Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, a candidate for licensure as a dentist, was administered the state Dental Examination in June 1988. A part of the exam, the clinical portion, requires that each candidate perform specified procedures on a human patient. The exam procedures are performed in a clinical setting. A floor monitor is present during the examination. After each procedure is performed, the monitor escorts the patient to a grading room. In the grading room, three examiners separately and independently review each candidate's performance. The examiners generally do not discuss or otherwise communicate their opinions or the grades awarded other than to note such on the grading sheet completed by each examiner. The examiners are Florida-licensed practicing dentists. Prior to the examination, the examiners participate in a training session designed to provide a standardized, uniform reference for grading the results of a candidate's performance on the clinical exam. Each examiner awards a numerical grade between 0 and 5 for each procedure. The grade for each procedure reflects an evaluation of the whole of a candidate's performance. Comments are made by each examiner on the grading sheet, either through marking in a computer-scored portion on the sheet, or by written notes outside the computer-scored area. The criteria for each possible grade is as follows: 0--complete failure 1--unacceptable dental procedure 2--below minimal acceptable dental procedure 3--minimal acceptable dental procedure 4--better than minimal acceptable dental procedure 5--outstanding dental procedure The three scores awarded by the examiners are averaged to provide the grade for each procedure. Each candidate is identified on the grading sheet by number so as to prevent an examiner from knowing the identity of the individual candidate being reviewed. Each examiner is also identified by number. Examiners are assigned to grade a candidate through a random selection process. The test monitor is responsible for collecting the grading sheets after each examiner has completed the review. After the grading process is complete, the patient is returned to the clinic for performance of the next procedure. The grading process is repeated for each step. The Petitioner challenges the scores awarded to two of the ten procedures performed as part of the clinical exam. Procedure number two on the exam, the amalgam cavity prep, provides for the preparation of a decayed tooth for filling. Procedure number three, the final amalgam restoration, provides for the filling of the prepared cavity. The two procedures account for 20% of the total points on the clinical examination, divided between procedure two (two-thirds) and procedure three (one-third). On procedure number two, the Petitioner received a grade of 3 from examiner 133, a grade of 4 from examiner 194, and a grade of 0 from examiner 192. Examiner 192 noted that caries remained present in the prepared tooth cavity. Neither examiner 133 nor examiner 194 noted remaining caries, although both identified other areas of concern regarding the candidate's performance. According to the examination rules of the Department, a grade of 0 is mandatory if caries remain after completion of the procedure. There was no evidence to indicate that the review and scoring by examiner 192 was erroneous, beyond the fact that other examiners did not note remaining caries. It is possible, according to expert testimony, for one examiner to identify remaining caries which other examiners fail to discover. The remaining decay can be dislodged by one examiner in reviewing the procedure and therefore not visible to subsequent examiners, or the decay, loosened by the procedure, can be otherwise displaced within the patient's mouth between examinations. On procedure number three, the candidate received a grade of 3 from examiner 101, a grade of 4 from examiner 052, and a 0 from examiner 192. Examiner 192 noted that the functional anatomy, proximal contour, and margin of the amalgam restoration were deficient, further noting that a cervical shoulder existed and that the prepared area was not filled. The evidence did not indicate that the grade awarded by examiner 192 for procedure number three was erroneous or mistaken. According to the evidence, including expert testimony based upon a review of x-rays taken subsequent to completion of the procedure, the grade awarded by examiner 192 was appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of dentistry enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grading of the two clinical procedures on the June 1988 dental examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 7th day of July, APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-0588 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected. The evidence did not establish that procedure number two is weighted more than all other procedures, but did indicate that procedures performed within the oral cavity are more heavily weighted that procedures performed outside the cavity. Procedures two and three are both performed within the oral cavity. Procedure two is, and, totaled, constitute 20% of the clinical examination. Procedure two provides two-thirds of the 20%, with procedure three providing one-third of the 20%. Rejected, restatement of testimony. The appropriate criteria for the 0-5 grade scale is as stated in Rule 21G-2.013 Florida Administrative Code. Rejected, not supported by weight of evidence. Both examiners noted comments on the grading sheet, either through marking within computer-scored area or by writing additional comments on the grading sheet. Rejected. The evidence did not indicate that it was "customary" for examiners to pass notes through monitors to the candidate. The witness testified that, on occasion, he had passed notes to monitors when he gave a score below three on the referenced procedures. However, there is apparently no requirement that examiners inform candidates, through monitors, of problems which are found during the grading of the candidate's work. Rejected, irrelevant. There is no requirement that the candidate should have been informed of the acceptability of his work or of his scores during the procedure. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. The fact that one examiner identifies specific problem areas which are not identified by other examiners does not indicate that the scores are erroneous or that the standardization process undergone by the examiners was deficient. Rejected, conclusion of law. 14-15. Rejected, goes to weight accorded testimony of referenced witnesses. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4. Rejected, irrelevant. 9. Rejected, as to characterization of Petitioner's testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: James Sweeting, III, Esquire 2111 East Michigan Street, Suite 210 Orlando, Florida 32806 E. Harper Field, Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
The Issue The issues are whether the Respondent, a licensed dental hygienist, should be disciplined for violating section 456.072(1)(v), Florida Statutes (2015),1/ by engaging or attempting to engage in sexual misconduct, as defined by section 456.063(1); and, if so, the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed as a dental hygienist in the state of Florida, having been issued license DH 16819. Between November 2015 and February 2016, the Respondent was working as a part-time (Monday, Wednesday, Friday) dental hygienist at Coral Dental and Denture in Cape Coral (Coral Dental). Coral Dental is owned and operated by Juan Castellanos, D.D.S. On January 13, 2016, a patient identified in the hearing transcript as B.M.1, a 77-year old female, had a cleaning performed by the Respondent. This was the patient’s second visit to Coral Dental, but the first time having work done by the Respondent. Her first cleaning was performed by a female dental hygienist named Marley (sometimes spelled Marly in deposition transcripts), who is Dr. Castellanos’ wife. The patient was not used to having cleanings done by a male dental hygienist and preferred the female dental hygienist. She asked the Respondent why he was doing the cleaning, and he told her it was because she was on his schedule. During the course of the cleaning performed that day, the patient felt the Respondent touch her upper chest near her breasts with the back of his forearm once or twice. This made her feel uncomfortable. She also had several other complaints about the cleaning. When she checked out at the front desk after the appointment, she began crying. When asked why, she told the office manager what happened. (The office manager was Traci Roesler. Her name is misspelled Tracey in the hearing transcript and Rustler in Joint Exhibit 12, which is patient G.Z.’s deposition transcript.) The office manager reported B.M.1’s complaints to Dr. Castellanos. Dr. Castellanos, his wife, and his office manager viewed video taken by a surveillance camera in the cleaning room, but the Respondent was positioned with his back to the camera during the cleaning so that the view of what he was doing to the patient was blocked, and the video did not show any sexual misconduct. Dr. Castellanos then went to the Respondent to ask if everything went alright with B.M.1’s cleaning. The Respondent told him everything was fine, but the patient complained about everything. Dr. Castellanos told him about the complaint of sexual misconduct, which the Respondent denied. Dr. Castellanos told him that he had viewed the surveillance video, which did not show sexual misconduct. The Respondent understood that the video exonerated him and that Dr. Castellanos was going to preserve the video in case the patient pursued her complaint. This was a misunderstanding. The video did not exonerate him, and it was not preserved. It operated on a 90-day loop, and the video would be erased and re-recorded 90 days later. In any event, there was an electrical fire in the office in late March of 2016, and the surveillance tapes were destroyed along with many other things in the office. No video recording was available for the Petitioner’s eventual investigation or for evidence at the hearing. After the episode with B.M.1, Dr. Castellanos decided to investigate by having his office staff conduct what he called a quality control survey of the Respondent’s patients to determine whether any other patients had similar complaints. In the meantime, the Respondent continued to work for Coral Dental part- time. Another patient seen by the Respondent for a cleaning on January 13, 2016, was identified in the hearing transcript by the initials L.B. At the time, L.B. was a 65-year old woman. L.B. testified by deposition that, during the cleaning, she was fully reclined in the dental chair, and the Respondent was positioned on her right side, near her torso rather than her head. The Respondent asked the patient to hold the suction hose instrument with her right hand while he was doing the cleaning. This opened a space between her arm and her right breast. The Respondent placed a bib on the patient and patted the bib in place across her breasts, touching the area of and around her nipples. The Respondent also wiped his instruments rapidly over the patient’s breast, using a stroking motion over her nipple. L.B. estimated that he did this approximately 30 times during the cleaning. Then, while the patient rinsed her mouth, the Respondent placed his hand under the bib, pinched the nipple of the patient’s right breast, and pulled on it. L.B. estimated that he continued doing this for about a minute while saying, “very nice, very nice.” Then, when Dr. Castellanos entered the room to examine the patient’s mouth, the Respondent stood behind him and rubbed a folder against the insides of the patient’s legs, which the dentist could not see. When the dentist turned around, the Respondent quickly removed the folder from between the patient’s legs, pretended to be reviewing it, and acted as if everything was normal. L.B. was in shock and disbelief at what the Respondent did during the cleaning. At first, she gave him the benefit of the doubt, but she became convinced as his actions escalated that they had to be intentional. She did not report them to Dr. Castellanos or his office staff at the time because she was afraid they would not believe her due to her age. She did tell her husband later the same day. She was going to stop using Coral Dental and cancelled her next appointment, but she changed her mind and decided instead to continue going to Coral Dental but to stop being seen by the Respondent. The next time L.B. was at Coral Dental was on February 11, 2016. On that visit, she noticed what appeared to be a surveillance camera in the examination room. It occurred to her that images captured by the camera could show the Respondent’s sexual misconduct on January 13. When the office staff confirmed to her that there was a surveillance camera in the examination room, she decided to report the sexual misconduct. When Dr. Castellanos was given L.B.’s report, he decided to terminate the Respondent. He did not look for video evidence from his surveillance system before making this decision. Coincidentally, on the very next day, which was Friday, February 12, the Respondent was offered full-time employment as a dental hygienist for another dentist. He reported this to Dr. Castellanos when he arrived at work that day and gave notice that his last day working for Coral Dental would be February 26, 2016. He overheard Dr. Castellanos immediately ask his office manager to start calling potential replacements for the Respondent. The Respondent went to work the following Monday, February 15, and was introduced to a woman who was going to be his replacement. Dr. Castellanos told the Respondent to show her all the tools and orient her on the job. When the Respondent left the office at the end of the day, he told Dr. Castellanos he would see him Wednesday, February 17, which was his next scheduled work day. Dr. Castellanos told him not to return on Wednesday because his employment with Coral Dental was over. The Respondent thought his abrupt termination after giving two weeks’ notice was unfair. Unaware of L.B.’s report, he mistakenly thought Dr. Castellanos was terminating him in retaliation for quitting and taking a job with another dentist. Dr. Castellanos denied this and maintained that he actually terminated the Respondent’s employment because of the allegations of sexual misconduct. After the Respondent’s termination, Dr. Castellanos had his office manager continue with the quality control survey of the Respondent’s patients, which was conducted by telephone. Dr. Castellanos instructed the office manager to ask a neutral, open-ended question about the quality of the Respondent’s work and see what kind of response was given. Apart from the telephone survey, Dr. Castellanos’ office received a complaint from another patient, identified in the hearing transcript as B.M.2, on February 18, 2015. At the time, B.M.2 was just shy of 64 years old. On that day, she accompanied her husband to an appointment and, while there, told Marley about the Respondent’s sexual misconduct during the cleaning she received from him at her appointment a few weeks earlier, on February 5. Similar to L.B.’s experience, the Respondent positioned himself next to her waist instead of near her head, as other dental hygienists did, and he brushed over the nipple area of her right breast with the side of his arm every time he reached over her to perform work in her mouth, which no other dental hygienist ever did to her while performing a cleaning. The brushing motion would continue for several seconds to a minute at a time. This happened ten to 20 times during the cleaning. The Respondent also cleaned the mirror he was using by reaching under the bib that was laying on her chest, thereby touching her breast, and using the bib as a cloth to clean the mirror. This happened twice during the cleaning. This conduct made the patient very uncomfortable. She believed it was intentional because it was so repetitive. She did not say anything at the time because she was in shock that it would happen to her at a dentist’s office. On February 24, 2016, a 64-year old female patient, who is identified in the hearing transcript by the initials G.Z., responded to Coral Dental’s telephone survey. When asked about her experience with the Respondent, she told Traci the office manager that she had an appointment with the Respondent on December 2, 2015. While performing a deep cleaning, the Respondent stroked her right breast 20-30 times with his palm and forearm as he moved toward her face. She believed the motion was deliberate and intentional, but she did not react or say anything at the time. After the appointment, she told her husband about it. She testified that it made her feel uncomfortable, but she decided to give the Respondent the benefit of the doubt and made another appointment for the Respondent to finish the deep cleaning, which she was made to understand had to be done promptly. G.Z. returned to complete her deep cleaning by the Respondent on December 16, 2015. The Respondent began to repeat the sexual misconduct by stroking the patient’s breast several times. This time, the Respondent angrily sat up, moved his hand away from her breast, and swore at him, saying something like, “You touch me like that again, and you’ll be wearing your balls like earrings.” The Respondent pushed or guided her back down into the chair and finished the deep cleaning without further incident. When the patient left, the Respondent followed her to the front desk, tried to hug her, and referred to her as his “friend.” She did not report the sexual misconduct at the time because she “just wanted to get out of there.” Later that day, she told her husband what happened. In the weeks following the deep cleaning, G.Z. had a “gradual reckoning” as the import of the Respondent’s actions sunk in. She struggled to admit to herself that she had let herself be the victim of a sexual assault. She decided not to show for her next dental appointment at Coral Dental. Another patient who responded to Coral Dental’s telephone survey was a 66-year old female identified in the hearing transcript by the initials B.C. She reported what happened to her at her appointment on December 11, 2015. During the cleaning the Respondent performed on that day, he touched her breasts several times. First, he touched them with his hand while placing the bib on her. Then, he brushed his arm or wrist against her breast over and over as he cleaned her teeth. Sometimes, he lifted the patient’s breast while reaching for his instruments. He also rested his arm on her breast. Altogether, he touched her breasts six to nine times. He also placed his elbow between the patient’s thighs while scraping her teeth and moved his elbow up and down against the patient’s crotch for 30 to 40 seconds, as if trying to stimulate her. After the cleaning, the Respondent walked B.C. to the front desk with his hand on the small of her back. At the front desk, the patient tried to avoid scheduling another appointment, but the Respondent put his arms around her from behind, pressed against her back, and told her she had to come back for more work. At the Respondent’s insistence, B.C. made another appointment. When she turned to leave, the Respondent patted and squeezed her buttocks. The office staff was unable to see what the Respondent was doing on the other side of the high front desk. B.C. felt embarrassed, ashamed, and bad about herself in response to the Respondent’s actions. She did not protest to the Respondent, saying she just squirmed in the dental chair and tried to “make [her]self smaller.” She did not tell anyone at the dental office about the Respondent’s sexual misconduct because she felt humiliated. She broke down crying on the way home in the car and told her husband about it. Before the telephone survey was completed, with 50 more patients of the Respondent yet to be contacted, Dr. Castellanos notified the Petitioner what had been discovered so far. On March 24, 2016, the Petitioner’s investigator spoke to Traci the office manager. On May 5, 2016, the investigator interviewed each of the five patients by telephone. The information they gave the investigator was consistent with their testimony at the final hearing and by deposition. The Respondent does not deny that the conduct attributed to him by these patients constitutes intentional sexual misconduct. (This is clearly true as to the conduct attributed to him by L.B., B.C., G.Z., and B.M.2; it is less clear as to the conduct attributed to him by B.M.1.) Rather, he claims that none of the reported conduct ever happened. Instead, he claims that Dr. Castellanos was angry at him for quitting and taking a full-time job working for another dentist, and that he had his office staff solicit and obtain false claims of sexual misconduct from these patients. The Respondent testified that he only heard about one of the patient complaints before he was fired and that he was fired right after he gave his two-week notice. He thought those facts would help him prove his defense. But the much stronger evidence was that the victims were telling the truth; that they did not complain sooner because they were embarrassed and ashamed; and that the timing of the termination of the Respondent’s employment was merely coincidental with his giving two-weeks’ notice.
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: finding the Respondent guilty of four violations of section 456.072(1)(v), by violating section 456.063(1); revoking his license to practice dental hygiene; fining him $2,500; and imposing the costs of investigation and prosecution. Jurisdiction to determine the costs of investigation and prosecution is retained for 30 days after rendition of the final order, in the event the parties cannot agree on them. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 2017.
The Issue Whether Respondent Tessler has violated Florida Statute Section 466.24(3)(a), (c) and (d) and is guilty of misconduct, malpractice, or willful negligence in the practice of dentistry. Whether Respondent is guilty of receiving compensation because of a false claim intentionally submitted. Whether Respondent has failed to treat a patient according to acceptable dental standards and procedures.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Stephen W. Tessler, the Respondent, is a dentist licensed to practice dentistry under the laws of the State of Florida, Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, engaged in the practice of dentistry in his office located at 1245 NW 190th Street, North Miami, Florida. The Petitioner, State Board of Dentistry, filed an administrative accusation against Respondent Tessler, which was sworn to and subscribed in July, 1978. The accusation contained two counts, and the Respondent requested an administrative hearing. The hearing was first scheduled for October 20, 1978, but was continued upon motion of the Petitioner to January 10, 1979, and rescheduled upon motion of the Respondent to March 8, 1979. During the months of January, 1977, through mid-June, 1977, Ms. Rachel Dixon was a dental patient of Respondent Tessler. Ms. Dixon is a 32-year-old woman with a history of severe tooth and gum problems. She had prosthetic appliances and six (6) anterior crowns placed in her mouth ten (10) to fifteen (15) years ago in Pennsylvania. She had engaged a dentist, a Dr. Snyder in Hollywood, Florida, but had not seen him for some two (2) years prior to making an appointment with the Respondent for relief from pain and gum irritation, and for cosmetic improvement. Ms. Dixon is an unhappy dental patient with an inordinate fear of dentists, and her home dental hygiene care is inadequate. At the time Ms. Dixon engaged Respondent Tessler, she was in need of dental treatment for full-mouth gross peridontal inflammation and infected root canals in tooth number 30. She employed the Respondent for the purpose of providing dental treatment for peridontal disease, endodonic care of tooth number 30, recapping to the anterior teeth, and restoration of an upper right bridge on teeth number 3, 4 and 5. Ms. Dixon was referred to Dr. Hirschfield, an orthodontist in Respondent's office, for x-rays. Costs were discussed, a payment made, and a schedule of appointments planned. Thereafter, Ms. Dixon kept numerous scheduled and unscheduled appointments with the Respondent. Respondent Tessler replaced existing crowns on six (6) anterior teeth (number 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11) with six (6) anterior foil porcelain jackets. In the presence of peridontal disease, Respondent attempted to replace an upper right bridge on teeth number 3, 4 and 5. Respondent was dissatisfied with the "final restoration" but used it instead of making a temporary one. He placed it in Ms. Dixon's mouth because it was better than a temporary restoration. Respondent had told Ms. Dixon that he would satisfy her and would redo the temporary restoration on her front teeth. He did the restoration a second time. Initially, Ms. Dixon was pleased, but later she was not satisfied because she felt pain upon contact with food, drink, or air that was either hot or cold. At the time of hearing no further work had been done in this area of her mouth, and she still complained of pain. On the second or third visit, within two (2) weeks of Ms. Dixon's initial visit, Respondent treated tooth number 30 by performing three (3) root canal treatments. After a number of weeks, Ms. Dixon continued to experience pain in this tooth. Respondent treated tooth number 30 again, reopening two (2) root canals to permit drainage and prescribing an antibiotic. During the course of the endodonic treatment on tooth number 30 an existing lower right bridge on teeth number 28, 29, 30 and 31 was damaged. Ms. Dixon did not return to Respondent for treatment, although she was in pain and attempted for two (2) or three (3) days to reach Respondent by telephone calls to his office. Thereafter, a week or ten (10) days later, Ms. Dixon sought the services of Dr. Marvin Levinson. She indicated to Dr. Levinson that she was not going to return to Respondent Tessler, that she suffered from pain, and that she was concerned about her appearance. Dr. Levinson examined her and referred her to Dr. Satovsky, an endodontist, for immediate relief of pain for a dental abscess, and to Dr. Garfinkle, a peridontist, for a complete peridontal work-up. It was Dr. Garfinkle's opinion that the caps placed by Respondent Tessler in the mouth of Ms. Dixon were placed in the presence of peridontal disease or that the caps caused the disease. He could not determine which came first. Dr. Garfinkle stated that Ms. Dixon was prone to peridontal disease and that she was an unhappy dental patient. Dr. Garfinkle could not comment on the condition of Ms. Dixon's mouth at the time of the treatment given by Respondent, inasmuch as he had not seen her until some eight (8) months had passed. Dr. Satovsky stated that on tooth number 30, which he treated subsequent to the root canal treatment done by Respondent Tessler, the canals were inadequately cleaned and enlarged. He stated that there were three (3) canals on the tooth, two (2) of which had the rods removed, and that he removed the third. He retreated the three (3) canals and alleviated the pain of Ms. Dixon. Dr. Satovsky could not state whether he thought the work of Respondent was negligent, inasmuch as he could not state what the tooth looked like when Respondent first saw it. Dr. Marshall Brothers, the Secretary/Treasurer of the State Board of Dentistry, found that the permanent type of restoration was adequate but not good for a temporary restoration. Upon his examination of Ms. Dixon's mouth, he found her general peridontal condition to be poor. Dr. Brothers could not determine whether her condition was a result of the restoration or existed prior to the restoration. He assumed the condition to be the one or the other because of the recency of the restoration. Respondent Tessler is a licensed dentist and a general practitioner, and is licensed to perform the dental work involved in this case. His charges for this work were substantial, but there was no evidence submitted that said charges were excessive or that Ms. Dixon misunderstood them. Alternative methods of treatment were discussed. The testimony and the evidence in this case show that Respondent worked within his ability as an average dentist. There was no showing of willful negligence, although Respondent's judgment may have been poor, and probably he should have referred Ms. Dixon to specialists. Affixing a bridge and crown work in the presence of gum disease is not the acceptable standard of care within the dental profession, and Respondent admits to that fact; however, he felt that it would improve the overall condition, and he had not released Ms. Dixon as a patient. Ms. Dixon was not pleased with Respondent's work or his charges ad, after attempting to make an appointment, left Respondent Tessler for another dentist. Ms. Dixon was insured through her husband's employer by a policy issued by Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. On January 31, 1977, Respondent Tessler submitted a pre-treatment estimate for work to be done consisting of porcelain-to-gold restorations on anterior teeth number 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, and for a fixed bridge on teeth number 28, 29, 30 and 31, plus additional treatment in the amount of $2,420.00. The insurance company refused to pay for all treatment except for the fixed bridge on teeth number 28 through 31. On April 27, 1977, Respondent submitted the customary insurance treatment form to Aetna certifying that the bridgework had been performed and completed on April 27, 1977. Based on Respondent's representation, Aetna paid Respondent $649.50. The bridgework had in fact not been done, nor were the anterior crowns porcelain-to-gold restorations. Approximately one year later, Respondent refunded the overage to Aetna upon the request of the insurance company. Both parties submitted proposed findings of fact and memoranda of law, and Respondent submitted a proposed order. These instruments were considered in the writing of this Order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this Order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having boon supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the violation as established, it is recommended that the license of Stephen W. Tessler, D.D.S., be suspended for a period of time not exceeding one year from the date of the Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 12th 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 Stephen Mechanic, Esquire Suite 200 1125 NE 125th Street North Miami, Florida 33161
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Colette Michele Gatward (Petitioner) should receive a passing score on the Florida Dental Hygiene Clinical Examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was a candidate for licensure as a dental hygienist by the State of Florida. All candidates for Florida licensure as dental hygienists are required to pass the Florida Dental Hygiene Clinical Examination. The Petitioner took the exam on November 5, 2010. Information and instructions related to the exam were provided to candidates through a "Candidate Information Booklet" (CIB) that was posted on the Respondent's Internet website approximately 60 days prior to the date of the exam. Candidates were expected to review the information contained in the CIB. The Petitioner was aware of the information in the CIB. Part of the exam required that each candidate perform certain clinical procedures to the teeth of a human patient. The CIB stated that each candidate was responsible for providing their own human patient upon whom the clinical procedures could be performed. A panel of three examiners reviewed and scored each candidate's performance of the clinical procedures. In relevant part, the CIB stated that each candidate must submit a patient with 12 surfaces of explorer-detectable moderate subgingival calculus. An explorer is a piece of equipment used in dental practice. The CIB stated that 6.5 points would be awarded for each of the 12 surfaces of subgingival calculus detected and removed by the candidate during the exam. The CIB also stated that failure to detect and remove a minimum of nine surfaces of moderate subgingival calculus would result in a candidate receiving less than a passing score on the exam. The CIB specifically stated that "[p]oor patient selection and management is a common reason for examination failure." The Petitioner brought her sister-in-law to the exam to serve as her patient. After the applicable portion of the exam was completed, the panel of three examiners evaluated the Petitioner's clinical performance. Two of the three examiners determined that the Petitioner had detected and removed subgingival calculus from only eight surfaces of her patient's teeth. There was no evidence presented to indicate that the Petitioner neglected to remove subgingival calculus from her patient's teeth. The Petitioner was aware at the time of the exam that her sister-in-law did not have sufficient subgingival calculus to meet the patient requirements for the clinical demonstration. The insufficient degree of subgingival calculus present in the Petitioner's patient prior to the clinical exam precluded the Petitioner from passing the exam. The Petitioner received a total deduction of 26 points (6.5 points deducted for each of the four surfaces upon which no subgingival calculus was detected) and failed the exam with a score of 74. The Petitioner offered no credible evidence that the panel of examiners improperly reviewed her performance on the exam or that the score she received on the November 5, 2010, administration of the exam was in any manner incorrect. At the hearing, the Petitioner testified that she is licensed as a dental hygienist in another state, that the examinations in both states were conducted by the same regional testing agency, and that the scores from the other state should be accepted by the Respondent for licensure of dental hygienists in Florida. Florida law does not provide for dental hygienist license reciprocity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the scoring of the exam referenced herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Morris Shelkofsky, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Colette Michele Gatward 2212 Margarita Court Kissimmee, Florida 34741 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 H. Frank Farmer, M.D., Ph.D., Secretary State Surgeon General Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 E. Renee Alsobrook, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
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 Whether or not on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent, James P. Haas, was offering to practice dentistry, and indeed practicing dentistry at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center, in violation of Sections 466.24(3)(n) and 466.36, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent, James P. Haas, maintained a telephone listing whereby he offered to practice dentistry as D.A.D. Denture Center at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, and whether or not he continues to maintain said listing, in violation of Sections 466.24(3)(g) and 466.27(5), Florida Statutes. Whether or not since January 1, 1978, or prior to that date, one Bernie Morlock has been employed by the Respondent, James P. Haas, to perform dental services at a time when the said Bernie Morlock was not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene in the State of Florida. Further, whether or not Bernie Morlock, while employed by the Respondent, practiced dentistry as defined in Section 466.04, Florida Statutes, to the extent of: Taking impressions of the human teeth and jaws. Placing dentures and dental appliances in patients' mouths and adjusting or attempting to adjust same. Diagnosing or professing to diagnose the physical condition of the teeth and jaws of patients. Finally, whether or not the Respondent knowingly allowed the practice of dentistry by Bernie Morlock in violation of Section 466.02, Florida Statutes, and in further violation of Section 466.24(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes. Whether or not since January 1, 1978, or prior to that date, the Respondent, James P. Haas, has employed unlicensed personnel to perform dental services for patients, to-wit: orthodontic treatment, which services constitute the practice of dentistry under Section 466.04, Florida Statutes. Further, whether or not if these services were performed by unlicensed persons, were they performed with the full knowledge and consent of the Respondent, thereby constituting a violation on the part of the Respondent of Sections 466.24(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes. (The Amended Accusation which charges the Respondent contained a certain Count III; however, no testimony was offered in support of that allegation and at the conclusion of the formal hearing, the Petitioner, through its counsel, voluntarily withdrew that count from consideration. This voluntary dismissal was unopposed by the Respondent.)
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, Division of Professions, Board of Dentistry, is an agency of the state created for the purposes of protecting the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the State of Florida, to the extent that practice of dentistry in the state and dental hygiene are subject to the regulation and control of the Petitioner in the public interest. The authority for such regulation is set forth in Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and those rules of the Florida Administrative Code related thereto. The Respondent, James P. Haas, is licensed by the Florida State Board of Dentistry to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. The Petitioner, by an Amended Accusation, has charged the Respondent, James P. Haas, with various violations of provisions of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and the Respondent has requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, which request has been granted and a hearing held on February 15 and 16, 1979. The first of the allegations states that on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent was offering to practice dentistry and indeed practicing dentistry at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center. The facts reveal that Dr. Haas made an arrangement with an organization known as Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., of Harredsberg, Kentucky, wherein he agreed to coordinate the placement of advertisements for the benefit of that corporation and in turn the corporation agreed to refer patients to Dr. Haas for his treatment. The advertising spoken of consisted of an ad in the Winter Park, Florida, telephone directory yellow pages and certain newspaper advertising through the Orlando Sentinel of Orlando, Florida. The advertising in the telephone directory was placed in the fall of 1977 and a copy of that yellow page advertising may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence contains a copy of the format for the telephone yellow page advertising, as contemplated by Dr. Haas through his agreement with Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., of Harredsberg, Kentucky. The listing of the telephone number was of the number in Harredsberg, Kentucky, and those individuals at that number in turn made the referrals to Dr. Haas's office located at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida. An example of the newspaper advertising may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence at page 161-I, a copy of the Sentinal Star Progress Edition of December 18, 1977. In that advertising the same number is given as indicated in the aforementioned telephone telephone ad, with the difference being that Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., is given as the trade name as opposed to D.A.D. Denture Center, which was found in the telephone advertisement. Dr. Haas maintained a separate checking account for D.A.D. Denture Center, the name of his affiliation with Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc. The payments for services made by those patients referred through the D.A.D. Denture Center process, were placed into the D.A.D. Denture Center operating account of Dr. Haas. Those persons authorized to make withdrawals from that account were Dr. Haas and his employee, Bernie Morlock, and checks were drawn from that account under the authority of Dr. Haas. The overall income and expanses of D.A.D. Denture Center, operated by Dr. Haas, and of his general practice in the name of James P. Haas-sole proprietor, were combined and were under the control and authority of Dr. Haas. The dental office located in Longwood, Florida, was identified as the office of James P. Haas, D.D.S., and also by a placard indicating the office to be a D.A.D. Denture Center. Finally, those patients who called for service under D.A.D. Denture Center were charged by different fee structure and were listed in a separate appointment book, than that appointment hook for the Respondent through his general practice, James P. Haas, D.D.S. The Respondent was knowledgeable of the arrangement to treat patients under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center at the address in Longwood, Florida, and in fact practiced dentistry under that assumed name and at that location as alleged in Count I of the Amended Accusation. This constituted a violation of Section 466.36, Florida Statutes, which states: "Practicing dentistry under assumed name; penalties.-- On and after the passage of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to practice or offer to practice dentistry under any name except his or her own proper name, which shall be the name used in his or her license certificate granted to him or her as a dentist as provided in this chapter, and unlawful to use the name of any company, association, corporation, clinic, trade name, or business name in connection with the practice of dentistry as defined in this chapter, provided, nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent two or more licensed dentists from associating to- gether for the practice of dentistry, each in his or her own proper name. The violation of any of the provisions of this section by any dentist shall subject such dentist to suspen- sion or revocation of his or her license." The advertisement placed in the Winter Park, Florida, telephone directory, which is sham as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence, was placed with the knowledge of the Respondent and with the intention by the Respondent that the advertisement be made. This advertisement pertained to the 1978 telephone directory for Winter Park, Florida. Under these facts, the Petitioner has charged the Respondent with a violation of Section 466.27(5), Florida Statutes. That provision reads: "466.27(5) Telephone listings shall be con- fined to the local telephone directories. Such listings shall be limited to the den- tist's name, dental degree, 'D.D.S.' or 'D.M.D.,' using the abbreviation only, the word 'dentist,' 'dentistry,' or 'general dentistry,' any specialty as approved by the board to which the dentist confines his practice exclusively, office location, resi- dence and office telephone numbers, and residence address and may include his member- ship in a local dental society if in accord with local customs." A review of the language of this section, in view of the fact that the advertising in the telephone directory inured to the benefit of the Respondent by the process of the referral system spoken of above, demonstrates that the telephone listing was for the benefit of Dr. Haas and was not in keeping with the requirements of this subsection. This constituted advertising professional services and the practice of dentistry in a manner not expressly authorized by Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and was therefore in violation of Section 466.24(3)(g), Florida Statutes. One of the employees of the Respondent who worked in the office at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, was Bernie Morlock. Morlock was not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene in the State of Florida at any time relevant to the allegations in the Amended Accusation. Nonetheless, Morlock practiced dentistry as defined by Section 466.04, Florida Statutes, and did so in the office of the Respondent in Longwood, Florida, with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent. The arrangement which was condoned by the Respondent allowed for Morlock to have patients scheduled for him for the purpose of the preparation of dentures through the referral system, D.A.D. Denture Center, which was part of Dr. Haas's Longwood, Florida, office. (An example of the written schedules may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence.) Dr. Haas had instructed that these patients be scheduled to be seen by Bernie Morlock. Some of these patients were being seen by Dr. Haas's office for the first time and were attended by Bernie Morlock from this initial visit to the conclusion of the case, at which time the patients were given their dentures. Morlock's involvement with patients included diagnosis of the physical condition of the teeth and jaws of the patients; taking impressions of patients' teeth, both algenate and working model impressions; the placement of dentures and other dental appliances in the patients' mouths and the adjustment to those dentures and dental appliances, and the discussion of the case with the patient. Most of the work that Morlock did was done at a time when Dr. Haas was not in attendance in the aforementioned office and was done without supervision from any licensed dentist. This process undertaxen by Bernie Morlock happened on numerous occasions. The patients were considered to be Morlock's patients and the patients only saw licensed dentists for the purpose of extracting teeth or other dental procedures unconnected with the fabrication and try-in and adjustment to the dentures. These actions on the part of Bernie Morlock took place during the time period alleged in Count IV of the Amended Accusation. By allowing Bernie Morlock to attend patients in the fashion that Morlock did, the Respondent was willfully negligent in the practice of dentistry within the moaning of Section 466.24(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and in addition was guilty of a violation of Section 466.24(e), Florida Statutes, which states: "Employing or permitting any unlicensed per- son or persons to perform any work in his office which would constitute the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene, except a dental auxiliary pursuant to the provisions of this chapter." During the period of time alleged in Count V of the Amended Accusation, the Respondent employed dental hygienists Vic Simmons and Mary Simmons at his office in Longwood, Florida. Although they wore dental hygienists, these individuals were not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene within the State of Florida. Notwithstanding this absence of a license, the Simmonses practiced dentistry in the Longwood office within the meaning of Section 466.04, Florida Statutes. This included having certain schedules set for them as indicated by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. This is an example of the schedule for the Simmonses under the title, "Ortho". This scheduling was with the knowledge of Dr. Haas, who had arranged for the Simmonses to come and treat orthodontic patients in his office. The Simmonses came to the location of the Respondent's office two days a month, of which Dr. Haas was in the Longwood office one of those days. These orthodontic patients would be seen initially by Dr. Haas and then treated for their condition by the Simmonses. Some of the patients first seen by the Simmonses arrived at the office without any form of braces in the mouth of the patient. The procedures that the Simmonses then performed were done without supervision by a licensed dentist. By that it is meant that the Simmonses were performing the dental services without the licensed dentist being in the room. The Simmonses, in the pursuit of orthodontic dental practice, placed bands and changed beads, cemented hands and placed arch wires; all with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent. Under the circumstances involved in the employment of the Simmonses, it has been demonstrated that the Respondent is guilty of willful negligence in the practice of dentistry as prescribed in Section 466.24(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is also guilty of a violation of Section 466.24(3)(e), Florida Statutes, in that he employed and permitted unlicensed persons to perform work in his office which would constitute the practice of dentistry. The proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation offered by the parties have been revied prior to the rendition of this Recommended Order. To the extent that the proposals conform to the findings herein, they have been utilized in developing the Recommended Order. To the extent that the proposals are inconsistent with the findings herein, they are rejected.
The Issue The issue is whether the score that Respondent assigned to the Patient Amalgam Preparation and Periodontal sections of the clinical part of Petitioner's June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination taken was arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination. A passing score for the clinical part of the examination is 3.0. Petitioner received a score of 2.94, so he failed the clinical part of the examination. Petitioner has challenged the grades of 2.0 that he received on the Patient Amalgam Preparation and Periodontal sections of the clinical part of the examination. In both sections, the score of 2.0 is derived from averaging the 3s that Petitioner received from two evaluators and the 0 that he received from one evaluator. For both procedures, Petitioner challenges only the scores of 0, and he needs two additional points to pass the clinical part of the examination. The administration of the clinical part of the dental examination requires Respondent to recruit and train numerous examiners and monitors, all of whom are experienced, licensed dentists. The training process includes standardization exercises designed to ensure that all examiners are applying the same scoring criteria. The evaluation of specific procedures are double-blind, with scoring sheets that identify candidates by test numbers, so examiners do not know the identity of the candidate whose procedures they are scoring. The two sections that are the subject of this case require the candidate to demonstrate certain skills on a live patient. While working with the patient, the candidate is supervised by a monitor. When the candidate has completed the required dental work to his satisfaction, he so advises the monitor, who sends the patient to the dental examiners. For each section that is the subject of this case, three dental examiners examine the patient and score the procedure. These examiners do not communicate with each other, and each performs his or her examinations and scores the procedure in isolation from the other examiners. Communication between examiners and candidates is exclusively through monitor notes. For each section that is the subject of this case, the maximum possible score that a candidate may receive is a 5. Passing grades are 3, 4, or 5. Nonpassing grades are 0, 1, or A score of 3 indicates minimal competence. The Periodontal section of the clinical part of the dental examination required Petitioner to debride five teeth. Removing calculus from teeth, especially below the gums, is an important procedure because the build-up of tartar and plaque may cause pockets to form between the tooth and gum. Eventually, the gum tissue may deteriorate, ultimately resulting in the loss of the tooth. Prior to the examination, written materials explain to the candidates and examiners that the debridement is to remove all supragingival and subgingival foreign deposits. For the Periodontal procedure, Examiners 207 and 296 each gave Petitioner a 3, and Examiner 394 gave him a 0. The scoring sheets provide a space for preprinted notes relevant to the procedure. All three examiners noted root roughness. However, Examiner 394 detected "heavy" subgingival calculus on four teeth and documented his findings, as required to do when scoring a 0. Petitioner contends that two examiners and he correctly detected no calculus, and Examiner 394 incorrectly detected calculus. As an explanation, Petitioner showed that Examiner 394 knows Petitioner in an employment setting, and their relationship may have been tense at times. However, Petitioner never proved that Examiner 394 associated Petitioner's candidate number with Petitioner. Thus, personal bias does not explain Examiner 394's score. On the other hand, Examiners 296 and 207 are extremely experienced dental examiners. Examiner 296 has served nine years in this capacity, and Examiner 207 has served ten years, conducting 15-20 dental examinations during this period of time. By contrast, Examiner 394 has been licensed in Florida only since 1995 and has been serving as a dental examiner for only three years. However, the most likely explanation for this scoring discrepancy is that Examiner 394 explored more deeply the subgingival area than did Examiners 207 and 296 or Petitioner. Examiner 394 testified with certainty that he found the calculus at 5-6 mm beneath the gums. This is likely deeper than the others penetrated, but not unreasonably deep. For the Periodontal procedure, an examiner who found calculus on four teeth would be entitled to award the candidate 0 points. Examiners may deduct two points per tooth that has been incompletely cleaned, although the lowest score is 0. Examiner 394's score of 0 is therefore legitimate and at least as reliable as the other scores of 3. The Amalgam Preparation section of the clinical part of the examination required Petitioner to remove caries from one tooth and prepare the tooth for restoration. These procedures are of obvious importance to dental health. Poor preparation of the tooth surface will probably result in the premature failure of the restoration. A restoration following incomplete removal of caries will probably result in ongoing disease, possibly resulting in the loss of the tooth. Written materials, as well as Respondent's rules, which are discussed below, require a 0 if caries remain, after the candidate has presented the patient as ready for restoration. Other criteria apply to the Amalgam Preparation procedure, but this criterion is the only one of importance in this case. Examiners 207 and 417 each assigned Petitioner a 3 for this procedure, but Examiner 420 assigned him a 0. Examiners 207 and 417 noted some problems with the preparation of the tooth, but neither detected any caries. Examiner 420 detected caries and documented his finding, as required to do when scoring a 0. As noted above, Examiner 207 is a highly experienced evaluator, but the other two evaluators are experienced dentists. Examiner 417 graduated from dental school in 1979, and Examiner 420 has been licensed in Florida since 1981. The instructions to examiners emphasize that they are to detect caries "exclusively" tactilely, not visually. Tactile detection of the stickiness characteristic of caries is more reliable than visual detection. For example, caries assumes the color of dentin as the decay approaches the dentin. Examiner 420 testified definitively that he detected caries tactilely, not visually, in Petitioner's patient. This testimony is credited. It is difficult to reconcile Examiner 420's finding of caries with the contrary finding by the highly experienced Examiner 207. It does not seem especially likely that an experienced dentist would miss decay, especially in the artificial setting of a dental examination, in which everyone's attention is focused on one tooth. Examiner 207's finding of no caries is corroborated by the same finding of Examiner 417. However, Examiner 417's finding is given little weight. She readily suggested that she must have missed the caries. What at first appeared to be no more than a gracious gesture by a witness willing to aid Respondent's case took on different meaning when Examiner 417 testified, in DOAH Case No. 03-3955, first that she had detected visually and then retreated to testifying that she did not know if she had detected caries visually or tactilely--a significant concession because examiners were instructed explicitly not to rely on visual findings of caries. Returning, then, to the conflict between the findings of Examiner 420 and Examiner 207, substantially unaided by the corroborating findings of Examiner 417, either an experienced, credible dentist has found caries where none exists, or an experienced credible dentist has missed caries. The specificity of Examiner 420's testimony makes it more likely, as logic would suggest, that he did not imagine the existence of caries, and Examiner 207 somehow missed the caries. It is thus slightly more likely than not that Petitioner failed to remove the caries prior to presenting the patient. More importantly, though, for reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law, Examiner 420, in finding caries, adhered strictly to Respondent's rules and policies for evaluating candidates' work, and his finding was not arbitrary or capricious.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the scoring of the clinical part of the June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 James Randolph Quick Driftwood Plaza 2151 South U.S. Highway One Jupiter, Florida 33477 Cassandra Pasley Senior Attorney Department of Health Office of the General Counsel 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether Joseph M. Pelle, the Petitioner should be issued a dental teaching permit in conjunction with his duties as Dean of the Jacksonville University Dental School of Orthodontists (dental school) in accordance with the authority cited and treated below.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is Dr. Joseph M. Pelle. His business address is 2800 University Boulevard North, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, Florida. The Petitioner is not licensed to practice dentistry in Florida, but is licensed in three other states. His licensure is current and in good standing in those states. The Respondent is the Florida Board of Dentistry (Board). It is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure standards and practice standards for those engaged in the practice of dentistry in all its facets in the State of Florida. Its authority includes the authority, under the law cited below, to issue teaching permits in limited circumstances for professionals engaged in the teaching of clinical aspects of dentistry, at accredited institutions, offering advanced education to post-graduate dentists in Florida. The Petitioner filed an application for a teaching permit pursuant to Section 466.002, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B5-7.005, with the Respondent Board. The application is dated March 25, 2003. The teaching permit was proposed to be used at the Jacksonville University Dental School of Orthodontists in Jacksonville, Florida (Dental School). On June 25, 2003, the Board entered an order denying the application for the teaching permit. The Petitioner is the Dean of the Dental School of Orthodontics. The Petitioner is not currently licensed as a dentist in the State of Florida, but is licensed in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio with all those licenses being in good standing. The Petitioner has practiced orthodontics since 1971, and has been the chairman of dental programs at the University of Pittsburgh and at West Virginia University. He has a board specialty from the American Board of Orthodontics. Jacksonville University is a private, non-profit, accredited, liberal arts university in Jacksonville, Florida, that confers degrees at the undergraduate and graduate levels. It also offers advanced professional education programs. The Dental School of Orthodontics offers advanced education in orthodontics to post-graduate dentists that have already completed their dental program to receive the DMD or DDS degree. The dental school currently has four full-time faculty, eleven part-time faculty, and adjuncts, both outside and inside the Jacksonville University. There are fourteen students currently enrolled in the program. The advanced program offered consists of approximately 3700 hours of formal intense instruction over a twenty-four month period. The program results in conferring a certificate of advanced education in orthodontics on successful students. The Petitioner's duties as Dean of the Dental School of Orthodontics, are divided between administrative and teaching duties. Approximately 75 percent of his duties are attributable to administrative matters and 25 percent to teaching. If the teaching permit is issued, the Petitioner will participate in clinical instruction at the Dental School of Orthodontics. The accreditation body for dental programs in the United States is the Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association (the Commission). The Commission is a specialized programmatic accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education. It conducts all aspects of the accreditation process for the more than 1300 programs for dental, allied dental, and advanced dental education in the Untied States. The accreditation is for the program itself, and not for the sponsoring institution. The Petitioner, on behalf of the Dental School of Orthodontics, applied to the Commission for accreditation and personally participated in the accreditation review process. The Commission's accreditation standards are set forth in a document entitled "Accreditation Standards for Advanced Specialty Education Programs in Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics" that was introduced in Petitioner's Exhibit Two in evidence. The accreditation process requires compliance with six standards contained in that document. The standards address institutional commitment and program effectiveness, the program director and teaching staff, the facilities and resources, the curriculum and program duration, the advanced education student selection, and research. The Commission concluded that the Dental School of Orthodontics is in compliance with all accreditation standards. See Petitioner's Exhibit Four in evidence. The curriculum for the Dental School was developed in accordance with the self-study guide of the Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association. As a result of the accreditation process and evaluation, the Commission sent a letter dated August 5, 2003, to David L. Harlow, President of Jacksonville University, containing the following passage: The program in orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics is accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation [and has been granted the accreditation status of 'initial accreditation.'] The Commission is a specialized accrediting body recognized by the United States Department of Education. That letter from the Commission also contains the following passage: Based upon all the information presented, the Commission concluded that the program is in compliance with the Accreditation Standards, including Standard 1-1 regarding financial support from entities outside of the institution. Accordingly, the Commission adopted a resolution changing the accreditation classification of the educational program from 'preliminary provisional approval' to 'initial accreditation.' No additional information is requested at this time. See Petitioner's Exhibit Four in evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit Three consists of the listing of from the American Dental Association of all Florida programs currently accredited by the Commission. The School of Orthodontics is included on that list. The Petitioner has never failed the Florida Dental Licensure Examination. The Petitioner is also a full-time faculty member at the Dental School of Orthodontics at Jacksonville University. The Petitioner has agreed not to engage in the practice of dentistry pursuant to the teaching permit if it is issued, except under the programs of the Dental School of Orthodontics. The Petitioner has also agreed that if the teaching permit is issued, all records pertaining to the teaching practice shall be subject to review and available to the Board of Dentistry. The Petitioner has also agreed that if the teaching permit is issued, information requested by the Board of Dentistry will be submitted for the purpose of allowing the Board to evaluate compliance with applicable laws regulating the practice of dentistry. The Petitioner has provided proof of current CPR certification to the Board of Dentistry. The Board of Dentistry does not issue or grant accreditation to dental programs in the State of Florida. Rather, the Board defers to the Commission as to its accreditation decisions. As shown by Respondent's Composite Exhibit One in evidence (letter of May 12, 2003, from attorney Bruce D. Lamb to the Executive Director of the Board of Dentistry) the Commission voted to discontinue awarding preliminary provisional approval status as to accreditation. According to that letter the United States Department of Education does not consider preliminary provisional approval to constitute accreditation. In fact, the Commission Communications Update of Fall 2002 indicates that the Commission has a firm policy that a program is strongly encouraged not to enroll students/residents until "initial accreditation" status has been obtained. If a program enrolled students or residents without first having been granted "initial accreditation" status, the Commission will notify all students or residents enrolled of the possible ramifications of enrollment in a program operating without accreditation. Thus, at least implicitly, the Commission and the U.S. Department of Education considers "initial accreditation" status, conversely, to constitute accreditation, at least for purposes of admission of students and residents to such a program.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order determining that the Petitioner is in compliance with the above- referenced statute and Rule, relating to the issuance of a teaching permit and that the application of the Petitioner for the teaching permit at issue be granted. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence Curtin, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0810 Ann Cocheu, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
