Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a graduate of a dental college in India, which is not accredited by the American Dental Association, and has had postgraduate training in New York and Ireland. Petitioner was a candidate for licensure by examination to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. The dental mannequin examination, which is at issue here, consists of nine (9) procedures, each of which is graded separately. Petitioner took the dental mannequin examination at the December, 1983, administration, which was his second attempt, and obtained a total overall grade for the dental mannequin examination of 2.06. An overall grade average of 3.0 is required to pass the mannequin examination. The grading scale as established by Rule 21G-2.13, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) is as follow: O - Complete failure - Unacceptable dental procedure - Below minimal acceptable dental procedure - Minimal acceptable dental procedure - Better than minimally acceptable dental procedure - Outstanding dental procedure Examiners for the dental examination are currently licensed dentists in the State of Florida who have been trained and standardized by Respondent, with training sessions taking place prior to each administration of the examination. During the standardization exercise, the examiners grade identical procedures and then discuss any grade variance and attempt to eliminate any discrepancies and interpretations of the grading criteria. Each examination is graded on the above scale by three separate examiners. They are identified only by examiner number on the grade sheet and do not confer with each other or the candidate regarding the score given on any of the graded procedures. Petitioner has challenged the overall examination which he believes was unfairly graded. In support of his argument, he relies mainly on differences in the scores assigned by the three examiners as well as their varying comments on the grade sheets. Specifically, Petitioner challenged procedures 02 through 08. In addition to the grades assigned by the three examiners who are licensed Florida dentists, Respondent presented the testimony of its consultant, Dr. Simkin, who is also a licensed Florida dentist and an experienced examiner. Petitioner presented his own testimony on each procedure and that of Dr. Lee and Dr. Rosen, who are both experienced dentists. Dr. Lee is licensed in Florida, but Dr. Rosen is not. The testimony of Doctors Simkin and Lee supported the evaluations given by the examiners, with the exception of the one high grade given on procedure 02 (discussed below) which was an error in Petitioner's favor. Dr. Muskar and Dr. Rosen generally conceded the deficiencies noted by the examiners and the other witnesses, but felt these deficiencies were not sufficiently serious to warrant the failing or minimum passing scores assigned. Procedure 02 is the distal occlusal amalgam preparation on a maxillary second bicuspid. The prepared was found to have the sides drilled too deeply, the top was too shallow, and the break in contact between the teeth was too wide, so that there was some doubt as to whether the filling would be retained. The examiners gave the candidate a 3, 3, and 2, and correctly determined that there were problems with the outline form, the depth, retention and a failure to cut the preparation into the dentin. On procedure 03, which is the distal class III preparation for a complete restoration on a maxillary central incisor, the evaluation of two of the examiners that there was no contact made between the teeth involved was correct. This is required of the candidate in the preparation of the denture form for this procedure. The examiner who assigned a grade of 5 was mistaken, but this grade was included in Respondent's overall score. On procedure 04, which is the class III composite restoration of the distal of a maxillary lateral incisor, the examiners awarded 2, 2, and 1 (all failing grades). The restorative material did not duplicate the anatomy of the natural tooth, there not being a flush finish of all margins with the natural tooth structure and the final finish not showing high polish and correct anatomical contour. On procedure 05, completed endodontic therapy using gutta percha in a maxillary lateral incisor, the x-ray (Respondent's Exhibit #3) revealed that the apex of the tooth root was not sealed against fluids in the bone and that there was approximately a one millimeter over-extension of the filling material. The examiners awarded failing grades of 2, 1, and 1, and found there was not proper apical extension in all canals, the gutta percha was not well condensed and adequate filling was not demonstrated by canal width. On procedure 06, distal occlusal restoration on a tooth previously prepared and provided by Respondent, the examiners awarded grades of 1, 2, and 3, noting that there were problems with the functional anatomy, the proximal contour contact and the margin flush with cavo-surface margin. On procedure 07, 3/4 crown preparation on a maxillary second bicuspid, grades of 3, 3, and 4 were awarded which are consistent, and the written comments supported the passing grades awarded. On procedure 08, full crown preparation on a maxillary second molar, failing grades of 1, 1, and 1, were awarded with problems noted in the occlusal reduction, the axial reduction, and the ability of the crown to draw from the gingival margin. The grades awarded for this procedure were identical, the comments supported those grades and inspection of the exhibits confirmed comments and the grades.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying the petition. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1984.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated the applicable standard of care in the practice of dentistry in violation of section 466.028(1), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed in each of the consolidated cases; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43, and chapters 456 and 466, Florida Statutes. Stipulated Facts Respondent is a licensed dentist in the state of Florida, having been issued license number DN14223 on or about December 1, 1995. Respondent’s address of record is 530 East Howard Street, Live Oak, Florida 32064. Respondent was licensed to practice dentistry in the state of Florida during all times relevant to the administrative complaints underlying this case. Patient T.C. was a patient of Respondent. Patient S.S. was a patient of Respondent. Patient G.H. was a patient of Respondent. Patient J.D. was a patient of Respondent. Patient J.A.D. was a patient of Respondent. Other Findings of Fact On July 23, 2004, Respondent entered into a Stipulation in Department Case No. 2002-25421 to resolve an Administrative Complaint which alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (z). The Stipulation was adopted by a Final Order, dated January 31, 2005, which constitutes a first offense in these cases as to each of the sections cited. On September 21, 2007, the Department issued a Uniform Non-disciplinary Citation for an alleged violation of section 466.028(1)(n), related to the release of patient dental records. The Department offered no evidence of its disposition and, in any event, since these cases do not involve alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(n), the citation is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B5-13.005(1). On January 19, 2017, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in Case No. 2015-10804 for alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (mm). The Department offered no evidence of its disposition of the Administrative Complaint and, as a result, the Administrative Complaint is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under rule 64B5-13.005(1). On January 19, 2017, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in Case No. 2015-23828 for alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (z). The Department offered no evidence of its disposition of the Administrative Complaint and, as a result, the Administrative Complaint is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under rule 64B5-13.005(1). Case No. 19-2898PL - The T.C. Administrative Complaint Patient T.C. was a patient of Respondent from June 14, 2011, to on or about August 12, 2013. During the period in question, Respondent owned Smile Designs, a dental practice with offices in Jacksonville, Lake City, and Live Oak, Florida. The Department, in the T.C. Administrative Complaint, recognized that “Respondent, along with an associate, [Dr. Morris], are . . . licensed dentists known to work at Respondent’s practice.” The Department’s expert witness, Dr. Brotman, was also aware that Dr. Morris practiced with Respondent. Patient T.C. suffered a stroke in 2009. During the period that she was seen by Respondent, she was in “decent health,” though she was on medication for her post-stroke symptoms, which included a slight problem with aphasia, though she was able to communicate. The stroke and the aphasia are neurological issues, not mental health issues. Patient T.C. was accompanied by her husband, L.C. during her visits to Respondent’s practice. He generally waited in the waiting area during Patient T.C.’s procedures though, as will be discussed herein, he was occasionally brought back to the treatment area. L.C. testified that he had never been advised that Patient T.C. experienced a seizure while under Respondent’s care, and had no recollection of having been told that Patient T.C. ever became unresponsive. Patient T.C. died in 2015. Count I Case No. 19-2898PL, Count I, charges Respondent with failing to immediately refer Patient T.C. to a medical professional or advise Patient T.C. to seek follow-up care for the management of what were believed to be seizures while Patient T.C. was in the dental chair. From Patient T.C.’s initial visit on June 14, 2011, through her visit on September 23, 2011, Patient T.C. was seen at Respondent’s practice on five occasions. Respondent testified that the office was aware of Patient T.C.’s history of seizures because the medical history taken at her first visit listed Diazapam, Levetiracetam, Diovan, and Lyrica as medications being taken by Patient T.C., all of which are seizure medications. Nonetheless, the dental records for the four visits prior to September 23, 2011, provide no indication that Patient T.C. suffered any seizure or period of non- responsiveness during those visits. On September 23, 2011, Patient T.C. presented at Smile Designs for final impressions for crowns on teeth 20, 21, 28, and 29. Respondent testified that she was not the treating dentist on that date. Patient T.C. was given topical anesthetics, and her pulse and blood pressure were checked. The treatment notes then provide, in pertinent part, the following: Patient had seizures on the dental chair - may be due to anxiety. Seizures last 2-3 minutes. No longer. After 30 minutes, patient was calm. Able to proceed with dental procedure . . . . During seizures pt. was responsive; she was able to respond to our commands. The medical records substantiate Respondent’s unrebutted testimony that she was not the treating dentist at the September 23, 2011, appointment. The June 14, July 19, and October 7, 2011, treatment notes made by Respondent all start with “Dr. Gerry,” and are in a notably different style and format from the September 23, 2011, treatment notes. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Dr. Morris, and not Respondent, was the treating dentist when Patient T.C. experienced seizures on September 23, 2011. Much of Dr. Brotman’s testimony as to Respondent’s violation of a standard of care was based on his interpretation that, since the September 23, 2011, notes did not specifically identify the treating dentist (as did the other treatment notes described above), the notes must be presumed to be those of the business owner. Neither Dr. Brotman nor the Department established a statutory or regulatory basis for such a presumption and, in any event, the evidence adduced at hearing clearly rebutted any such presumption. Dr. Brotman testified that if another dentist had been identified in the records as having performed the treatment on September 23, 2011, that may have changed his opinion. The evidence established that Dr. Morris performed the treatment on September 23, 2011. Thus, Dr. Brotman’s opinion that Respondent violated the applicable standard of care was effectively countered. The T.C. Administrative Complaint charged Respondent with failing to comply with the applicable standard of care on September 23, 2011. The Department failed to establish that Respondent was the treating dentist on September 23, 2011, and, in fact, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that she was not. Thus, the Department failed to establish that Respondent violated the standard of care for failing to refer Patient T.C. to an appropriate medical professional for her seizures as alleged in Count I of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. Count II Case No. 19-2898PL, Count II, charges Respondent with delegating the task of intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to a person not qualified by training, experience, or licensure to perform such intraoral repair. July 17, 2012 Repair On July 17, 2012, Patient T.C. presented to Respondent because her lower partial denture was broken and the O-ring was out. The device included a female end within Patient T.C.’s jaw, and a male end with a plastic “gasket” on the denture. Respondent testified that the repair of the partial denture was performed outside of Patient T.C.’s mouth. Then, at the next scheduled visit, the treatment plan was for Respondent to “eval/repair partial denture on lower arch.” Respondent offered unrebutted testimony that “Tia of precision attachments” performed no work in Patient T.C.’s mouth. Dr. Brotman testified that, in his opinion, any repair of a precision attachment must be done by placing the attachment in the patient’s mouth to align with the teeth. However, Dr. Brotman did not know what kind of repair was done on July 17, 2012. He indicated that if a gasket or housing is missing, it can be repaired with an acrylic. Dr. Brotman testified that if acrylic was placed in the denture outside of the patient’s mouth, it would not be a violation of Florida law. The Department failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent delegated the task of adjusting or performing an intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to “Tia” or any other unlicensed person on July 17, 2012, as alleged in Count II of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. June 11, 2013 Repair On June 11, 2013, Patient T.C. presented to Respondent for an evaluation of her lower precision partial denture. Patient T.C. complained that the partial denture did not have the metal housing to connect it with the bridges to its sides. Patient T.C. was a “bruxer,” i.e. she ground her teeth, and had worn out the denture’s metal attachment. Respondent evaluated the situation, and decided to attempt a chairside repair or replacement of the denture’s male attachments. If the chairside repair was unsuccessful, a complete new partial denture would have to be prepared by a dental laboratory. Respondent attempted the chairside repair. Respondent testified that she instructed her dental assistant to add acrylic into the slot where the male attachment was to be placed in the denture. There was no evidence of any kind to suggest that the dental assistant then placed the denture into Patient T.C’s mouth. Because too much acrylic was placed in the denture, it became stuck in Patient T.C.’s mouth. Patient T.C. became understandably upset. Her husband, L.C., was brought into the room, Patient T.C. was administered local anesthesia, and the precision partial denture was removed. Respondent’s testimony regarding the incident was generally consistent with her prior written statement offered in evidence. Dr. Brotman testified that making repairs to a precision denture must be performed by a licensed dentist, except for placing acrylic into the denture outside of the patient’s mouth, which may be done by a non-dentist. The evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent’s dental assistant did anything more than place acrylic into the denture outside of Patient T.C.’s mouth. The Department failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent delegated the task of adjusting or performing an intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to her dental assistant on June 11, 2013, as alleged in Count II of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. Case No. 19-2899PL - The S.S. Administrative Complaint Count I Case No. 19-2899PL, Count I, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(m) by: Failing to keep a written record of Patient S.S.’s medical history; and/or Failing to keep an accurate written record of any consent forms signed by Patient S.S. Count II Case No. 19-2899PL, Count II, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30; Failing to adequately diagnose the condition of the roots of tooth 30; Failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 30 during root canal treatment; Failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment; Failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following changes to the tooth’s margins; and/or Failing to adequately assess and correct the crown on tooth 31 when the fit was compromised. On May 15, 2014, Patient S.S. presented to Respondent for a root canal and crown on tooth 30. Upon examination, Respondent advised Patient S.S. that she also needed a root canal and a crown on tooth 31. Patient S.S. denied that she was required to provide her medical history at the May 15, 2014, office visit, or that she was provided with an informed consent form prior to the root canal on tooth 30. Respondent’s records do not include either a medical history or an informed consent form. However, the records, which were offered as a joint exhibit, were not accompanied by a Certificate of Completeness of Patient Records, including the number of pages provided pursuant to Respondent’s investigatory subpoena, as is routine in cases of this sort, and which was provided with the records of the subsequent dentists involved in Patient S.S.’s care. Many of the records offered in these consolidated cases, including Respondent’s licensure file, include the certification attesting to their completeness. The records for Patient S.S. do not. Petitioner elicited no testimony from Respondent establishing the completeness of the records. The records offered were, by appearance, not complete. Respondent indicated that medical history and consent forms were obtained. Entries in the records introduced in evidence indicate “[m]edical history reviewed with patient” or the like. Entries for May 16, 2014, provide that “[c]rown consent explained and signed by patient” and “root canal consent explained and signed by patient.” The record for June 4, 2014, indicates that “[r]oot canal consent form explained to and signed by patient.” Patient S.S. testified that she had no recollection of having filled out a medical history, or of having signed consent forms after having Respondent’s recommended course of treatment explained to her. However, Patient S.S.’s memory was not clear regarding various aspects of her experience with Respondent and with subsequent providers. Much of her testimony was taken from notes she brought to the hearing, and some was even based on what she read in the Administrative Complaint. Her testimony failed to clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent failed to collect her medical history or consent to treatment. Respondent testified that, at the time Patient S.S. was being seen, her office was in the midst of switching its recordkeeping software and converting records to digital format. The new company botched the transition, and by the time the issue was discovered, many of the records being converted to digital format were lost, in whole or in part. Respondent surmised that, to the extent the records were not in her files provided to the Department, that they were affected by the transition. The greater weight of the evidence suggests that medical history and signed consent forms were provided. Given the issues regarding the records as described by Respondent, and given the Department’s failure to produce a certification or other evidence that the records it was relying on to prove the violation were complete, the Department failed to meet its burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent failed to keep a written record of Patient S.S.’s medical history and signed consent forms. Respondent also testified that the office notes were supplemented with handwritten notations made when a patient returned for a subsequent appointment. Several of Patient S.S.’s printed records carried handwritten notes. Respondent testified that those notes were made at some time in 2014 after Patient S.S.’s first office visit up to the time of her last visit, and were based on further discussion with Patient S.S. However, those records, Joint Exhibit 2, pages 1 through 17, bear either a date or a “print” date of March 12, 2015. Dr. Brotman testified that he knew of no software on the market that would allow contemporaneous handwriting on electronic records. Thus, the evidence is compelling that the handwritten notes were made on or after the March 12, 2015, date on which the records were printed, well after Patient S.S.’s last office visit. A root canal involves removing a tooth’s pulp chamber and nerves from the root canals. The root canals are smoothed out and scraped with a file to help find and remove debris. The canals are widened using sequentially larger files to ensure that bacteria and debris is removed. Once the debris is removed, an inert material (such as gutta percha) is placed into the canals. A “core” is placed on top of the gutta percha, and a crown is placed on top of the core. The risk of reinfection from bacteria entering from the bottom of an underfilled tooth is significantly greater than if the tooth is filled to the apex of the root. Patient S.S. returned to Respondent’s office on May 16, 2014, for the root canal on tooth 30 and crown preparations for teeth 30 and 31, which included bite impressions. Temporary crowns were placed. Respondent’s printed clinical notes for May 16, 2014, gave no indication of any obstruction of the canals, providing only the lengths of the two mesial and two distal root canals. Respondent’s hand-written notes for May 16, 2014 (which, as previously explained, could have been made no earlier than March 12, 2015), stated that the canals were “[s]ealed to as far as the canal is open. The roots are calcification.” Dr. Brotman indicated that the x-rays taken on May 15, 2014, showed evidence of calcification of the roots. However, Dr. Brotman convincingly testified that the x-rays taken during the root canal show working-length files extending to near the apices of the roots. Thus, in his opinion, the canals were sufficiently open to allow for the use of liquid materials to soften the tooth, and larger files to create space to allow for the canals to be filled and sealed to their full lengths. His testimony in that regard is credited. Patient S.S. began having pain after the root canal on tooth 30 and communicated this to Respondent. On June 5, 2014, Patient S.S. presented to Respondent to have the crowns seated for teeth 30 and 31. Patient S.S. complained of sensitivity in tooth 31. The temporary crowns were removed, and tooth 31 was seen to have exhibited a change in color. The area was probed, which caused a reaction from Patient S.S. Respondent examined the tooth, and noted the presence of soft dentin. A root canal of tooth 31 was recommended and performed, which included removal of the decay in the tooth’s dentin at the exterior of the tooth. Respondent’s removal of decay changed the shape of tooth 31, and would have changed the fit of the crown, which was made based on the May 16, 2014, impressions. There were no new impressions for a permanent crown taken for tooth 31 after removal of the decayed dentin. Respondent testified that she could simply retrofill the affected area with a flowable composite, which she believed would be sufficient to allow for an acceptable fit without making new bite impressions and ordering a new crown. There was no persuasive evidence that such would meet the relevant standard of performance. Temporary crowns were placed on teeth 30 and 31, and placement of the permanent crowns was postponed until the next appointment. Upon completion of the tooth 31 root canal on June 5, 2014, x-rays were taken of the work completed on teeth 30 and 31. Dr. Brotman testified that the accepted standard of care for root canal therapy is to have the root canal fillings come as close to the apex of the tooth as possible without extending past the apex, generally to within one millimeter, and no more than two millimeters of the apex. His examination of the x-rays taken in conjunction with Respondent’s treatment of Patient S.S. revealed a void in the filling of the middle of the distal canal of tooth 31, an underfill of approximately five millimeters in the mesial canal of tooth 31, an underfill of approximately four millimeters in the distal canal of tooth 30, and an underfill of approximately six millimeters in the two mesial root canals of tooth 30. The x-ray images also revealed remaining decay along the mesiobuccal aspect of the temporary crown placed on tooth 31. His testimony that the x-ray images were sufficiently clear to provide support for his opinions was persuasive, and was supported by the images themselves. A day after the placement of the temporary crowns, they came off while Patient S.S. was having dinner in Gainesville. She was seen by Dr. Abolverdi, a dentist in Gainesville. Dr. Abolverdi cleaned the teeth, took an x-ray, and re-cemented the temporary crowns in place. Patient S.S. next presented to Respondent on June 10, 2014. Both of Patient S.S.’s permanent crowns were seated. The permanent crown for tooth 31 was seated without a new impression or new crown being made. Patient S.S. was subsequently referred by her dentist, Dr. James Powell, to be seen by an endodontist to address the issues she was having with her teeth. She was then seen and treated by Dr. John Sullivan on July 25, 2014, and by Dr. Thomas Currie on July 29, 2014, both of whom were endodontists practicing with St. Johns Endodontics. As to the pain being experienced by Patient S.S., Dr. Sullivan concluded that it was from her masseter muscle, which is consistent with Respondent’s testimony that Patient S.S. was a “bruxer,” meaning that she ground her teeth. Dr. Sullivan also identified an open margin with the tooth 31 crown. His clinical assessment was consistent with the testimony of Dr. Brotman. The evidence was clear and convincing that the defect in the tooth 31 permanent crown was an open margin, and not a “ledge” as stated by Respondent. The evidence was equally clear and convincing that the open margin was the result of performing a “retrofill” of the altered tooth, rather than taking new bite impressions to ensure a correct fit. As a result of the foregoing, Respondent violated the accepted standard of performance by failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following the removal of dentin on June 4, 2014, and by failing to assess and correct the open margin on the tooth 31 crown. Radiographs taken on July 25, 2014, confirmed that canals in teeth 30 and 31 were underfilled, as discussed above, and that there was a canal in tooth 31 that had been missed altogether. On July 29, 2014, Dr. Currie re-treated the root canal for tooth 31, refilled the two previously treated canals, and treated and filled the previously untreated canal in tooth 31. The evidence, though disputed, was nonetheless clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the standard of performance in the root canal procedures for Patient S.S.’s teeth 30 and 31, by failing to adequately diagnose and respond to the condition of the roots of tooth 30; failing to adequately fill the canals of tooth 30 despite being able to insert working-length files beyond the area of calcification to near the apices of the roots; and failing to adequately fill the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment. The Administrative Complaint also alleged that Respondent failed to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30. Case No. 19-2900PL - The G.H. Administrative Complaint Case No. 19-2900PL charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by failing to adequately diagnose issues with the crown on tooth 13 and provide appropriate corrective treatment. On May 15, 2014, Patient G.H. presented to Respondent with a complaint that she had been feeling discomfort on the upper left of her teeth that was increasingly noticeable. Respondent diagnosed the need for a root canal of tooth 13. Patient G.H. agreed to the treatment, and Respondent performed the root canal at this same visit. Patient G.H. also had work done on other teeth to address “minor areas of decay.” On July 7, 2014, Patient G.H.’s permanent crowns were seated onto teeth 8, 9, and 13, and onlay/inlays placed on teeth 12 and 14. On July 29, 2014, Patient G.H. presented to Respondent. Respondent’s records indicate that Patient G.H. complained that when she flossed around tooth 13, she was getting “a funny taste” in her mouth. Patient G.H.’s written complaint and her testimony indicate that she also advised Respondent that her floss was “tearing,” and that she continued to experience “pressure and discomfort” or “some pain.” Respondent denied having been advised of either of those complaints. Respondent flossed the area of concern, and smelled the floss to see if it had a bad smell. Respondent denied smelling anything more than typical mouth odor, with which Patient G.H. vigorously disagreed. Respondent took a radiograph of teeth 11 through 15, which included tooth 13 and the crown. The evidence is persuasive that the radiograph image revealed that the margin between tooth 13 and the crown was open. An open margin can act as a trap for food particles, and significantly increases the risk for recurrent decay in the tooth. Respondent adjusted the crown on tooth 9, but advised Patient G.H. that there was nothing wrong with the crown on tooth 13. She offered to prescribe a rinse for the smell, but generally told Patient G.H. that there were no complications. Patient G.H. began to cry and, when Respondent left the room, got up from the chair and left the office. Respondent indicated in her testimony that she would have performed additional investigation had Patient G.H. not left. The contemporaneous records do not substantiate that testimony. Furthermore, Respondent did not contact Patient G.H. to discuss further treatment after having had a full opportunity to review the radiograph image. On March 10, 2015, after her newly-active dental insurance allowed her to see a different in-network provider, Patient G.H. sought a second opinion from Dr. Ada Y. Parra, a dentist at Premier Dental in Gainesville, Florida. Dr. Parra identified an open distal margin at tooth 13 with an overhang. Dr. Parra recommended that Patient G.H. return to Respondent’s practice before further work by Premier Dental. Patient G.H. called Respondent’s office for an appointment, and was scheduled to see Dr. Lindsay Kulczynski, who was practicing as a dentist in Respondent’s Lake City, Florida, office. Patient G.H. was seen by Dr. Kulczynski on March 19, 2015. Upon examination, Dr. Kulczynski agreed that the crown for tooth 13 “must be redone” due to, among other defects, “[d]istal lingual over hang [and] open margin.” The open margin was consistent with Patient G.H.’s earlier complaints of discomfort, floss tearing, and bad odor coming from that tooth. The evidence was persuasive that further treatment of Patient G.H. was not authorized by Respondent after the appointment with Dr. Kulczynski. Dr. Brotman credibly testified that the standard of care in crown placement allows for a space between the tooth and the crown of between 30 and 60 microns. Dr. Brotman was able to clearly identify the open margin on the radiograph taken during Patient G.H.’s July 29, 2014, appointment, and credibly testified that the space was closer to 3,000 microns than the 30 to 60 microns range acceptable under the standard of performance. His testimony is accepted. An open margin of this size is below the minimum standard of performance. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent fell below the applicable standard of performance in her treatment of Patient G.H., by seating a crown containing an open margin and by failing to perform appropriate corrective treatment after having sufficient evidence of the deficiencies. Case No. 19-2901PL - The J.D. Amended Administrative Complaint Case No. 19-2901PL charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations; Failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing an implant in the area of tooth 14; Failing to appropriately place the implant by attempting to place it into a curved root, which could not accommodate the implant; Failing to react appropriately to the sinking implant by trying to twist off the carrier instead of following the technique outlined in the implant’s manual; and/or Paying, or having paid on her behalf, an indemnity in the amount of $75,000 as a result of negligent conduct in her treatment of Patient J.D. Patient J.D. first presented to Respondent on June 28, 2014. At the time, Respondent was practicing with Dr. Jacobs, who owned the practice. Patient J.D. had been a patient of Dr. Jacobs for some time. Respondent examined Patient J.D. and discovered problems with tooth 14. Tooth 14 and tooth 15 appeared to have slid into the space occupied by a previously extracted tooth. As a result, tooth 14 was tipped and the root curved from moving into the space. Tooth 14 had been filled by Dr. Jacobs. However, by the time Respondent examined it, the tooth was not restorable, and exhibited 60 percent bone loss and class II (two millimeters of movement) mobility. Respondent discussed the issue with Patient J.D., and recommended extraction of the two teeth and replacement with a dental implant. Patient J.D. consented to the procedure and executed consent forms supplied and maintained by Dr. Jacobs. The teeth at issue were in the upper jaw. The upper jaw consists of softer bone than the lower jaw, is more vascular, and includes the floor of the nose and sinuses. The periapical radiographs taken of Patient J.D. showed that he had a “draped sinus,” described by Respondent as being where “the tooth is basically draped around the sinuses. It’s almost like they’re kind of one.” Prior to Patient J.D., Respondent had never placed an implant in a patient with a draped sinus. The x-rays also indicated that, as a result of the previous extraction of teeth and the subsequent movement of the remaining teeth, the roots of tooth 14 were tipped and curved. The evidence was persuasive that Respondent did not fail to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, the extent of available bone support, and the configuration of the roots. Dr. Kinzler testified credibly that the pneumatized/draped sinus, the 60 percent bone loss around tooth 14, and the tipped and curved roots each constituted pre- operative red flags. Respondent extracted teeth 14 and 15. When she extracted the teeth, she observed four walls. She was also able to directly observe the floor of the sinus. She estimated the depth of the socket to be 12 millimeters. Sinus penetration is a potential complication of implant placement. Being able to see the sinus floor was an additional complicating factor for implant placement. Dr. Kinzler credibly testified that if Respondent was going to place an implant of the size she chose (see below), then the standard of care required her to first do a sinus lift before placing the implant. A sinus lift involves physically lifting the floor of a patient’s sinus. Once the sinus has been lifted, material typically consisting of granulated cortical bone is placed into the space created. Eventually, the bone forms a platform for new bone to form, into which an implant can be inserted. The evidence established that the standard of care for bone replacement materials is to place the material into the space, close the incision, and allow natural bone to form and ultimately provide a stable structure to affix an implant. The implant may then be mechanically affixed to the bone, and then biologically osseointegrate with the bone. In order to seal off Patient J.D.’s sinus, Respondent used Bond Bone, which she described as a fast-setting putty-like material that is designed to protect the floor of the sinus and provide a scaffold for bone to grow into. She did not use cortical bone, described as “silly sand,” to fill the space and provide separation from the sinus because she indicated that it can displace and get lost. Respondent’s goal was to place the implant so that it would extend just short of the Bond Bone and Patient J.D.’s sinus. She also intended to angle the implant towards the palate, where there was more available bone. Bond Bone and similar materials are relatively recent innovations. Dr. Fish was encouraged by the possibilities of the use of such materials, though he was not familiar with the Bond Bone brand. The evidence was clear and convincing that, although Bond Bone can set in a short period, and shows promise as an effective medium, it does not currently meet minimum standards of performance for bone replacement necessary for placement and immediate support of an implant. Bond Bone only decreases the depth of the socket. It does not raise the floor of the sinus. As such, the standard practice would be to use a shorter implant, or perform a sinus lift. Respondent was provided with an implant supplied by Dr. Jacobs. She had not previously used the type of implant provided. The implant was a tapered screw vent, 4.7 millimeters in diameter, tapering to 4.1 millimeters at the tip with a length of 11.5 millimeters. Respondent met with and received information from the manufacturer’s representative. She used a 3.2 millimeter drill to shape the hole, as the socket was already large enough for the implant. The 3.2 millimeter drill was not evidence that the receiving socket was 3.2 millimeters in diameter. Respondent then inserted the implant and its carrier apparatus into the hole. The implant did not follow the root, and had little bone on which to affix. The initial post-placement periapical radiograph showed “placement was not correct.” Despite Respondent’s intent, the implant was not angled, but was nearly vertical, in contrast with the angulation of the socket which was tipped at least 30 degrees. Given the amount of bone loss, and the other risk factors described herein, the risk of a sinus perforation, either by having the implant extend through the root opening or by a lateral perforation through one of the sides of the socket, was substantial. After adjusting the implant, Respondent went to remove the carrier. The carrier would not release, and the pressure exerted caused the implant to loosen and begin to sink through the Bond Bone. Dr. Kinzler testified credibly that, because of the mechanics of the implant used, had it been surrounded by bone, it would not have been possible for the implant to become loose. In his opinion, which is credited, the loosening of the implant was the result of the lack of bone to hold it in place. Respondent was so intent on removing the carrier that she was not paying attention to the implant. As a result, she screwed the implant through the Bond Bone and into Patient J.D.’s sinus. By the time she realized her error, the implant had sunk in to the point it was not readily retrievable. She was hesitant to reaffix the carrier “because [she] knew [she] had no support from the bone, that it was just a matter of air.” Nonetheless, she “stuck the carrier back in, but it would not go back in.” She then turned to get forceps or a hemostat but, by that time, the implant was irretrievably into Patient J.D.’s sinus. At the hearing, Respondent testified that she could have retrieved the implant but for Patient J.D. doing a “negative pressure sneeze” when the implant was already into the sinus. At that point, she stated that the implant disappeared into Patient J.D.’s sinus, where it can be seen in Petitioner’s Exhibit 9, page 35. There is nothing in Respondent’s dental records about Patient J.D. having sneezed. Respondent further testified that Patient J.D. “was very jovial about it,” and that everyone in the office laughed about the situation, and joked about “the sneeze implant.” That the patient would be “jovial” about an implant having been screwed into his sinus, resulting in a referral to an oral surgeon, and that there was office-wide joking about the incident is simply not credible, particularly in light of the complete absence of any contemporaneous records of such a seemingly critical element of the incident. Respondent believed that the implant must have been defective for her to have experienced the problem with removing the carrier, though her testimony in that regard was entirely speculative. There is no competent, substantial, or persuasive evidence to support a finding that the implant was defective. After determining that the implant was in Patient J.D.’s sinus, Respondent informed Patient J.D. of the issue, gave him a referral to an oral surgeon, prescribed antibiotics, and gave Patient J.D. her cell phone number. Each of those acts was appropriate. On July 29, 2014, an oral surgeon surgically removed the implant from Patient J.D.’s sinus. Patient J.D. sued Respondent for medical malpractice. The suit was settled, with the outcome including a $75,000.00 indemnity paid by Respondent’s insurer on her behalf. The Office of Insurance Regulation’s Medical Malpractice Closed Claims Report provides that the suit’s allegations were based on “improper dental care and treatment.” The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance prior to the procedure at issue by failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations prior to the procedure. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance by failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing the implant in the area of tooth 14, and by placing the implant into a curved root which could not accommodate the implant. The placement of Bond Bone was not adequate to address these issues. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the standard of care by failing to pay attention while trying to twist off the carrier and by failing to appropriately react to the sinking implant. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent paid, or had paid on her behalf, an indemnity of $75,000 for negligent conduct during treatment of Patient J.D. The perforation of Patient J.D.’s sinus was not, in itself, a violation of the standard of care. In that regard, Dr. Kinzler indicated that he had perforated a sinus while placing an implant. It was, however, the totality of the circumstances regarding the process of placing Patient J.D.’s implant that constituted a failure to meet the minimum standards of performance as described herein. Case No. 19-2902PL - The J.A.D. Amended Administrative Complaint Count I Case No. 19-2902PL, Count I, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to take adequate diagnostic imaging prior to placing an implant in the area of Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8; Failing to pick an appropriately-sized implant and placing an implant that was too large; and/or Failing to diagnose and/or respond appropriately to the oral fistula that developed in the area of Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8. Count II Case No. 19-2902PL, Count II, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(m) by: Failing to document examination results showing Patient J.A.D. had an infection; Failing to document the model or serial number of the implant she placed; and/or Failing to document the results of Respondent’s bone examination. Patient J.A.D. first presented to Respondent on March 3, 2016. His first appointment included a health history, full x-rays, and an examination. Patient J.A.D.’s complaint on March 3, 2016, involved a front tooth, tooth 8, which had broken off. He was embarrassed by its appearance, and desired immediate care and attention. Respondent performed an examination of Patient J.A.D., which included exposing a series of radiographs. Based on her examination, Respondent made the following relevant diagnoses in the clinical portion of her records: caries (decay) affecting tooth 7, gross caries affecting fractured tooth 8, and caries affecting tooth 9. Patient J.A.D. was missing quite a few of his back teeth. The consent form noted periodontal disease. The evidence is of Patient J.A.D.’s grossly deficient oral hygiene extending over a prolonged period. A consent form signed by Patient J.A.D. indicates that Patient J.A.D. had an “infection.” Respondent indicated that the term indicated both the extensive decay of Patient J.A.D.’s teeth, and a sac of pus that was discovered when tooth 8 was extracted. “Infection” is a broad term in the context of dentistry, and means any bacterial invasion of a tooth or system. The consent form was executed prior to the extraction. Therefore, the term “infection,” which may have accurately described the general condition of Patient J.A.D.’s mouth, could not have included the sac of pus, which was not discovered until the extraction. The sac of pus was not otherwise described with specificity in Respondent’s dental records. A pre-operative radiograph exposed by Respondent showed that tooth 8 had a long, tapering root. Respondent proposed extraction of tooth 8, to be replaced by an immediate implant. The two adjacent teeth were to be treated and crowned, and a temporary bridge placed across the three. Patient J.A.D. consented to this treatment plan. The treatment plan of extracting tooth 8 and preparing the adjacent teeth for crowns was appropriate. Respondent cleanly extracted tooth 8 without fracturing any surrounding bone, and without bone adhering to the tooth. When the tooth came out, it had a small unruptured sac of pus at its tip. Respondent irrigated and curretted the socket, and prescribed antibiotics. Her records indicated that she cleaned to 5 millimeters, although a radiograph made it appear to be a 7 millimeter pocket. She explained that inflammation caused the pocket to appear larger than its actual 5 millimeter size, which she characterized as a “pseudo pocket.” She recorded her activities. The response to the sac of pus was appropriate. Respondent reviewed the earlier radiographs, and performed a physical examination of the dimensions of the extracted tooth 8 to determine the size of the implant to be placed into the socket. Dr. Kinsler and Dr. Fish disagreed as to whether the radiographic images were sufficient to provide adequate information as to the implant to be used. Both relied on their professional background, both applied a reasonable minimum standard of performance, and both were credible. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to take adequate diagnostic imaging prior to placing an implant to replace Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8. Respondent placed an implant into the socket left from tooth 8. The implant was in the buckle cortex, a “notoriously thin” bone feature at the anterior maxilla. The fact that it is thin does not make it pathological, and placement of an implant near a thin layer of bone is not a violation of the standard of performance as long as the implant is, in fact, in the bone. The implant used by Respondent was shorter than the length of tooth 8 and the tooth 8 socket, and did not have a full taper, being more truncated. The evidence of record, including the testimony of Dr. Kinzler, indicates that the length of the implant, though shorter than the tooth it was to replace, was not inappropriate. The evidence of record, including pre-extraction and post-implantation scaled radiographs offered as a demonstrative exhibit, was insufficient to support a finding that the implant diameter was too great for the available socket. Patient J.A.D. felt like the implant was too close to the front of his maxillary bone because it felt like a little bump on the front of his gums. That perception is insufficient to support a finding that the placement of the implant violated a standard of performance. Subsequent x-rays indicated that there was bone surrounding the implant. Clinical observations by Respondent after placement of the implant noted bone on all four walls of the implant. Her testimony is credited. The evidence that the tooth 8 implant was not placed in bone, i.e., that at the time the implant was placed, the implant penetrated the buccal plate and was not supported by bone on all four sides, was not clear and convincing. Respondent’s records document the dimensions and manufacturer of the implant. Implants are delivered with a sticker containing all of the relevant information, including model and serial number, that are routinely affixed to a patient’s dental records. It is important to document the model and serial number of implants. Every implant is different, and having that information can be vital in the case of a recall. Patient J.A.D.’s printed dental records received by the Department from Respondent have the implant size (5.1 x 13 mm) and manufacturer (Implant Direct) noted. The records introduced in evidence by the Department include a page with a sticker affixed, identified by a handwritten notation as being for a “5.1 x 13mm - Implant Direct.” (Pet. Ex. 11, pg. 43 of 83). The accompanying sticker includes information consistent with that required. Dr. Fish testified to seeing a sticker that appears to be the same sticker (“The implant label of 141, it just has the handwritten on there that it should be added.”), though it is described with a deposition exhibit number (page 141 of a CD) that is different from the hearing exhibit number. Dr. Fish indicated the sticker adequately documented the implant information. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the sticker was not in Patient J.A.D.’s records, or that Respondent failed to document the model or serial number of the implant she placed. Later in the day on March 3, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was fitted for a temporary crown, which was placed on the implant and the adjacent two teeth, and Patient J.A.D. was scheduled for a post-operative check. Patient J.A.D. appeared for his post-operative visit on March 10, 2016. He testified that he was having difficulty keeping the temporaries on, and was getting “cut up” because the two outer teeth were sharp and rubbed against his lip and tongue. Respondent noticed that Patient J.A.D. was already wearing a hole in the temporary. Since Patient J.A.D. was missing quite a few of his back teeth, much of his chewing was being done using his front teeth. His temporaries were adjusted and reseated. On March 17, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was seen by Respondent for a post-operative check of the tooth 8 extraction and implant placement. The notes indicated that Patient J.A.D. had broken his arm several days earlier, though the significance of that fact was not explained. He was charted as doing well, and using Fixodent to maintain the temporary in place. The records again noted that Patient J.A.D. had worn a hole in the back of the tooth 9 temporary crown. A follow up was scheduled for final impressions for the permanent crowns. On March 10 and March 17, 2016, Patient J.A.D. complained of a large blister or “zit” that formed over the area above the end of the implant. Patient J.A.D. had no recollection of whether Respondent told him he had an infection. He was prescribed antibiotics. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the “zit” was causally related to the placement of the implant. Patient J.A.D. also testified that the skin above tooth 9 was discolored, and he thought he could almost see metal through the skin above his front teeth. Patient J.A.D. next appeared at Respondent’s office on June 2, 2016, for final impressions. Respondent concluded that the site had not healed enough for the final impression. She made and cemented a new temporary, and set an appointment for the following month for the final impression. Patient J.A.D. did not return to Respondent. On September 28, 2016, Patient J.A.D. presented to the office of Dr. Harold R. Arthur for further treatment. The records for that date indicate that he appeared without his temporary restoration for teeth 7 through 9, stating that he had several at home, but they would not stay on. Dr. Arthur probed a “[s]mall (1.0 x 1.0 mm) red spot in facial keratinized gingiva communicating with implant.” After probing the opening in the gingiva and the “shadow” in the gingiva, he believed it was at the center of the implant body and healing screw. Dr. Arthur’s dental records for Patient J.A.D. over the course of the following year indicate that Dr. Arthur made, remade, and re-cemented temporary crowns for teeth 7, 8, and 9 on a number of occasions, noting at least once that Patient J.A.D. “broke temps” that had been prepared and seated by Dr. Arthur. On December 1, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was reevaluated by Dr. Arthur. He noted the facial soft tissue at the implant was red, with an apparent fistula. A periapical radiograph was “unremarkable.” The temporary crowns, which were loose, were removed, air abraded to remove the cement, and re-cemented in place. Patient J.A.D. was prescribed an antibiotic. He was again seen by Dr. Arthur on December 13, 2016. The temporary on tooth 9 was broken, which was then remade and re-cemented. The fistula was smaller but still present. Patient J.A.D. was seen by Dr. Arthur on February 2, 2017, with the tooth 9 temporary crown fractured again. The fistula was still present. Patient J.A.D. advised that “the bone feels like it’s caving in around where she put that implant.” That statement is accepted not for the truth of the matter asserted, but as evidence that the complaint was first voiced in February 2017. On April 4, 2017, more than a year after the placement of the implant, Patient J.A.D was seen by Dr. Arthur. Dr. Arthur determined that the implant for tooth 8 was “stable and restorable in current position.” The fistula was still present and, after anesthesia, a probe was placed in the fistula where it contacted the implant cover screw. Although Dr. Arthur replaced the implant abutment, he ultimately placed the final crown on the implant placed by Respondent, where it remained at the time of the final hearing. The fact that incidents of Patient J.A.D. breaking and loosening the temporary crowns that occurred with Respondent continued with Dr. Arthur supports a finding that the problems were, more likely than not, the result of stress and overuse of Patient J.A.D.’s front teeth. On October 24, 2016, a series of CBCT radiographs was taken of the implant and its proximity to tooth 7. Dr. Kinzler testified that, in his opinion, the implant was of an appropriate length, but was too large for the socket. Much of his testimony was based on the October 24 radiograph and his examination of the resulting October 29, 2016, report. Although the report indicated that there was minimal bone between the implant and the root of tooth 7, and that the buccal cortex appeared thinned or eroded, those observations are of limited persuasive value as to whether the standard of performance was met almost eight months prior. Patient J.A.D. obviously worked, and overworked, his dental appliances. Without more, the evidence is not clear and convincing that his subsequent and repeated problems, including “thinned or eroded” bone in the buccal cortex, were the result of a violation of the standard of performance in the sizing and placement of the tooth 8 implant by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, enter a Final Order: Dismissing the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 19-2898PL and the Amended Administrative Complaint in Case No. 19-2902PL; With regard to Case No. 19-2899PL: 1) dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint; 2) determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient S.S. by: failing to adequately diagnose the condition of the roots of tooth 30; failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 30 during root canal treatment; failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment; failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following changes to the tooth’s margins; and failing to adequately assess and correct the crown on tooth 31 when the fit was compromised, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; and 3) determining that Respondent did not fail to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient S.S. by failing to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; With regard to Case No. 19-2900PL, determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient G.H. by seating a crown containing an open margin on tooth 13 and failing to adequately diagnose issues with the crown on tooth 13, and by failing to perform appropriate corrective treatment after having sufficient evidence of the deficiencies, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; With regard to Case No. 19-2901PL: 1) determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient J.D. by: failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing an implant in the area of tooth 14; failing to appropriately place the implant by attempting to place it into a curved root which could not accommodate the implant; failing to react appropriately to the sinking implant by trying to twist off the carrier instead of following the technique outlined in the implant’s manual; and paying, or having paid on her behalf, an indemnity in the amount of $75,000 as a result of negligent conduct in her treatment of Patient J.D., as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and 2) determining that Respondent did not fail to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient J.D. by failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations; Suspending Respondent’s license in accordance with rule 64B5-13.005(1)(x) and rule 64B5-13.005(3)(e), to be followed by a period of probation, with appropriate terms of probation to include remedial education in addition to such other terms that the Board believes necessary to ensure Respondent’s practical ability to perform dentistry as authorized by rule 64B5- 13.005(3)(d)2.; Imposing an administrative fine of $10,000; and Requiring reimbursement of costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: George Kellen Brew, Esquire Law Office of George K. Brew Suite 1804 6817 Southpoint Parkway Jacksonville, Florida 32216 (eServed) Kelly Fox, Esquire Department of Health 2585 Merchant’s Row Tallahassee, Florida 32311 (eServed) Octavio Simoes-Ponce, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Chad Wayne Dunn, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Jennifer Wenhold, Interim Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health Bin C-08 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3258 (eServed) Louise Wilhite-St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent regrade Petitioner's examination and give equal numerical point value to each criterion; it should also regrade procedure 3 giving consideration only to the grades of examiners 038, 02 and 048; all other requests for relief should be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1983.
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to receive a passing score on the June 2001 dental licensure examination?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for administering the dental licensure examination. Petitioner was an unsuccessful candidate for the June 2001 dental licensure examination in that she failed the clinical portion of the June 2001 dental examination. Originally Petitioner received a score 1.89 on the Clinical portion, but on re-grade received a score of 2.10. However, a score of 3.00 was required to pass the Clinical portion. The June 2001 dental licensure examination consists of two parts: (1) the Clinical portion; and (2) the Laws and Rules portion. The Clinical portion consists of nine procedures. Petitioner challenges five of the nine procedures, which are: (1) Periodontal procedure; (2) Class IV Composite Restoration; (3) Class II Composite Restoration; (4) preparation for a three- unit fixed partial denture; and (5) Class II Amalgam Restoration on a model. The Department selects three examiners to independently grade each candidate’s performance, and the average of the three scores from each examiner produces the overall grade for that procedure. The average grade for each procedure is then weighted in accordance with Rule 64B5-2.013, Florida Administrative Code, which produces an overall score for the entire Clinical portion of the examination. This procedure provides for a more reliable indication of the candidate’s competency. Each examiner must be a licensed dentist for a minimum of five years without having any complaints or disciplinary actions against the examiner’s license. The examiners are not allowed to have any contact with the candidates they are grading. Each examiner must attend, and successfully complete, a standardization session, which trains each examiner to use the same internal grading criteria. In this standardization session, the examiners are thoroughly taught specific grading criteria, which instruct the examiners on how to evaluate the work of the candidates. 8. Examiners numbers 005, 316, 346, 360, 361, and 375, who graded Petitioner’s examination, successfully completed the standardization session. The Department’s post-exam check found these examiners' grading to be reliable. Petitioner received a score of 1.66 on the Class IV Composite Restoration. Petitioner contested this score contending that she was downgraded on this procedure because she mistakenly stained that procedure. The Class IV Composite Restoration consists of the restoration of a chipped tooth. The grading is based on the candidate’s ability to restore the tooth as it appeared before restoration. The goal is to restore the tooth to its proper contact and to restore the contact between the teeth. The fact that Petitioner stained the Class IV Composite Restoration did not result in the examiners downgrading the Petitioner’s procedure. Examiner 005 gave Petitioner a score of 2.00, which was based on the contact being open and not having a flushed fit (marginal error). Examiner 316 gave Petitioner a score of 2.00, which was based on Petitioner’s problems with the functional anatomy, the proximal contour, and with the margin. Examiner 346 gave Petitioner a score of 1.00, which was based on Petitioner’s problems with functional anatomy, proximal contour, and mutilation of opposing or adjacent teeth. Petitioner received a score of 0.00 on the Class II Composite Restoration. Petitioner contested this score contending that she was downgraded twice for the same mistake. A Class II Composite Restoration is a procedure that involves the candidate’s ability to fill an opening inside the tooth with composite, which is a tooth-colored filling. The Candidates were instructed, for security reasons, to place dye in the composite and that failure to place dye in the composite would result in a failing grade. Petitioner failed to place dye in the composite. In addition to his comment concerning no dye in the composite, Examiner 005 also commented that Petitioner’s occlusion was very high, which would result in the premature failure of the restoration. Examiner 005 gave Petitioner a score of 0.00. Examiner 316 also gave Petitioner a score of 0.00, which was based on the absence of dye in the composite and the occlusion being high, which would result in the premature failure of the restoration. Examiner 346 also gave Petitioner a score of 0.00, which was based on the absence of dye in the composite. Petitioner contested the score she received on the Preparation for a 3-unit Fixed Partial Denture procedure claiming that the examiners’ comments regarding insufficient and excessive reduction were conflicting comments. The Preparation for a 3-unit Fixed Partial Denture procedure is a procedure that involves the candidate’s ability to replace a missing tooth with a fixed partial denture or fixed bridge. Petitioner received a score of 2.00 on this procedure. A tooth has five surfaces (front, back, top, inside and outside). Therefore, one surface of the tooth may have insufficient reduction, while another surface of the tooth may have excessive reduction. It is not unusual for examiners to see and comment on different errors. Examiner 316 gave Petitioner a score of 2.00 on this procedure because there was a problem with the outline form, insufficient reduction on the preparation and errors on the marginal finish. Examiner 005 gave Petitioner a score of 2.00 on this procedure because there was a problem with the outline form and there was both insufficient reduction and excessive reduction on the preparation. Examiner 346 gave Petitioner a score of 2.00 on this procedure because there was excessive reduction on the preparation, marginal finish, and mutilation of opposing or adjacent teeth. Petitioner contested the score of 0.66 that she received on the Class II Amalgam Restoration on a model procedure. This procedure is similar to Class II Composite, which involves the candidate’s ability to restore a cavity in the tooth so that the finished product restores proper form and function to the tooth. The difference is that amalgam rather than composite is used for the restoration. The restored tooth should closely resemble its original size and shape. Examiner 316 gave Petitioner a score of 1.00 on this procedure because there was a gingival overhang on the distal lingual aspect of the restoration, which could cause tooth decay and gingivitis. Examiner 346 also gave Petitioner a score of 1.00 because of problems with functional anatomy, proximal contour, margin, and gingival overhang. Examiner 005 gave Petitioner a score of 0.00 because of problems with proximal contour and gingival overhang. Petitioner contested the score of 1.66 that she received on the Periodontal procedure alleging that she was graded unfairly because she could not remove all of the calculus on this procedure, and that one examiner gave her a score of 3.00. The Periodontal procedure involves the candidate’s ability to completely remove any stains, calculus deposits or any foreign debris from the surface of the tooth. Patient selection is very important for the periodontal procedure. It is the candidate’s responsibility to select a suitable patient as clearly outlined in the Candidate’s Information Booklet, which is mailed to the candidate prior to the examination. Petitioner chose a difficult patient, considered to have heavy calculus deposits and severe periodontal disease. Petitioner admitted that she did not remove all of the calculus deposits on her patient. Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to show that it was impossible to remove all of the calculus on the patient she had chosen. Examiner 360 gave Petitioner a score of 3.00, but commented that sub-gingival calculus remained on the tooth, and there was root roughness. Examiner 375 gave Petitioner a score of 2.00 because sub-gingival calculus remained on the tooth and there was root roughness. Examiner 361 gave Petitioner a score of 0.00. The basis for this score was that there were heavy deposits of calculus and root roughness on teeth number 19, 29, and 30, and that the procedure was of little value to the patient. The Department provides a re-grade process for all candidates who timely request a hearing. The purpose of the re- grade is to determine if any of the grades rendered were inconsistent. The Department selects the top three examiners who had the highest reliability from that examination to participate in the re-grade. On re-grade, Petitioner’s overall grade increased slightly from 1.89 to 2.10 but not enough for Petitioner to receive a passing grade. The Department’s post-standardization statistics of the examiners’ performance indicated that Petitioner’s examiners graded reliably. The post-standardization statistics indicate the examiner’s performance on grading of models during standardization. In addition, the Department calculates post- examination statistics for the examiners who graded the Petitioner’s challenged procedures. They are: Examiner Accuracy Index & Rating 361 94.2 – Very Good 360 95.1 – Excellent 375 96.0 – Excellent 005 94.3 – Very Good 316 97.0 – Excellent 346 97.2 – Excellent All examiners’ reliability was significantly above the minimum acceptable accuracy index of 85.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly Recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner’s challenge to the grades she received on the Clinical portion of the June 2001 dental licensure examination and denying Petitioner licensure as a dentist in the State of Florida due to her failure to receive a passing grade on the June 2001 dental licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecilia Diaz 8810 Memorial Highway Tampa, Florida 33615 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health Office of the General Counsel BIN A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way BIN C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 0009725. Respondent's last known address is 1521 Powell Court, Huntington, West Virginia, 25701. The minimum standard of care for treatment of any patient with periodontal disease who anticipates orthodontic treatment requires either that the underlying periodontal disease be resolved prior to orthodontic treatment or that the periodontal disease be controlled through frequent and regular periodontal care administered concurrently with the orthodontic treatment. Orthodontic treatment can exacerbate existing periodontal disease in any patient. Adequate, frequent, and regular periodontal care is especially important for adults who typically have less bone turnover and cell repair than that found in younger patients. Responsibility for monitoring and supervising the periodontal health of a patient is shared by the orthodontist, on the one hand, and either the general dentist or the periodontist, on the other. Respondent provided dental services and treatment to Michael J. Doherty, an adult male, from November 7, 1983, until sometime in June, 1985. The dental services and treatment provided by Respondent consisted of the extraction of 4 bicuspids and the application of an orthodontic appliance. Respondent first saw Mr. Doherty on November 7, 1983, at the Omni Dental Clinic (the "Clinic"). Respondent was not the dentist of record for Mr. Doherty. The dentist of record was a general dentist who was also employed at the Omni Dental Clinic. Mr. Doherty was diagnosed by the dentist of record as having early periodontal disease. The dentist of record prescribed treatment for Mr. Doherty's periodontal disease before Respondent began orthodontic treatment. The treatment for Mr. Doherty's periodontal disease consisted of: a gross scaling of Mr. Doherty's entire mouth on November 30, 1983; a prophylaxis cleaning for approximately one hour on December 14, 1983; and a periodontal scaling of the entire mouth on January 9, 1984. The patient was also instructed to increase the frequency of his brushing and other home health care. The patient was released for orthodontic treatment, and Respondent began such treatment on January 23, 1984. During Respondent's orthodontic treatment, the patient received two more prohylaxis cleanings in August, 1984, and on December 27, 1984. The diagnostic studies and periodontal treatment for Mr. Doherty prior to and during Respondent's orthodontic treatment of the patient were inadequate. Adults with existing periodontal disease should receive adequate periodontal care and monitoring every six weeks. The care required to properly treat the periodontal disease may range from basic scaling all the way to surgical procedures. Mr. Doherty received two prohylaxis cleanings during Respondent's orthodontic treatment. Responsibility for the periodontal health of a patient during orthodontic treatment is shared by the orthodontist. The condition of Mr. Doherty's periodontal disease deteriorated significantly during Respondent's orthodontic treatment. The patient consulted another orthodontis, Dr. David Kornbluth, on December 5, 1985. Dr. Kornbluth was concerned over the fact that the patient's teeth were very loose and that there was considerable pocketing in and around the teeth. Dr. Kornbluth questioned whether continued orthodontic treatment was appropriate and referred Mr. Doherty to a general dentist, Dr. Alan Burch. Dr. Burch examined Mr. Doherty on December 6, 1985, and concluded that the patient needed immediate periodontal and endodontic evaluation. Dr. Burch referred the patient to a periodontist, Dr. Leonard Garfinkel. 3/ Dr. Garfinkel examined Mr. Doherty on December 23, 1985, and diagnosed the patient as having severe periodontal disease with gross soft tissue inflammation and significant osseous loss. 4/ The condition of the patient's lower anterior teeth was poor. He had generalized pockets and excessive mobility in his teeth. The patient was instructed to discontinue orthodontic treatment and was placed on periodontic treatment consisting of three visits of deep scaling and curettage in conjunction with plaque control. The patient was also placed on a Hawley retainer to adjust his bite. 5/ The orthodontic appliance was subsequently removed and periodontic treatment in the form of deep scaling was repeated on March 27 and May 16, 1986. The patient's prognosis improved from poor to guarded. Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of care in the practice of dentistry by applying orthodontic appliances without an accurate diagnosis of Mr. Doherty's periodontal condition. Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of care in the practice of dentistry by providing orthodontic treatment without adequate care of the patient's underlying periodontal disease. Respondent was found guilty of negligence in the services provided to Michael J. Doherty. The adjudication of negligence was entered on January 1, 1988, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Dade County, Florida. Respondent did not fail to keep adequate medical records. The Omni Dental Clinic was not operated or controlled by Respondent. Respondent was an independent contractor of the clinic. Records for Mr. Doherty were kept by both Respondent and the patient's general dentist and were maintained by the Clinic. The Clinic went out of business and disposed of the records in a manner that made them unavailable to Respondent. Records that otherwise would have been available to the parties in this proceeding were in the possession of counsel for the plaintiffs in the civil negligence action. The records produced in this proceeding did not comprise all of the records of Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, impose a $5,000 administrative fine, and suspend Respondent's license for 3 months. The final order should provide that, upon reinstatement, the Respondent's license shall be placed on probation for a period of 2 years. During the period of probation, Respondent should be required to complete 30 hours of continuing education in diagnosis and treatment planing, 30 hours of continuing education in periodontics, and 18 hours of continuing education in risk management. All continuing education should be in compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 21G-12. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of July, 1991. DANIEL MANRY 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 22nd day of July, 1991.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Colette Michele Gatward (Petitioner) should receive a passing score on the Florida Dental Hygiene Clinical Examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was a candidate for licensure as a dental hygienist by the State of Florida. All candidates for Florida licensure as dental hygienists are required to pass the Florida Dental Hygiene Clinical Examination. The Petitioner took the exam on November 5, 2010. Information and instructions related to the exam were provided to candidates through a "Candidate Information Booklet" (CIB) that was posted on the Respondent's Internet website approximately 60 days prior to the date of the exam. Candidates were expected to review the information contained in the CIB. The Petitioner was aware of the information in the CIB. Part of the exam required that each candidate perform certain clinical procedures to the teeth of a human patient. The CIB stated that each candidate was responsible for providing their own human patient upon whom the clinical procedures could be performed. A panel of three examiners reviewed and scored each candidate's performance of the clinical procedures. In relevant part, the CIB stated that each candidate must submit a patient with 12 surfaces of explorer-detectable moderate subgingival calculus. An explorer is a piece of equipment used in dental practice. The CIB stated that 6.5 points would be awarded for each of the 12 surfaces of subgingival calculus detected and removed by the candidate during the exam. The CIB also stated that failure to detect and remove a minimum of nine surfaces of moderate subgingival calculus would result in a candidate receiving less than a passing score on the exam. The CIB specifically stated that "[p]oor patient selection and management is a common reason for examination failure." The Petitioner brought her sister-in-law to the exam to serve as her patient. After the applicable portion of the exam was completed, the panel of three examiners evaluated the Petitioner's clinical performance. Two of the three examiners determined that the Petitioner had detected and removed subgingival calculus from only eight surfaces of her patient's teeth. There was no evidence presented to indicate that the Petitioner neglected to remove subgingival calculus from her patient's teeth. The Petitioner was aware at the time of the exam that her sister-in-law did not have sufficient subgingival calculus to meet the patient requirements for the clinical demonstration. The insufficient degree of subgingival calculus present in the Petitioner's patient prior to the clinical exam precluded the Petitioner from passing the exam. The Petitioner received a total deduction of 26 points (6.5 points deducted for each of the four surfaces upon which no subgingival calculus was detected) and failed the exam with a score of 74. The Petitioner offered no credible evidence that the panel of examiners improperly reviewed her performance on the exam or that the score she received on the November 5, 2010, administration of the exam was in any manner incorrect. At the hearing, the Petitioner testified that she is licensed as a dental hygienist in another state, that the examinations in both states were conducted by the same regional testing agency, and that the scores from the other state should be accepted by the Respondent for licensure of dental hygienists in Florida. Florida law does not provide for dental hygienist license reciprocity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the scoring of the exam referenced herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Morris Shelkofsky, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Colette Michele Gatward 2212 Margarita Court Kissimmee, Florida 34741 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 H. Frank Farmer, M.D., Ph.D., Secretary State Surgeon General Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 E. Renee Alsobrook, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a dentist licensed by the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN0002113. Between January 27, 1979 and March 22, 1980, Respondent provided dental diagnosis or treatment to Robert J. Durant in Respondent's dental office in Melbourne, Florida. Durant's first three visits, which occurred prior to August 4, 1979, were for the purpose of having Respondent re-cement Durant's bridge which had become loosened in his mouth. On August 4, 1979, Respondent cleaned Durant's teeth and took a complete set of x-rays. Respondent recommended to Durant that he have 13 crowns placed on his upper teeth and that root canal therapy be performed on four of Durant's upper teeth. Respondent did not recommend to Durant that any of his upper teeth be extracted. On August 4, 1979, the only appropriate diagnosis for Durant's upper teeth was extraction since the few remaining teeth he had were no longer capable of being restored since Durant had a severe case of periodontal disease and almost no bone remained for supporting any teeth. Respondent's diagnosis that Durant receive 13 crowns failed to meet minimum standards of diagnosis in that it ignored the severe case of periodontal disease which would continue if left untreated. On March 22, 1980, Respondent performed root canal therapy on Durant's upper right cuspid, upper left central incisor, upper left lateral incisor, and an upper left molar. At that time, extraction of those teeth was the only appropriate course of treatment, and Respondent's treatment of those teeth with root canal therapy was not warranted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of incompetence by failing to meet the minimum standards of performance, suspending Respondent's license to practice dentistry for 30 days, and requiring Respondent to pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 by a date certain. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ralph C. Robinson, D.D.S. 316 Ingraham Building Miami, Florida 33131 H. Fred Varn, Executive Director Board of Dentistry 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner earned a passing grade on the clinical portion of the June, 1986 dental examination?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a licensed dentist in the State of Louisiana. Her business address is 1006 Surrey Street, Lafayette, LA. The Petitioner attended Boston University and received a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1973. The Petitioner attended MaHerry Medical College and received a dental degree in 1978. The Petitioner received post-graduate training in dentistry during a residency at Sidham Hospital and received a Post-Graduate Certificate from Sidham Hospital in 1979. The Petitioner has taken approximately 200 hours of post-graduate courses in endodontics. From 1979 until 1982, the Petitioner practiced dentistry in the Bronx, New York. In 1982 the Petitioner relocated her practice to Louisiana. The Petitioner has passed the Northeast Regional Boards and the Louisiana State Board Exam. She is licensed to practice in approximately 20 states in the northeast United States and in Louisiana. The Petitioner has been an applicant for licensure in dentistry in the State of Florida. The Petitioner took the June, 1986 Dental Examination. The Petitioner was notified that she had been awarded an overall score for the clinical portion of the examination of 2.88. A score of 3.00 is the minimum passing score for the clinical portion of the examination. The Petitioner timely requested a review of her grade, filed objections and timely requested a formal administrative hearing. The procedures tested during the examination and the Petitioner's scores for the procedures are as follows: Amalgam Cavity Prep 2.33 Amalgam Final Restoration 2.66 Denture 2.87 Periodontal 3.66 Posterior Endodontics 2.66 Anterior Endodontics 2.00 Cast Class II Only Prep 3.00 Cast Class II Wax-Up 3.33 Pin Amalgam Prep 3.00 Pin Amalgam Final 2.00 Each procedure was graded by 3 different examiners. Each examiner graded a procedure independently. One of the following grades was assigned to each procedure by each examiner: - Complete failure; - Unacceptable Dental Procedure; - Below Minimal Acceptable Dental Procedure; - Minimally Acceptable Dental Procedure; - Better than Minimally Acceptable Dental Procedure; - Outstanding Dental Procedure. The procedures were graded in a holistic manner. A failing grade must include a "comment" justifying the grade of the examiner's grade sheets. The three examiners' grades for a procedure were averaged to determine the score for the procedure. The procedure scores were then individually weighted and the weighted scores were added to provide an overall clinical grade. This overall clinical grade must be at least 3.00 to constitute a passing grade. Examiners are experienced Florida dentists selected by the Board of Dentistry. They must have at least 5 years of experience as a dentist. Potential examiners attended a standardization course. The standardization course consisted of 8 to 12 hours of training, including a review of the criteria by which each procedure is required by rule to be judged. Some of the dentists who took part in the standardization exercise were designated as examiners and some were designated as monitors. Monitors were present during the examination with the candidates. They were instructed not to assist candidates during the examination. Subsequent to receiving notice that she had not received a passing grade on the June, 1986 examination, the Petitioner challenged the correctness of the scores she received on procedures 1, 2, 5, 6, 9 and 10. After receiving notice that her license application was being denied because the Petitioner did not receive a passing grade on the clinical portion of the June, 1986 dental examination, the Petitioner attended a review session with Dr. Simkin on September 10, 1986. The session was scheduled to last for 30 minutes. The session actually lasted longer than that. The session was recorded with a tape recorder. At the conclusion of the session the tape recorder was turned off. The discussion continued after the tape recorder was turned off, however. In total, the session and the continued discussion lasted for approximately 45 to 50 minutes. Procedure 1 Procedure 1 is an "Amalgam Cavity Preparation." It involves preparation of a tooth for a filling. This procedure is performed on an actual patient as opposed to a model tooth. The three examiners who graded the Petitioner's performance on procedure 1 awarded the Petitioner the following scores and made the following comments: Examiner 136 3 Outline form & unsupported enamel Examiner 129 2 Unsupported enamel Examiner 83 2 Outline form & depth prep. The primary problem with the tooth the Petitioner performed procedure 1 on and the reason for the failing grades of two of the graders was the failure of the Petitioner to insure that the amalgam base or floor was in dentin and not enamel. Whether the base or floor of the preparation is dentin can be determined by the color, dullness or feel of the dentin. It cannot be determined by x-rays. If an amalgam filling rests on enamel instead of dentin, the filling may be more sensitive to the patient, the enamel can crack and/or the filling may also crack. When the cracking of the enamel or filling may occur cannot be predicted. The Petitioner testified that the depth of the preparation was sufficient and has argued that such a finding is supported by notes which were exchanged between a monitor and the examiners. Petitioner's reliance on the notes which were passed between the monitor and examiners is misplaced. The first note was a note from the Petitioner to the examiners noting conditions she wanted the examiners to be aware of which were unrelated to whether the preparation was into the dentin. The monitor did not "approve" what the Petitioner wrote in her note; the monitor merely noted that the Petitioner had written the note. The other note was a note from one of the examiners to the Petitioner. That note indicated that the Petitioner needed to "lower pulpal floor into dentin." This note is consistent with the examiners' findings. If the note had been followed by the Petitioner and the pulpal floor had been lowered, the patient would have been protected from a potential hazard consistent with the Board's duty to protect patients being used in examinations. When the monitor instructed the Petitioner to "proceed" the monitor was not actually telling the Petitioner what steps she should take or showing any agreement or disagreement with the examiner's note. No regrade of procedure 1 is possible because the procedure was performed on a patient. If the grades the Petitioner received for this procedure had been improper, the Petitioner would have to take this portion of the test over. There is not justification for allowing the Petitioner to take procedure 1 over. The grades the Petitioner received were justified by the comments of the examiners and the difference in the grades of the 3 examiners is insignificant. Procedure 2 Procedure 2 is an "Amalgam Final Restoration." This procedure involves the filling of the tooth prepared in procedure 1 and the shaping of the surface of the filling to the natural surface of the tooth. The three examiners who graded the Petitioner's performance on procedure 2 awarded the following scores and made the following comments: Examiner 138 2 Functional anatomy, proximal contour & gingival overhang Examiner 150 3 Functional anatomy Examiner 48 3 Functional anatomy & margin Although gingival overhang can often be detected with x-rays, it is not always possible to detect with x-rays. In light of the score of 2 given by the examiner which noted "gingival overhang" as one of the examiner's comments, the overhang was probably very slight. It is therefore not unusual that the other two examiners did not note the existence of an overhang. Additionally, a slight gingival overhang could also be noted as "margin." Therefore, it is possible that examiner 48 noted the same problem with the tooth when the comment "margin" was marked that examiner 138 noted when examiner 138 marked the comment "gingival overhang." This procedure was performed on a patient and therefore could not be reviewed. The comments given by the examiners, however, are sufficient to justify the grades given, especially the failing grade. The grades the Petitioner received on procedure 2 were justified by the comments of the examiners and there was no discrepancy in the grades awarded sufficient to order a re-examination of this procedure. No regrade is possible or warranted. Procedure 5 Procedure 5 is a "Posterior Endodontics." This procedure involved the preparation of a molar tooth for a root canal. The procedure is performed on a model tooth and not on the tooth of a patient. The three examiners who graded the Petitioner's performance on procedure 5 awarded the following scores and made the following comments: Examiner 133 3 Overextension Examiner 129 3 Outline form & overextension Examiner 153 2 Outline form, underextension & pulp horns removed Over extension and outline form can indicate the same problem. According to Dr. Simkin, "As soon as you have pulp horns, you have underextension and the outline form is improper ..." It is not inconsistent for examiners to determine that a tooth has an overextension and an underextension. Both conditions can occur on the same tooth as a result of the same procedure. The tooth procedure 5 was performed on by the Petitioner did in fact have an overextension, as even Dr. Webber and Dr. Morrison, witnesses of the Petitioner, agreed. The tooth procedure 5 was performed on by the Petitioner also had pulp horns an underextension. The Petitioner's performance on procedure 5 was not graded according to an outdated technique. The Petitioner's testimony that she was looking for a possible fourth canal is rejected the area of over extension was too large and it was in the wrong area to be justified by a search for a fourth canal. The evidence also failed to prove that any of the examiners graded the Petitioner's performance on procedure 5 according to an outdated technique or that they did not take into account the need to search for a fourth canal. The grades the Petitioner received on procedure 5 were justified by the comments of the examiners and there was no significant discrepancy in the grades they awarded. Their comments and grades were supported by review of the model tooth. No regrade or change in score is justified. Procedure 6 Procedure 6 is an "Anterior Endodontics. " This procedure involves the preparation of an anterior, or front, tooth for a root canal. It is performed on a model tooth and not on the tooth of the patient. The three examiners who graded the Petitioner's performance on procedure 6 awarded the following scores and made the following comments: Examiner 153 2 Outlining form, underextension, & pulp horns removed Examiner 129 2 Outline form - too far incisally did not remove entire roof of chamber Examiner 133 2 Outline form & gouges The tooth that the Petitioner performed procedure 6 on has pulp horns (underextension), is overextended (bevelling of the entrance too severely) and has gouges. The grades the Petitioner received on procedure 6 were justified by the comments of the examiners and there was no discrepancy in the grades they awarded. The comments and the grades were supported by review of the model tooth. No regrade or change in score is justified. Procedure 9 Procedure 9 is a "Pin Amalgam Prep." This procedure involves preparation of an ivory model tooth for restoration. The tooth includes an area of damage or decay which is so extensive that a large portion of the tooth must be removed and the amalgam filling must be supported with a pin. The examiners who graded the Petitioner's performance on procedure 9 awarded the following scores and made the following comments: Examiner 153 3 Outlining form & pin placement Examiner 109 3 Retention form & unsupported enamel Examiner 133 3 Outline form & pin placement Although the Petitioner received a passing grade from all 3 examiners, she contended that she was entitled to a higher score of 4. The grades the Petitioner received on Procedure 9 were justified by the comments of the examiners and there was no discrepancy in the grades they awarded. The comments and grades were Supported by review of the model tooth. No regrade or change in score is justified. Procedure 10 Procedure 10 is a "Pin Amalgam Final." This procedure is the final step of the procedure begun in procedure 9. A different model tooth, one already prepared, is used for this procedure. The three examiners who graded the Petitioner's performance on procedure 10 awarded the following scores and made the following comments: Examiner 153 2 Proximal contour & margin Examiner 129 2 Functional anatomy & proximal contour Examiner 133 2 Functional anatomy & proximal contour Proximal contour involves the shape of the amalgam - it should follow the natural contour of the tooth. In this case, the tooth used by the Petitioner had a ledge area, where food can be trapped, and a slight overhang. Margin is where the filling meets the tooth. It should be smooth and it was not on the Petitioner's tooth. Functional anatomy primarily involves the occlusal portion of the tooth. The Petitioner failed to build up the lingual cusp, which was the cusp that had been removed. The grades the Petitioner received on Procedure 9 were justified by the comments of the graders and there was no discrepancy in the grades they awarded or their comments. The comments and grades were supported by review of the model tooth. No regrade or change in score is justified.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry issue a final order concluding that the Petitioner's grade on the clinical portion of the June, 1986, dental examination was a failing grade. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4838 The parties have timely filed proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed finding of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioners Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-7. 4 and 7. This proposed finding of fact is generally irrelevant. The issue in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner successfully passed an examination. It is accepted, however, to the extent that it is relevant as to the weight which should be given to the Petitioner's testimony. The first two sentences are accepted in 9, 11 and 12 except to the extent that the proposed findings of fact pertain to the December, 1985 examination. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant. The time for challenging the results of the December, 1985 examination had passed at the time of this proceeding and the Petitioner did not attempt to amend its Petition until the formal hearing had commenced. 5 12 and 14. 6 13-15. 7 10. 8-9 These proposed "findings of fact" are statements of issues or argument and not findings of fact. To the extent that any finding of fact is suggested, it is not Supported by the weight of the evidence. 10 12 and 19. This proposed finding of fact is irrelevant. See the discussion of proposed finding of fact 3, supra. 20. The Petitioner's score of 2.88 was not an "alleged" score and more than 30 minutes of the review session was recorded. 13-15 Irrelevant, unnecessary or not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 18-20 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. The first 3 sentences are accepted in 21 and 22. The rest of the proposed fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. 25. The monitor did not indicate agreement with the Petitioner's note. The monitor did take the note and the patient to where an examiner looked at the patient and an examiner did give a note to the monitor. See 25. The rest of the proposed fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 26 22. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is accepted in 25. The rest of the proposed fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 30 27. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first 3 sentences are hereby accepted. The rest of the proposed fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 29 and 30. The last sentence is irrelevant. 34-35 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence is accepted in 33. The rest of the proposed fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant and too broad. The first sentence is accepted in 34. The fourth and fifth sentences are accepted in 35. The rest of the proposed facts are not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first two sentences are accepted in 40 and 41. The rest of the proposed fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 42 44. 43 The first sentence is accepted in 45. The rest of the proposed fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 44 48. 45 The first sentence is accepted in 49. The rest of the proposed fact is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 46-47 Not supported by the weight of the evidence or irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 8-11. 2 12. 3 13 and 16-17. 4 18. 5-8 Hereby accepted. 9 13-14. 10 15. 11 19. 12-14 Unnecessary. Irrelevant. Argument. 15 21. 16 22. 17-19 Summary Of testimony. See 23-28. 20 29. 21 30. 22-25 Summary of testimony. See 31-33. 26 34. 27 35-36. 28-29 35. 30 Summary of testimony. See 36-39. 31 40. 32 41. 33-34 Summary of testimony. See 42-43. 35 44. 36 45. 37 Summary Of testimony. See 46-47. 38 48. 39 49. 40 Summary of testimony. See 50-53. 41-43 Unnecessary. Argument as to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Pat Guilford, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Chester G. Senf, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida. 0750 Rex D. Ware, Esquire Fuller & Johnson, P.A. Ill North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 =================================================================
