There are no allegations of material fact in the Administrative Complaint which, if proved, would establish that Dr. Fonte defrauded either A.H. or O.R., the latter of whom was not even identified in the complaint.6 Pleading deficiencies aside, neither A.H. nor O.R. gave testimony that clearly and convincingly proved fraud, much less a fraudulent scheme similar to the one alleged (but not proved) to have been perpetrated against J.S. Each of them, it can fairly be said, is a disgruntled former patient of ADI. Broadly speaking, one or the other, or both, claim to have been overcharged for services rendered, provided unwanted services, given shoddy treatment, and administered controlled substances by someone other than a dentist. None of this was alleged in the Administrative Complaint. No dental or billing records concerning either of these patients were offered as evidence. No expert testimony was given concerning the treatment these patients received. Indeed, the only expert testimony offered at the final hearing concerning standards of performance came from the Department's expert, who testified that the treatment J.S. had received was "fine," and that he had no opinion regarding the care of any patient other than J.S. Thus, the evidence fails to establish that the operation of ADI resulted in dental treatment that fell below the minimum acceptable standards of performance for the community. Ultimate Facts The evidence is insufficient to prove that Dr. Fonte, as the owner of ADI, failed to maintain either the original or a duplicate of J.S.'s dental records; to the contrary, ADI maintained these records. It is a close question, however, whether the dental records made by J.S.'s dentist of record, Dr. Ramos-Abelenda, fully satisfied the minimum content requirements prescribed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B5-17.002(1). This question need not be decided, however, because (a) the owner dentist of a multidentist practice is not responsible for the content of dental records made by a dentist of record, and Dr. Fonte was not the dentist of record for J.S.; and, alternatively, (b) if an owner dentist is responsible for the content of other dentists' records, his responsibility in this regard extends only to "employee, associate or visiting dentists"——and the evidence fails to prove clearly and convincingly that Dr. Ramos-Abelenda was any of these. Consequently, Dr. Fonte is not guilty of committing an offense punishable under section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes.7 The evidence fails to establish clearly and convincingly that anyone, much less Dr. Fonte, committed fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry. Assuming such wrongdoing did occur in connection with the treatment and billing of J.S., however, it was clearly not done by Dr. Fonte himself, and there was no allegation, nor any persuasive evidence, that Dr. Fonte directed, approved, or should have known about an agent's misconduct. Accordingly, Dr. Fonte is not guilty of committing an offense punishable under section 466.028(1)(t). Finally, because there is no evidence that any patient of ADI received substandard dental treatment, Dr. Fonte is not guilty of causing a dental office to be operated in such a manner as to result in dental treatment that is below minimum acceptable standards of performance, which is a disciplinable offense under section 466.028(1)(ff).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order finding Dr. Fonte not guilty of the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 23rd day of May, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent Richard S. Bach, D.D.S., license #5512, has violated Section 466.38, Florida Statutes, by permitting a dental hygienist under his supervision and control to perform acts constituting the practice of dentistry and not permitted by law to be performed by a dental hygienist. Whether Respondent Carol Ann Bach, R.H.D., license #2371, has violated Section 466.38, Florida Statutes, by performing acts constituting the practice of dentistry and not permitted by law to be performed by a dental hygienist.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Dr. Richard S. Bach, is a dentist licensed to practice dentistry under the laws of the State of Florida, Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and engages in the practice of dentistry in his office, located at 999 North Krome Avenue in Homestead, Florida. Dr. Bach was practicing dentistry during the month of September, 1978. The Respondent, Carol Ann Bach, is a dental hygienist licensed to practice dental hygiene under the laws of the State of Florida, Chapter 466, Florida Statutes. She is employed by Dr. Richard S. Bach at his office, located at 999 North Krome Avenue in Homestead, Florida, and was so employed during the month of September, 1978. The Petitioner, State Board of Dentistry, filed an administrative accusation against Respondent Dr. Bach and Respondent Carol Bach which was sworn to and subscribed on October 24, 1978. The accusation alleged that Dr. Bach had permitted a dental hygienist under his supervision and control to perform acts constituting the practice of dentistry in violation of Section 466.38, Florida Statutes. The administrative accusation also alleged that Carol Bach had administered an anesthetic by oral injection into the gums of a patient, Dorothy Moore, and that such was an act constituting the practice of dentistry prohibited by Section 466.38, Florida Statutes. Both Respondents requested an administrative hearing. Ms. Dorothy Moore sought the dental services of Respondent Dr. Bach in September of 1977. After treating Ms. Moore, Dr. Bach told her that she was developing a severe pyorrhea gum infection and suggested that she make an appointment with his dental hygienist. An appointment was made and x-rays taken, and thereafter, on September 19, 1977, Respondent Carol Bach cleaned Ms. Moore's teeth. Respondent Carol Bach injected into the upper portion of Ms. Moore's mouth approximately fifteen (15) injections of a local anesthesia before performing a curettage procedure. Subsequently, on September 26, 1977, Carol Bach injected a local anesthesia into the lower portion of Ms. Moore's mouth prior to performing the curettage procedure. Respondents Richard S. Bach and Carol Ann Bach are husband and wife, and were married at the time of the incident involved in this hearing. Carol Bach was employed in the office of Richard Bach as the only dental hygienist employed in the office. During the time of the cleaning of Ms. Moore's teeth, and during the time in which anesthesia was injected into her gums, the door of the room in which these incidents occurred remained open, both on September 19, and on September 26, 1977. There is no evidence that Respondent Carol Bach hid or intended to hide the fact that she administered an anesthesia by way of injection to the patient. The door was open, and the activity therein was easily visible. Respondent Carol Bach had told Ms. Moore that she was going to anesthetize Ms. Moore's mouth in order that the work would be less painful. It was undisputed that Respondent Carol Bach gave injections of anesthesia to Ms. Moore. Respondent Dr. Bach did not deny or attempt to justify the acts of his hygienist, and there was no showing that her activities were unknown to Dr. Bach or that he had instructed her to not perform such operations. He knew, or should have known, of her acts. When Ms. Moore was informed that she needed additional fillings, she became concerned about costs and sought the services of another dentist. Thereafter, she wrote a letter to the Petitioner giving details of her appointments with the Respondents. Both parties submitted proposed findings of fact and memoranda of law, and both made response to the proposals submitted. These instruments were considered in the writing of this Order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted or are inconsistent with factual findings in this Order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Suspend the license of Respondent Carol Ann Bach for a period not exceeding one year. Suspend the license of Respondent Richard S. Bach for a period not exceeding one year. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 2516 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Baya Harrison, III, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the grounds that the Respondent has violated several statutory provisions by repairing dentures in a licensed dental lab without having obtained the required work order from a licensed dentist.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, the following facts are found: At all times relevant and material to this case, the Respondent, Magnolia Iole, held license number DL 0002153 issued by the Department of Professional Regulation, which licensed her to operate as a dental laboratory in the State of Florida. At all times relevant and material to this case, the Respondent's dental laboratory was operated at 201 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, under the business name of All Emergency Denture Service. On April 11, 1990, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation took a broken denture to the Respondent's dental laboratory and asked to have it repaired. The broken denture was a woman's denture that had been obtained by one of the other Department investigators from a local dentist's office. The investigator who presented the broken denture for repair had not seen any dentist regarding the broken denture, nor did the investigator have any work order from a dentist for the repair. On April 11, 1990, an employee of the Respondent's dental laboratory agreed to repair the broken denture that was brought in by the Department investigator. The employee said that the repair would cost $50.00, and that the denture would be ready later than same day. Later that same day two Department investigators returned to the Respondent's dental laboratory, where they met the same employee who had agreed to repair the broken denture. The employee told the investigator who had brought the denture that it would be ready in a few minutes. A few minutes later the employee of Respondent's dental laboratory handed the repaired denture to the investigator who had brought it in earlier the same day. At that time the previously broken denture was completely repaired. Although the Respondent, Magnolia Iole, was not observed on the dental laboratory premises during the events of April 11, 1990, described above, she was aware that such events were taking place, because during a telephone conversation on April 12, 1990, Magnolia Iole admitted to a Department investigator that she had been taking repair work without work orders because she needed the money. A work order for denture repair is an order from a licensed dentist to a dental laboratory directing that certain repair services be performed. The work order is, essentially, a prescription for the performance of specific services. A dental laboratory is not permitted to perform a repair of an intra- oral dental appliance without a work order signed by a licensed dentist. A dental laboratory that repairs a denture without a work order issued by a licensed dentist is engaged in the unauthorized practice of dentistry. Denture repair under such circumstances also constitutes the acceptance and performance of professional responsibilities which the dental laboratory licensee is not competent to perform. Denture repair without a work order issued by a licensed dentist, even when the repairs are excellently accomplished, can prevent the discovery of emerging dental problems and cause them to go untreated to the harm of the patient.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent has violated Sections 466.028(1)(z) and 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative penalty consisting of a six month suspension of the Respondent's license, to be followed by a one year period of probation during which the Respondent shall be required to advise the Board quarterly of all work performed by the Respondent's dental laboratory and shall comply with all statutory and rule provisions governing the activities of dental laboratories. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon Coun~y, Florida, this 21st day of May, 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Ms. Magnolia T. Iole 531 Northwest 39th Street Oakland Park, Florida 33309 Mr. William Buckhalt, Executive Director Florida Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Respondent has been charged in a Corrected Administrative Complaint with a violation of Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Dr. Merle N. Jacobs, has been licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. He currently holds license number DN 0005940. During the period from January 22, 1993, through March 27, 1995, T. C. was a patient of the Respondent. During that period of time, the Respondent performed various dental services for T. C., including the making and fitting of a partial denture. The Respondent prepared and kept dental records and medical history records of his care of patient T. C. The Respondent's records of such care are sufficient to comply with all relevant statutory requirements. The Respondent's records of such care do not include any notations specifically identified or captioned as a treatment plan. The records do, however, include marginal notes of the course of treatment the Respondent intended to follow in his care of patient T. C. Those marginal notes describe the treatment the Respondent planned to provide to patient T. C.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of May, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed dentist practicing in Holiday, Florida. He has practiced dentistry for approximately 30 years and has limited his practice to prosthetics (dentures) since 1974. Doctors Christian, Bliss and Venable are likewise dentists licensed and practicing in Florida. On the basis of education and experience, each was qualified as an expert witness in the filed of dental prosthetics. In determining whether a denture meets or falls below the minimum standard of acceptability, several technical factors are considered. The denture is placed in the patient's mouth to check area of coverage or the adaptation of the denture to the ridges of the mouth; the extension of the flanges or borders of the dentures; the occlusion of the teeth and bite; the extension of the dentures into the soft palate; esthetics and finally, speech. The expert testimony of Dr. Christian in the evaluation of the dentures is accorded greater weight than that of Doctors Venable and Bliss since Dr. Christina conducted his examinations in May and June 1979, while Doctors Bliss and Venable performed their examinations some two years later. Changes in the patients mouth as well as the dentures over time make such later evaluations less meaningful. Dr. London's testimony is entitled to greater weight than that of his complaining patients with respect to precise financial agreements and dates on which various services were performed. This determination is based on the fact that Dr. London maintained contemporaneous records on each patient (office charts) and was able to refer to these documents during the course of his testimony. However, the testimony of his former patients with respect to the difficulties they encountered with their dentures was not lacking in credibility. On April 13, 1979, Rose Edwards went to Dr. London for treatment, and she agreed to pay $265.00 for a full set of porcelain dentures. On that same date impressions were taken for the construction of upper and lower dentures. On May 4, 1979, Respondent delivered the upper and lower dentures to Ms. Edwards. On May 8, 1979, she returned to Respondent's office complaining that the two front teeth were crooked and too far apart. Respondent found that the two front teeth needed reversing and he did so. On May 11, 1979, Ms. Edwards returned to Respondent's office complaining that she could not chew with the dentures, that the lower denture would not stay in her mouth, that food particles would get under the lower dentures and that she had blisters in her mouth from the loose dentures. Respondent adjusted the dentures. On July 24, 1979, Ms. Edwards returned to Respondent and stated that she was still having a great deal of difficulty with the dentures delivered by Respondent. Respondent advised Ms. Edwards that he would make no further adjustments and dismissed her as his patient. Dr. Christian conducted an examination of Ms. Edwards and the dentures prepared by Dr. London. He found that the borders of the lower denture were overextended into the cheek area. Dr. Bliss later examined Ms. Edwards and the same dentures and found the border areas to be greatly overextended into the soft tissue and muscle. The fact that the lower denture was overextended into the border areas caused it to lift up on movement of Ms. Edwards' mouth making it impossible for her to chew with the denture. Dr. Venable also conducted an examination of Ms. Edwards and the dentures delivered by Respondent. He found that the upper denture was overextended in the posterior or postdam area, and the lower denture underextended in the posterior area. The dentists generally agreed that Ms. Edwards was difficult to fit as she had poor ridges (required to support the denture) from having worn false teeth for many years. However, Ms. Edwards was relatively satisfied with her old dentures and returned to wearing them after being dismissed as a patient by Dr. London. The testimony taken as a whole established that the dentures Dr. London prepared for Ms. Edwards were deficient in several respects and did not meet the overall standards of quality required as a licensed dentist. Dr. Bliss and Dr. Christian stated that their fee for fitting Mrs. Edwards with dentures would have been $800 and $1,000 respectively. However, none of the dentists who testified, including Dr. London, regarded his substantially lower fee of $265 as any excuse for less than satisfactory work. On February 20, 1978, Lila Andrews went to Dr. London for treatment and agreed to pay Dr. London $290 for a full set of dentures, including adjustments and a relining, if required. On that same date impressions were made for the upper and lower dentures. On March 27, 1978, Dr. London delivered upper and lower dentures to Ms. Andrews for insertion by her oral surgeon. On April 7, 1978, Ms. Andrews returned to Dr. London complaining of severe pain on her lower gum. An adjustment was made to the lower denture by Dr. London. On May 18, 1978, Ms. Andrews returned to Dr. London complaining that she still could not put any pressure on her lower gums without a great deal of pain. In addition, she had developed sores in her mouth. At that time, Dr. London told her that he would remake the lower denture if Ms. Andrews agreed to pay Dr. London $45.00 to reline the upper dentures. Ms. Andrews agreed to pay him $45.00 since she wanted a usable denture, although she believed this charge was contrary to their agreement. On June 12, 1978, Dr. London delivered a second lower denture to Ms. Andrews and on June 14, 1978, she returned for an adjustment and told Dr. London that her dentures would not stay in her mouth and that her mouth continued to be extremely sore. Dr. London relined the lower denture. On December 14, 1978, Ms. Andrews returned to Dr. London's office and informed him that her dentures still would not stay in her mouth and that the soreness had continued. Dr. London advised Ms. Andrews that he would reline the dentures but that he would charge her for this service. She refused to pay and received no further treatment from Dr. London. Ms. Andrews currently uses the denture prepared by Dr. London but does so only with the aid of commercial fastening products. She also suffers a "lisp" which she did not previously have. On May 9, 1979, Dr. Deuel Christian examined Ms. Andrews and the dentures delivered by Dr. London. His examination revealed the following: The borders on the upper denture were grossly underextended into the soft tissue. The upper denture was not extended far enough into the postdam area, that area of soft tissue along the junction of the hard and soft palate of the roof of the mouth. The aesthetics of the upper denture were poor and the phonetics were such that the denture caused lisping. The borders of the lower denture were underextended into the soft tissue and the tooth placement in relation to the gum was poor. The bite relation between the upper and lower jaw was such that when the jaw was closed only four teeth made contact. The grossly underextended borders, the underextension in the postdam area, the poor tooth placement in relation to the gum and the poor bite relationship resulted in a lack of stability (especially when chewing), lack of retention and soreness in the mouth. Dr. Venable's examination revealed some deficiencies, but to a much lesser degree. His findings indicated that the flange on the lower denture was too short and the front section of the upper denture was too far forward. The testimony taken as a whole established was too far forward. The testimony taken as a whole established that the dentures Respondent prepared for Ms. Andrews failed to meet the minimum standards of quality required of a licensed dentist. On November 1, 1978, Grace McMichael visited Dr. London to have an upper denture made. A primary impression was taken of Ms. McMichael's upper jaw on November 1, and the upper denture was delivered to her on November 13, 1978. On November 17, Ms. McMichael returned to Dr. London's office complaining that the upper denture would not stay in her mouth, and the denture pressed into her nose when she bit down. Dr. London adjusted the denture. Mr. McMichael returned to Dr. London's office on December 13, as she was not satisfied with her denture. Dr. London advised her that he could not do anything further for three months when her gums would be more stable. He recommended that she purpose adhesive to hold her denture in. Dr. London made an appointment for Ms. McMichael on February 2, 1979, but she cancelled and never returned. Dr. Christian's examination of Ms. McMichael and the denture delivered by Dr. London revealed that the borders on the denture were underextended, that there was no postdam area and that the phonetics were poor. The underextended borders and the lack of extension into the postdam area affected the stability and retention of the denture. The phonetics problems observed by Dr. Christian resulted in Ms. McMichael lisping. It should be noted that any changes that might have occurred in Ms. McMichael's mouth between December 13, 1978, and February 2, 1979, would have had no affect on the underextension of the denture or the phonetics and could not have been corrected by adjustment. The examination by Dr. Venable revealed that the posterior border of the denture (throat area) and the planges (cheek area) were overextended. Although Dr. Venable did not consider these to be major deficiencies, the testimony as a whole established that the denture failed to meet the minimum standards of quality required of a licensed dentist.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of incompetence in the practice of dentistry. It is further
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license to practice dentistry in Florida should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined, based upon the following allegations: that a diagnosis of patient P.U. was below the minimum acceptable standards; that the treatment recommended by the Respondent would have exploited the patient for financial gain.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent, Russell Ernest Duke, D.D.S., was a licensed dentist in Florida, and held license number DN 0007124. The Respondent was employed as a dentist at sunbelt Dental Center. On or about July 2, 1986, at the sunbelt Dental Center located in Sarasota, Florida, the Respondent performed an examination on the teeth of P.U., a new patient who had responded to the Center's advertisement regarding a teeth cleaning and dental checkup for nine dollars and ninety-five cents. During the Center's promotion on cleanings and checkups, the Respondent maintained his regular patient schedule of eighteen patients a day. In addition, he performed examinations on patients who responded to the advertisement. X-rays were taken during the examination of the patient P.U. An explorer was used to probe and check the patient's teeth, along with the Respondent's visual examination. While the examination was being conducted, the Respondent would relate the result of his examination to his dental hygienist, Michelle Caldwell, who would chart the results on the patient record After the examination, the patient P.U. was told by the Respondent that she needed several fillings. An estimate of one hundred and eighty dollars (Petitioner's Exhibit A, Deposition of P.U.) was given to the patient. It was recommended that she obtain fillings in the following areas: tooth number 1 on the biting surface of the tooth occlusal; tooth number 3 on the occlusal and lingual areas; tooth number 16 on the occlusal surface; tooth number 17 on the occlusal surface; and tooth number 19 on the mesal, occlusal, distal and facial surfaces. On September 23, 1986, Kevin M. Larkin, D.D.S., examined the teeth of the patient P.U. During this examination, Dr. Larkin did not find any indication of carious lesions on any tooth other than tooth number 19. It was Dr. Larkin's opinion that the distal area of tooth number 19 had the start of a carious lesion. A watch was placed on this tooth, but a filling was not recommended at this stage in the patient's treatment plan. The patient was requested to return in six months for another examination, and a review of her treatment plan. During Dr. Larkin's initial examination, he noted that the patient had heavy staining from tobacco use. The patient chart, which is attached to Dr. Larkin's deposition, notes heavy staining in most of the same areas which had been indicated in the Respondent's examination as areas in need of fillings. Calculus deposits were also noted in Dr. Larkin's patient record during the patient's two visits. On October 19, 1987, David R. Smith, D.D.S., examined the patient P.U. at the request of the Department of Professional Regulation. During his examination, Dr. Smith found that there was surface stain on the occlusal pit on tooth number 1. There were little grooves on the biting surface of the tooth. During the visual examination, the stain in this area appeared to be caries. However, an exploration in the area with a fine-tipped explorer revealed that there was no indication of caries on this tooth. Tooth number 1 was merely pitted and stained, as reflected in the patient's record, which is Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Tooth number 3 had a small pit filling in the area described as in need of a filling by the Respondent. In Dr. Smith's opinion, there was no need for a new filling to be placed in that area. Tooth number 16 was found to be stained, but there was no decay. Tooth number 19 had a broken amalgam restoration. In Dr. Smith's opinion, this tooth was definitely defective, and the prior restoration needed replacement. The Respondent was correct in his diagnosis that a filling was needed by the patient P.U. in tooth number 19. The Respondent misdiagnosed tooth number 1, but the condition of the tooth gave all indications that caries existed in the area recorded by the Respondent. This was a "false cavity" which required the removal of soft matter within the tooth crevice, which was deeper than is normally expected. Discovery of the false cavity would require more inspection than what was completed during the general examination agreed upon by the dentist and patient during this initial visit. The Respondent's diagnosis of decay on tooth numbers 3, 16, and 17 which he determined were in need of restorative work, was the result of incompetence or negligence. The problem in these areas was staining, not tooth decay. The diagnosis was below the minimal acceptable standards of diagnosis for general practitioners of dentistry in Florida. The ability to properly diagnosis whether a tooth has decay or non-carious staining is a fundamental aspect of the practice of general dentistry. The Respondent's receptionist gave the patient P.U. a price quote for the treatment suggested by the Respondent. However, the treatment was never undertaken, and no exploitation of a patient for financial gain occurred. The problems in diagnosis in this case could have occurred as a result of a number of factors: an improper notation of stains as caries by the dental hygienist, a superficially performed initial examination, or the use of an explorer that was not sharp enough to confirm that the visual determination that caries existed was actually non-carious staining. There were no facts presented to demonstrate that the misdiagnosis was created to exploit the patient for the Respondent's financial gain. Dr. Smith, the Department of Professional Regulation's independent expert witness opined that the misdiagnosis was not done with the intention to defraud the patient. The Respondent was employed by sunbelt Dental Center on a salaried basis, and was not required to encourage treatment beyond what he deemed was necessary in his professional opinion as the examining dentist.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order finding that the Respondent, Russell Ernest Duke, D.D.S., is guilty of one violation of Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1986). That the penalties assessed against the Respondent include a mitigation of the penalties under Rule 21G-13.005, Florida Administrative Code. That the Respondent receive a reprimand and an administrative fine of $1,000.00. That the Board of Dentistry enter a finding that the Respondent is not guilty of a violation of Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1986). DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-6004 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #1 and #2. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #6. Rejected as to tooth number one. Contrary to fact. See HO #13. The rest of paragraph 9 is accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #8. Reject that the diagnosis was consistent with Dr. Larkin's. See HO #6 and #12. Accept that Dr. Smith's diagnosis was different than the Respondent diagnosis. See HO #13 and #14. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #5 and #15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #17. Rejected. Speculative. Conjecture. Rejected. Speculative. Conjecture. Contrary to fact. See HO #17. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 Russell Ernest Duke, D.D.S. 4125 South Cleveland Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Florida Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0765
