The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 466.028(1)(j), (l), (m), (n), (u), and (y), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 466, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Michael Freedman (Dr. Freedman), is and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed dentist in the state of Florida, having been issued license number DN0010221. From June, 1988 through February, 1989, Dr. Freedman billed Medicare and received compensation for dental treatment of three elderly patients, L.S., E.K., and K.K., who resided in a nursing home, Meadowbrook Manor of Boca Cove (Meadowbrook). Patient L.S. At all material times to this proceeding, L.S. was a 93- year-old female who suffered from Alzheimer's disease. At the time of Dr. Freedman's treatment of L.S., Ms. Aurelia DaPra acted as L.S.'s legal guardian. She was also L.S.'s close personal friend and visited L.S. on a daily basis. During these visits Ms. DaPra would attend to L.S.'s personal needs. On or about July 7, 1988, patient L.S. was presented to Dr. Freedman for a consultation at the nursing home where L.S. resided. Dr. Freedman's examination revealed edentulism and/or prosthetic related problems. His recommendations included further diagnostic investigations, surgical procedures, and rehabilitative measures. Dr. Freedman billed $173.00 and was subsequently paid $107.84 by Medicare for services rendered. The "Next Patient Appointment/Service Record" contained in Dr. Freedman's records indicate that dental X-rays were taken of L.S. on July 25, 1988. On July 25, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for office services for L.S. On August 8, 1988, Dr. Freedman gave telephone orders to the staff at Meadowbrook to premedicate L.S. prior to Dr. Freedman's visit on the next day. On August 9, 1988, Dr. Freedman visited L.S. Other than rendering an X-ray report, the records do not indicate any other service performed by Dr. Freedman on that date. On August 9, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $225.00 and was subsequently paid $108.80 by Medicare for X-rays and supplies for L.S. The Medicare category under which supplies are billed is entitled "supplies/prosthesis." Dr. Freedman's customary practice was to make the X-rays at the nursing home using a mobile X-ray machine and to develop the films in his office the next day. He rendered an X-ray report on the dental X-rays of L.S. on August 9, 1988. On August 17, 1988, Dr. Freedman visited L.S. and did a behavior adjustment evaluation. Premedication was given to L.S. on site. On August 17, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for office services for L.S. On August 26, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for office services for L.S. The dental records of L.S. do not indicate that any service was provided to L.S. on August 26, 1988. Based on the unrebutted evidence presented at the final hearing, no services were provided to L.S. by Dr. Freedman on August 26, 1988. Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 for office services on September 2, 1988, and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for such services. The records of Dr. Freedman include a draft letter to Dr. Janotta, L.S.'s physician, stating that L.S. needed to have intrabony lesions removed and would require premedication to facilitate the procedure. Notes in his records indicate that by September 18, 1988, Dr. Freedman had not heard from Dr. Janotta. Dr. Freedman billed $72.70 for supplies for L.S. on November 1, 1988, and was subsequently paid $43.88 by Medicare. On November 1, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $374.00 and was subsequently paid $160.00 by Medicare for surgery on L.S. On November 1, 1988, Dr. Freedman performed a debridement procedure on L.S., which was surgical in nature and was not a routine cleaning of the teeth. Another behavior management evaluation was done on L.S. on November 1, 1988. On January 13, 1989, Dr. Freedman billed $133.00 and was subsequently paid $69.60 by Medicare for X-rays and supplies for L.S. Dr. Freedman's records did not indicate that any services were provided to L.S. on that date. Based on the unrebutted evidence presented at the final hearing, no services were provided to L.S. by Dr. Freedman on January 13, 1989. Dr. Janotta's progress notes concerning L.S. indicate that he was contacted by Dr. Freedman on February 5, 1989. On the same date, Dr. Janotta ordered that L.S.'s legal guardian be contacted to get L.S.'s private dentist to look at L.S.'s dental problems. After Ms. DaPra was informed that Dr. Janotta had left orders that L.S. should see a dentist, she told the nurse that she did not want Dr. Freedman to be used as the dentist. On January 26, 1989, Dr. Freedman's office called Dr. Janotta's office and stated that Dr. Freedman intended to do some minor dental work on L.S. and inquired whether the dental work should be done and whether L.S. should be premedicated. On February 10, 1989, Dr. Freedman billed $52.00 and was subsequently paid $22.72 by Medicare for office services for L.S. Dr. Freedman's records do not indicate that any services were performed for L.S. on that date. Based on the unrebutted evidence presented at the final hearing, no services were performed for L.S. by Dr. Freedman on February 10, 1989. On February 13, 1989, Dr. Hagquist, a dentist, did an oral exam of L.S. and concluded that several of her teeth needed to be extracted. On February 28, 1989, Dr. Hagquist extracted six of L.S.'s teeth. On December 13, 1990, L.S. was examined by Dr. Robert W. Williams, Petitioner's dental expert. Dr. Williams' examination revealed a completely mutilated dentition with serious carious breakdown and several teeth in poor repair. He further discovered gross calcus and debris present with chronic gingival irritation, inflammation, and periodontal breakdown. No evidence was presented as to what dental care L.S. received from February 14, 1989 to December 13, 1990. Patient E.K. At all times material to this proceeding, E.K. was an 84-year-old female who suffered from Alzheimer's disease. On June 6, 1988, patient E.K. was presented to Dr. Freedman for consultation at the nursing home where she resided. Dr. Freedman billed $173.00 and was subsequently paid $107.84 by Medicare for services rendered on June 6, 1988. On July 12, 1988, Dr. Freedman made dental X-rays of E.K. The dental records do not contain either the x-rays or a report on the findings of the x-rays. On July 12, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $238.00 and was subsequently paid $134.08 by Medicare for X-rays and supplies for patient E.K. Dr. Freedman's records indicate that on August 9, 1988, Dr. Freedman gave some medication as part of a procedure performed on E.K. in the maxilla area. The records do not indicate exactly what the procedure was; however based on the testimony of Dr. Bayloff, Respondent's expert witness, the procedure was not a routine cleaning. On August 9, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $33.75 and was subsequently paid $10.72 by Medicare for supplies for patient E.K. According to Dr. Freedman's "Tissue Repair/Debridement/ Treatment Report", on November 1, 1988, Dr. Freedman performed the following on E.K. in the mandible area: "brush", "dentifrice," and "dentition." No evidence was presented to establish whether this procedure would not qualify as surgery for purposes of payment from Medicare. On November 1, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $33.75 and was subsequently paid $14.00 by Medicare for supplies for patient E.K. The procedure performed on November 1 did require the use of some supplies. On November 1, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $200.00 and was subsequently paid $80.00 by Medicare for surgery on patient E.K. Patient K.K. K.K. is an 85-year-old male who has been described as mentally alert, physically impaired as to sight, and well aware of his surroundings. On June 13, 1988, patient K.K. was presented to Dr. Freedman for a consultation at the nursing home where K.K. resided. Dr. Freedman made a preliminary evaluation. Dr. Freedman billed $173.00 and was subsequently paid $107.84 by Medicare for consultation services rendered to K.K. on August 13, 1988. It appears that the date which appeared on the Medicare payment report was a scrivener's error and should have read June 13, 1988. On June 20, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for office services for K.K. This billing was for a trip by one of Dr. Freedman's staff to Meadowbrook to copy parts of K.K.'s records. On July 12, 1988, Dr. Freedman made dental X-rays of K.K. and rendered an X-ray report. On July 12, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $283.00 and was subsequently paid $134.08 by Medicare for X-rays and supplies for patient K.K. On July 29, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for office services for patient K.K. Dr. Freedman's records indicate that his staff called Dr. McKay to inquire whether K.K. needed to have premedication prior to minor oral surgery and if so, what medication would be needed. MITIGATION Dr. Freedman had practiced dentistry at other nursing homes in the area and had not received any complaints concerning the services that he provided. Between 1985 and 1989, Dr. Freedman developed and maintained a practice exclusively limited to patients requiring special care. The majority of his patients resided in nursing homes or ACLF's and were frail and elderly. He was the Dental Director for 23 long-term care facilities and served 50 other facilities on a more limited basis. At any given time he was serving between 1000 to 2000 patients in a 150 mile area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Dr. Freedman did not violate Sections 466.028(1)(j)(l) and (u), Florida Statutes as alleged in Count I, finding that Dr. Freedman did violate Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), in Count I as it related to the X-rays, dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint, dismissing the portions of Counts I and III alleging a violation of Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), finding that Dr. Freedman did not violate Sections 466.028(1)(m) and (y), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), as alleged in Count III, finding that Dr. Freedman violated Section 466.028(1)(j) and (l), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), as alleged in Count III, imposing a $750 administrative fine and placing Dr. Freedman on probation for one year under the terms and conditions to be set forth by the Board of Dentistry. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 28th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-3391 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Accepted except as to a prosthesis. The evidence showed that the Medicare category was supplies/prosthesis. Dr. Freedman was billing for supplies not for a prosthesis. Paragraph 12: Accepted. Paragraph 13: Rejected as to the amount billed. The evidence showed that Dr. Freedman billed $70.00. The remainder is accepted. Paragraph 14: Rejected that he billed for supplies and prosthesis. The records indicate that he billed for office services. Paragraph 15: Rejected that Dr. Freedman billed for a prosthesis. The remainder is accepted. Paragraph 16: Accepted. Paragraphs 17-18: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 19: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. There was no evidence presented to link the blank X-ray with the X-rays that were taken on July 25, 1988. Paragraphs 20-21: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 22: Rejected as to billing for a prosthesis. The remaining is accepted. Paragraph 23: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 24: Accepted. Paragraphs 25-26: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 27: Accepted. Paragraphs 28-30: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 31-32: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 33: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 34: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 35: Rejected. The evidence does not support such an opinion. Paragraphs 36-38: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 39: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 40-41: Accepted. Paragraphs 42-43: Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 44: Accepted. Paragraph 45: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 46-47: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 48-50: Rejected as to the prosthesis. The remainder is accepted. Paragraph 51: Accepted. Paragraph 52: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 53: Rejected. His conclusion is not supported by the evidence presented. Paragraph 54: Rejected as unnecessary and repetitious. Paragraph 55: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 56-57: Rejected as based on hearsay. Paragraph 58: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 59-61: Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraphs 62-66: Accepted. Paragraph 67: Rejected as to prosthesis. The remaining is accepted. Paragraph 68: Accepted. Paragraph 69: Rejected. The evidence established that K.K. was actually seen twice by Dr. Freedman. Paragraph 70: Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: The third sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remaining sentences are rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 2: The first sentence is accepted. The remaining sentences are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 3-10: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 11: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remaining is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 12-13: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 14: The first two sentences are rejected as constituting argument. The remaining is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 15: The third sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. There was no paragraph 16. Paragraph 17: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 18: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 19: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 20-22: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 23: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The last sentence is rejected as immaterial. Paragraph 24: The first two sentences and the last sentence are rejected as constituting argument. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 25: The first and last sentences are rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 26: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 27: The first two sentences are rejected as unnecessary. The third sentence is accepted in substance. Sentences 4-13 and 42 are rejected as immaterial to the issues. Sentences 14, 29, 31, 38, and 40 are rejected as constituting argument. Sentence 15 is accepted in substance. Sentence 16 is rejected as not supported by the evidence presented. Sentences 17-28, 30, 32-37, 39, and 41 are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 28: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 29(1): The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The second sentence is accepted. Sentences 3-8 are rejected as subordinate to the facts found that Dr. Williams was an expert. Sentence 9 is rejected as constituting argument. Sentences 10-13 and 15-18, are accepted in substance. Sentence 14 is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. The remaining sentences are rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 29(2): Rejected as mere recitation of testimony. Paragraph 29(3): Sentences 1-11 are rejected as mere recitation of testimony. The remaining is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 30: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found and as constituting argument. Paragraph 31: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 32: The last two sentences are rejected as constituting argument. The remainder is rejected as mere recitation of testimony and subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 33: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 34: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 35: Sentences 1, 2 6, 7, 12, 13, 56 are rejected as unnecessary. Sentences 3-5, 10, 23, 24, 32, 35, 36, 37, 52, 55, 58 and 59 are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Sentences 8, 9, 11, 28, 30, 51, 71, 72 are rejected as constituting argument. Sentences 14-22, 25-27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 39-50, 53, 54, 60-63 are accepted in substance. Sentence 38 is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Sentence 57 is not a complete sentence. Sentences 64-70 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 29 (Keene pg. 15 of PRO): The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. Sentence 2(1) is accepted in substance. Sentence 2(2) is rejected as based on hearsay. Sentence 2(3) is accepted in substance. Sentence 2(4) is rejected to the extent that the opinion was not supported by the evidence. Sentence 3 is rejected to the extent the opinion is not supported by the record. Paragraph 30 (pg. 15 PRO): Sentences 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected as based on hearsay. Sentences 4 and 27 are rejected as constituting argument. Sentences 7-10, 15, 23, and 24,are accepted in substance. Sentences 11-13 and 16 are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Sentences 14, 17, 41, 42, are rejected as unnecessary. Sentences 18-22, 28-40, and 43 are accepted in substance to the extent that X-rays were made. Sentences 25 and 26 are rejected as not credible given that Dr. Freedman was able to produce the records of the patients at issue. The testimony at the hearing dealt with his inablity to produce copies of the Medicare forms that he received from Medicare. Paragraph 31 (pg. 16 PRO): The first two sentences are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. The remaining is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 32 (pg. 17 PRO): Sentences 1-10 and 17-19 are rejected as irrelevant. The remaining is accepted in substance. Paragraph 33 (pg. 17 PRO): Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 34 (pg. 18 PRO): Sentences 1-10 are accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 35 (pg. 18 PRO): The last three sentences are rejected as irrelevant. The remainder is accepted in substance to the extent that Dr. Bayloff was qualified as an expert witness. Paragraphs 36 (pg. 19 PRO): Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 37 (pg. 19 PRO): Sentences 1-2 are rejected as unnecessary. Sentences 3-7 are rejected as irrelevant. Sentences 8-10 are accepted in substance to the extent that L.S.'s file did contain adequate records. Sentences 11-14 are accepted to the extent that they apply to the records of L.S. and K.K. but not as to the records of E.K. as it relates to the X- rays. There were no X-rays or X-ray report in E.K.'s file. Paragraph 38 (pg. 19 PRO): Sentences 1-2 are accepted in substance as it pertains to L.S. Sentences 3-4 are rejected as irrelevant. Sentences 5-6 are accepted to the extent that the expert reviewed records which were present. There were no records for treatment of L.S. on August 26, 1988, January 13, 1989, and February 10, 1989. Dr. Bayloff did not render an opinion on whether services were provided on those dates. The remaining is rejected as constituting argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Natalie Duguid, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Michael Freedman 421 Lakeview Drive, Suite 201 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33326 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Agency For Health Care Administration Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency For Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 466.028(1)(m) and 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2001), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456, 466, and 120, Florida Statutes (2003). At all material times to this proceeding, Dr. Nguyen was a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN0014768. On April 17, 2002, Patient J.N. presented to Dr. Nguyen complaining with pain from a broken tooth. She brought a full set of x-rays taken by another dentist approximately a year before her visit to Dr. Nguyen. J.N. filled out a form entitled "Health Questions." J.N. indicated on the form that her teeth were sensitive to cold. He examined J.N.'s teeth and saw that tooth 30 was fractured to the gum line. J.N. complained that the broken area of the tooth was sharp and was rubbing against her tongue causing irritation. His examination further revealed that she had some slight gum disease in the upper right side. J.N. was not experiencing a throbbing pain from tooth 30, and tooth 31 was not giving her any discomfort. Her discomfort was due to the inflammation of her gums and her tongue. Dr. Nguyen did a percussion test, i.e. tapping on the tooth, and probed in her mouth, measuring the tooth. Dr. Nguyen did not do any vitality testing and did not perform any periodontal charting of the teeth. J.N. did not want Dr. Nguyen to take any additional x-rays since she had brought a full set of x-rays with her. Dr. Nguyen felt that the set of x-rays that J.N. provided was sufficient for him to be able to treat J.N. for her fractured tooth. The x-rays did not show the fracture, but fractures may not necessarily show up on an x-ray. Dr. Nguyen told J.N. that she may or may not need a root canal. Dr. Nguyen discussed treatment options with J.N., and she decided to have a three-quarter crown on one tooth and an overlay on the other tooth. He removed all of the fracture of tooth 30 and made impressions for the three-quarter crown and inlay, which were sent to the laboratory for the fabrication of the crown and inlay. She left the office with temporary teeth on teeth 30 and 31. Dr. Nguyen made the following progress note concerning his treatment of J.N. on April 17, 2002: pt came in w/ fmx from another DDS. Dr. Richardt in Bonita. Both 30 & 31 have very large old fractured decay amalgam. Both lingual cusps #30 fractured to gingival line. Complaint of "uncomfortable." #30 prep for crown / 3/4 crown. #31 prep for MOB onlay. Composite provisional. A few days later, J.N. called Dr. Nguyen's office complaining of a lot of pain. J.N. was given a prescription for penicillin and Tylenol No. 3. On April 26, 2002, J.N. returned to Dr. Nguyen's office complaining of pain. She had taken the prescribed pain medication prior to her visit so that it was difficult for Dr. Nguyen to assess the pain. Dr. Nguyen made an adjustment to her bite and told her that if the pain continued that he would refer her to an endodontist. Dr. Nguyen asked J.N. to stop taking the pain medication and return to his office after 5 p.m. that day so that he could accurately assess her pain without having the pain medication masking the pain. She did not return to his office. On May 1, 2002, J.N. went to see another dentist, who referred J.N. to Juan Pablo Rodriguez, D.D.S. (Dr. Rodriquez), who specializes in root canals. J.N. complained to Dr. Rodriguez that she was having pain in tooth 30 and it was waking her up at night. Tooth 31 did not respond to cold. Dr. Rodriguez diagnosed J.N. with irreversible pulpitis for tooth 30, which means that the nerve of the tooth had inflammation, and that the nerve would not get better, but would die. He determined that tooth 31 was non- vital or necrotic. On May 8, 2002, J.N. called Dr. Nguyen's office and stated that she wanted to have her tooth extracted rather than have to pay for a root canal. She indicated she wanted her money back. The next day, J.N. came to Dr. Nguyen's office demanding her money back and wanting her x-rays. Dr. Nguyen kept the original x-rays and provided J.N. a copy of the x-rays which she had furnished him on her initial visit. J.N. had paid Dr. Nguyen a portion of his fees by credit card, and a portion of his fees had been paid by J.N.'s dental insurance plan. Dr. Nguyen refunded all fees paid to him. Melvin A. Platt, D.D.S., testified as an expert witness for the Department. It is Dr. Platt's opinion that Dr. Nguyen, in relation to his treatment of J.N., did not practice dentistry within the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. His opinion is based on Dr. Nguyen's failure to determine the need for a root canal prior to preparing the teeth for restoration. According to Dr. Platt, Dr. Nguyen should haven taken an x-ray of teeth 30 and 31, performed vitality testing, and done periodontal charting. Dr. Platt was also of the opinion that the dental records maintained by Dr. Nguyen regarding his care of J.N. failed to justify his course of treatment. According to Dr. Platt there was nothing in the progress notes to justify going ahead with the restorations without any prior testing of any kind. Dr. Nguyen's license has previously been disciplined by the Department for failing to include in an advertisement the statement required by Section 456.062, Florida Statutes (1999). Department of Health v. Luyen Nguyen, D.D.S., Case No. 2000- 01848 (Dept. of Health 2002).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Luyen Nguyen, D.D.S., did not violate Subsection 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, but did violate Subsection 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes; imposing a $1,000 administrative fine; and issuing a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 4th day of March, 2004.
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)
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 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent Tessler has violated Florida Statute Section 466.24(3)(a), (c) and (d) and is guilty of misconduct, malpractice, or willful negligence in the practice of dentistry. Whether Respondent is guilty of receiving compensation because of a false claim intentionally submitted. Whether Respondent has failed to treat a patient according to acceptable dental standards and procedures.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Stephen W. Tessler, the Respondent, is a dentist licensed to practice dentistry under the laws of the State of Florida, Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, engaged in the practice of dentistry in his office located at 1245 NW 190th Street, North Miami, Florida. The Petitioner, State Board of Dentistry, filed an administrative accusation against Respondent Tessler, which was sworn to and subscribed in July, 1978. The accusation contained two counts, and the Respondent requested an administrative hearing. The hearing was first scheduled for October 20, 1978, but was continued upon motion of the Petitioner to January 10, 1979, and rescheduled upon motion of the Respondent to March 8, 1979. During the months of January, 1977, through mid-June, 1977, Ms. Rachel Dixon was a dental patient of Respondent Tessler. Ms. Dixon is a 32-year-old woman with a history of severe tooth and gum problems. She had prosthetic appliances and six (6) anterior crowns placed in her mouth ten (10) to fifteen (15) years ago in Pennsylvania. She had engaged a dentist, a Dr. Snyder in Hollywood, Florida, but had not seen him for some two (2) years prior to making an appointment with the Respondent for relief from pain and gum irritation, and for cosmetic improvement. Ms. Dixon is an unhappy dental patient with an inordinate fear of dentists, and her home dental hygiene care is inadequate. At the time Ms. Dixon engaged Respondent Tessler, she was in need of dental treatment for full-mouth gross peridontal inflammation and infected root canals in tooth number 30. She employed the Respondent for the purpose of providing dental treatment for peridontal disease, endodonic care of tooth number 30, recapping to the anterior teeth, and restoration of an upper right bridge on teeth number 3, 4 and 5. Ms. Dixon was referred to Dr. Hirschfield, an orthodontist in Respondent's office, for x-rays. Costs were discussed, a payment made, and a schedule of appointments planned. Thereafter, Ms. Dixon kept numerous scheduled and unscheduled appointments with the Respondent. Respondent Tessler replaced existing crowns on six (6) anterior teeth (number 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11) with six (6) anterior foil porcelain jackets. In the presence of peridontal disease, Respondent attempted to replace an upper right bridge on teeth number 3, 4 and 5. Respondent was dissatisfied with the "final restoration" but used it instead of making a temporary one. He placed it in Ms. Dixon's mouth because it was better than a temporary restoration. Respondent had told Ms. Dixon that he would satisfy her and would redo the temporary restoration on her front teeth. He did the restoration a second time. Initially, Ms. Dixon was pleased, but later she was not satisfied because she felt pain upon contact with food, drink, or air that was either hot or cold. At the time of hearing no further work had been done in this area of her mouth, and she still complained of pain. On the second or third visit, within two (2) weeks of Ms. Dixon's initial visit, Respondent treated tooth number 30 by performing three (3) root canal treatments. After a number of weeks, Ms. Dixon continued to experience pain in this tooth. Respondent treated tooth number 30 again, reopening two (2) root canals to permit drainage and prescribing an antibiotic. During the course of the endodonic treatment on tooth number 30 an existing lower right bridge on teeth number 28, 29, 30 and 31 was damaged. Ms. Dixon did not return to Respondent for treatment, although she was in pain and attempted for two (2) or three (3) days to reach Respondent by telephone calls to his office. Thereafter, a week or ten (10) days later, Ms. Dixon sought the services of Dr. Marvin Levinson. She indicated to Dr. Levinson that she was not going to return to Respondent Tessler, that she suffered from pain, and that she was concerned about her appearance. Dr. Levinson examined her and referred her to Dr. Satovsky, an endodontist, for immediate relief of pain for a dental abscess, and to Dr. Garfinkle, a peridontist, for a complete peridontal work-up. It was Dr. Garfinkle's opinion that the caps placed by Respondent Tessler in the mouth of Ms. Dixon were placed in the presence of peridontal disease or that the caps caused the disease. He could not determine which came first. Dr. Garfinkle stated that Ms. Dixon was prone to peridontal disease and that she was an unhappy dental patient. Dr. Garfinkle could not comment on the condition of Ms. Dixon's mouth at the time of the treatment given by Respondent, inasmuch as he had not seen her until some eight (8) months had passed. Dr. Satovsky stated that on tooth number 30, which he treated subsequent to the root canal treatment done by Respondent Tessler, the canals were inadequately cleaned and enlarged. He stated that there were three (3) canals on the tooth, two (2) of which had the rods removed, and that he removed the third. He retreated the three (3) canals and alleviated the pain of Ms. Dixon. Dr. Satovsky could not state whether he thought the work of Respondent was negligent, inasmuch as he could not state what the tooth looked like when Respondent first saw it. Dr. Marshall Brothers, the Secretary/Treasurer of the State Board of Dentistry, found that the permanent type of restoration was adequate but not good for a temporary restoration. Upon his examination of Ms. Dixon's mouth, he found her general peridontal condition to be poor. Dr. Brothers could not determine whether her condition was a result of the restoration or existed prior to the restoration. He assumed the condition to be the one or the other because of the recency of the restoration. Respondent Tessler is a licensed dentist and a general practitioner, and is licensed to perform the dental work involved in this case. His charges for this work were substantial, but there was no evidence submitted that said charges were excessive or that Ms. Dixon misunderstood them. Alternative methods of treatment were discussed. The testimony and the evidence in this case show that Respondent worked within his ability as an average dentist. There was no showing of willful negligence, although Respondent's judgment may have been poor, and probably he should have referred Ms. Dixon to specialists. Affixing a bridge and crown work in the presence of gum disease is not the acceptable standard of care within the dental profession, and Respondent admits to that fact; however, he felt that it would improve the overall condition, and he had not released Ms. Dixon as a patient. Ms. Dixon was not pleased with Respondent's work or his charges ad, after attempting to make an appointment, left Respondent Tessler for another dentist. Ms. Dixon was insured through her husband's employer by a policy issued by Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. On January 31, 1977, Respondent Tessler submitted a pre-treatment estimate for work to be done consisting of porcelain-to-gold restorations on anterior teeth number 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, and for a fixed bridge on teeth number 28, 29, 30 and 31, plus additional treatment in the amount of $2,420.00. The insurance company refused to pay for all treatment except for the fixed bridge on teeth number 28 through 31. On April 27, 1977, Respondent submitted the customary insurance treatment form to Aetna certifying that the bridgework had been performed and completed on April 27, 1977. Based on Respondent's representation, Aetna paid Respondent $649.50. The bridgework had in fact not been done, nor were the anterior crowns porcelain-to-gold restorations. Approximately one year later, Respondent refunded the overage to Aetna upon the request of the insurance company. Both parties submitted proposed findings of fact and memoranda of law, and Respondent submitted a proposed order. These instruments were considered in the writing of this Order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this Order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having boon supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the violation as established, it is recommended that the license of Stephen W. Tessler, D.D.S., be suspended for a period of time not exceeding one year from the date of the Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 2516 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Stephen Mechanic, Esquire Suite 200 1125 NE 125th Street North Miami, Florida 33161
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Carl L. Altchiler holds licenses to practice dentistry in the States of New York (1957) and New Jersey (1973). From 1974 through 1977, petitioner was employed in Florida as an institutional dentist at the Sunland Center in Orlando and the Sumter Correctional Institution in Bushnell. He has not practiced dentistry since 1978. In June of 1980, petitioner was a candidate for Florida licensure and took the clinical or practical portion of the dentistry examination. A prerequisite for licensure is that a candidate receive a final total clinical grade of 3.0. Petitioner received a grade below 3.0 on six of the eleven procedures tested, giving him an overall grade of 2.70 on the clinical portion of the exam. A candidate for licensure with the Board of Dentistry must take both a written examination and a pracatical or clinical examination. The clinical exam consists of six parts and requires that eleven procedures be completed. These include the following: Amalgam preparation on a patient Amalgam restoration on a patient Periodontal exercise on a patient Occlusal registration and transfer Final impression Pin amalgam preparation Pin amalgam final restoration Endodontic anterior Endodontic posterior Cast gold preparation Cast gold restoration Prior to the June, 1980, clinical examination, all candidates were sent an instruction booklet which included information concerning the subject areas to be tested, the weight to be accorded each area, the procedures the candidates were to follow in taking each procedure and the grading system. The candidates also participated in a three to four hour orientation program prior to the exam, where protocol was discussed and questions regarding procedure were answered. Florida dentists who have practiced for at least five years are preselected to be examiners for the clinical portion of the dentistry exam. Approximately 23 examiners were utilized during the June, 1980, exam. Prior to arriving at the examination site, each examiner is sent the grade sheets to be utilized and the instructions to candidates. They also receive examiner and monitor instructions and forms. On the day prior to the exam, the examiners are given an 8-hour "standardization" course where the grading guidelines and procedures are discussed. This is to promote consistency and objectivity in grading. Examiners are instructed to independently grade each procedure assigned to them by awarding a grade of from 0 to 5 and indicating the appropriate number on the comment portion of the grading sheet to justify the grade assigned. They may also provide additional comments if they so desire. The grades of 0 to 5 represent the following: 0 = complete failure 1 = unacceptable dental procedure 2 = below minimal acceptable dental procedure 3 = minimal acceptable dental procedure 4 = better than minimally acceptable dental procedure 5 = outstanding dental procedure Each clinical procedure performed by a candidate is independently graded by three different examiners, and the three grades are then averaged to determine the total grade for that procedure. Among the forms which the examination monitors are instructed to utilize is a "Report of Equipment Failure." If utilized during the exam, this form is to be placed in the candidate's file containing the examiner's grade sheets. Four witnesses who were qualified and accepted as experts in the field of dentistry testified in this proceeding. Thomas Gerald Ford, Jr., D.D.S. and Allen M. Guy, D.D.S. were called on behalf of the petitioner. Dr. Ford has practiced general dentistry since 1972, is a member of various dental associations, is a dental consultant for various agencies and private organizations and has given testimony in all phases of forensic dentistry. Dr. Guy has practiced general dentistry since 1971 and is a member of various dental associations. Neither Dr. Ford nor Dr. Guy has served as a monitor or examiner for the Florida dentistry examination. Testifying on behalf of the respondent were Rupert Q. Bliss, D.D.S. and Louis Vodila, D.D.S. Dr. Bliss has practiced general dentistry since 1956, specializing in restorative dentistry, is a member of various dental associations, has taught dentistry, is currently a member of the,Florida Board of Dentistry and has served as an examiner for the Florida dental examination. Dr. Vodila has practiced general dentistry since 1956, is a former member of the Board of Dentistry and has served as Chairman of the Dental Examination for two or three exams. He presently serves, as he did in June of 1980, as the consultant and Chief Dental Examiner for the Department of Professional Regulation, Office of Examination Services. PROCEDURE NUMBER 5 Procedure Number 5, entitled "Complete Denture Evaluation" was a test of the candidate's ability to transfer the centric relation of a live patient's jaw to an articulator. The accurate transfer from the human jaw to the articulator is crucial since the denture will be constructed on the articulator and not in the patient's mouth. If the transfer is not accurate, the denture will not fit or function properly. Wax bite registrations were utilized for this procedure and the test was whether the candidate could accurately duplicate the patient's jaw relationship on an articulator. Hand articulation is not an acceptable means of determining the accuracy of the transfer and cannot simulate the articulation observed by the three examiners who graded this procedure. Petitioner received the grades of 3, 2 and 2, for an overall score of 2.33 on Procedure Number 5. The two examiners who assigned a grade of 2 noted that the centric relation was unacceptable. Other comments listed by the three examiners were that the appearance of the wax was overcontoured and that the interocclusal distance (space) was too little. Petitioner's live patient for this procedure, Beatrice King, testified that the wax bite registrations fit and felt comfortable during the June, 1980, examination. She felt that two of the three examiners were very rough with her. She noted that the one gentle examiner had no trouble placing the rims in her mouth, and that she had to blow to enable their removal. During the administrative hearing, Mrs. King inserted the wax registrations in her mouth and felt that they were still comfortable and that her bite was normal. The expert witnesses testifying for both petitioner and respondent observed the registrations inside Mrs. King's mouth during the hearing. Petitioner's two expert witnesses agreed that the wax bite registrations lacked in appearance and were overcontoured. However, they both felt from observing the registrations in Mrs. King's mouth, that the centric relation was acceptable and repeatable and that, if inserted properly, a full seating could be obtained on Mrs. King. They would have assigned a grade of 3 and 4, respectively. Respondent's expert witness observed that the rims of the wax did not match and that the back sides of the rims were touching, thus providing an obstruction to proper closing. It was also his observation that the inserted bite rims in Mrs.King's mouth had lateral movement. He felt that a grade of 2 was "very generous." PROCEDURE NUMBER 6 Procedure Number 6, entitled "(Final) Complete Denture Evaluation," consisted of the preparation of an impression of the mouth. of a completely endentulous patient. On this procedure, petitioner received grades of 1, 2 and 4, for an overall grade of 2.33. All of the examiners noted voids in the impression tray. Other comments made by the examiners included pressure areas, inablility to observe a post-dam area, the tray not being built u high enough into the vestibule and lack of retention and stability. The actual impression tray used by petitioner during the examination has been distorted by improper storage while in the custody of respondent. It therefore could not be inserted into the mouth of Mrs. King for observation by the expert witnesses who testified at the hearing. Nevertheless, upon observation of the impression tray, petitioner's two witnesses, while noting the voids and pressure areas, would assign grades of 3.5 and 4, respectively. Respondent's expert witness did not feel that the impression submitted by petitioner constituted good dentistry. Voids and pressure areas in the impression tray can cause distortions and inaccuracies in the final denture. Respondent's witness felt that the grades of 1 or 2 were "very generous." PROCEDURE NUMBER 8 Procedure Number 8, entitled "Cast Gold Cavity Preparation," was conducted on a mannequin and required candidates to complete a cavity preparation to receive a cast gold onlay. The instructions called for the preparation of an MOD onlay replacing the buccal and lingual cusps. Petitioner received grades of 2, 2 and 1 on this procedure, for an overall grade of 1.67. The comments noted on the grading sheets included a rough marginal finish, no gingival bevel, debris, the scarring of adjacent teeth, unsupported enamel and unacceptable outline form and depth preparation. Petitioner agrees that the marginal finish was rough and that the adjacent teeth were scarred. According to petitioner, this latter defect occurred when the head of the mannequin suddenly moved as a result of a loose neck screw causing the drill to slip and go through the metal bands on the adjacent teeth. Petitioner's expert witnesses observed the rough marginal finish, but found the remaining criteria satisfactory. They would assign grades of 3 and 4, respectively. Respondent's witness felt that the outline form did not match what was called for on the examination. Rather than the MOD onlay required, the outline form more resembled one for a three-quarter crown. He noted the other deficiencies marked by the examiners on the comment section of the grading sheet. He felt that the grades of 1 and 2 were consistent with what he observed. PROCEDURE NUMBER 9 Procedure Number 9, entitled "Final Gold Restoration," consisted of the candidate fabricating an onlay casting for an ivorine tooth from a dentoform in a mannequin. The procedure was graded with the gold onlay placed on the tooth within the mannequin jaw and with regard to the relationship of the onlay to the other teeth in the jaw. Petitioner received grades of 0, 1 and 2 for this procedure, for an overall grade of 1.00. The examiner who assigned a grade of 0 noted that the casting was not seated and rocked. The other two examiners did not check this comment, but did make comments pertaining to functional anatomy, proximal contour, contact and surface finish. Petitioner's expert witnesses did not observe the ivorine tooth with the gold on lay in the dentoform in the mannequin jaw. They did observe the ivorine tooth with the gold onlay and found that the onlay did not rock on the tooth. Dr. Ford, while noting a few rough edges on the casting and a little problem in the margin, found the gold to be an exact match of the tooth. He would assign a grade of 4 to this procedure. Dr. Guy, noting a rough surface finish, would assign a grade of 3.6. The ivorine tooth and the gold onlay were in the possession of the respondent until several weeks prior to the administrative hearing. Respondent's two witnesses observed the tooth and onlay prior to the last part of April, 1981, and found that the gold onlay had a slight rock to it at that time. They both admitted that the on lay now seated better on the tooth than when they first observed it, though Dr. Bliss still detected a slight rock. Dr. Vodila felt that the procedure still deserved a failing grade because of the deficiencies in the margins. Dr. Bliss, noting that the procedure could not be accurately graded outside the dentoform in the mannequin's mouth, as well as the lack of seating when he first observed it, felt that the grade of 0 was accurate and that the product failed to meet minimal standards for the practice of dentistry. PROCEDURE NUMBER 10 Procedure Number 10, entitled "Pin Amalgam Preparation," was conducted on a dentoform in a mannequin and consisted of the preparation of a tooth for amalgam restoration. Petitioner did not complete this procedure and received a grade of 0 from each of the three examiners. According to petitioner, during this procedure the head on his mannequin often made sudden movements due to a loose screw on the back of the mannequin's neck. He attempted to tighten the screw to fixate the head on several occasions, but the screw would not hold. He testified that he called the monitor over on several occasions and was told, at first, to do the best he could, and eventually, to go on to another procedure. This testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Suzette Rogers, who assisted petitioner during this procedure. A steady, stable working station is important in this type of procedure for an accurate preparation. A competent dentist is trained to and should be able to steady his work area and complete the procedure even with a loose mannequin head. As noted above, the monitors are instructed to complete a form when equipment failure is demonstrated and to insert that form into the candidate's file. No such form was found in petitioner's file. The lead examiner for the dental exam, Dr. Vodila, was never notified of any mannequin failure during the June, 1980, exam. The same mannequin head used by petitioner was also used by four other candidates before and after petitioner used it. PROCEDURE NUMBER 11 Procedure Number 11, entitled "Pin Amalgam Final Restoration," required the candidate to complete an amalgam restoration in an ivorine tooth with a pin. This procedure was to be accomplished on a prepared tooth placed in a mannequin by the monitor after the candidate turned on a light to indicate his readiness for this procedure. Petitioner apparently did not understand the directions for this procedure, no prepared tooth was placed in the mannequin, and no work product was turned in by the petitioner. A grade of 0 was assigned by all three examiners for Procedure Number 11.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the grades awarded to petitioner on Procedures Number 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the clinical portion of the dentistry examination held in June of 1980 be upheld. Respectfully submitted and entered this 29th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Dyer, Esquire Duckworth, Allen, Dyer and Pettis, P.A. 400 West Colonial Post Office Box 3791 Orlando, Florida 32802 Carol L. Gregg, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Shorstein Secretary, Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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.
