Findings Of Fact Dr. Roberts and His Background Dr. Steven Roberts is a dentist licensed to practice in the State of New York. He attended the United States Military Academy and received his undergraduate degree in 1970. He graduated from the New York University College of Dentistry in 1978, and practiced dentistry in New York, New York from 1978- 1987. To be licensed in New York, Dr. Roberts passed the national boards and the northeast regional board examination. During the course of his practice in New York, Dr. Roberts never received a complaint or had a claim for malpractice made or filed against him. Clinical Examinations Dr. Roberts took the Florida clinical dental examinations in June of 1986, January of 1987, and June of 1987. His grade on the June of 1987, examination is the subject of this proceeding. Dr. Roberts has successfully passed the written examination and the diagnostic examination required for licensure by Section 466.066(4)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes. Dr. Roberts' score for the June of 1987, clinical dental examination was 1.95; the minimum passing score is 3.00. The procedures tested during the June 1987, Clinical Dental Examination and Dr. Roberts' scores were as follows: The Procedure The Score The Revised Score Periodontal 1.67 Amalgam Cavity Preparation 1.67 Amalgam Cavity Restoration 3.00 Composite Preparation .67 Composite Restoration .33 Posterior Endodontics 2.00 3.66 Cast Preparation 2.67 3.00 Pin Amalgam Preparation 1.00 Pin Amalgam Restoration 1.67 Denture 3.63 Total Score 1.95 2.15 Dr. Roberts made a timely request to review his grade, and filed objections to his grades; a regrading procedure resulted in the regrading of his scores for posterior endodontics and cast restoration as set forth above. Each of the procedures tested in the clinical dental examination is scored by three different examiners. For each procedure examiners record their scores on separate 8 1/2" X 11" sheets. Each sheet has a matrix of circles which are blackened with a pencil so that they can be machine scored. On each sheet the candidate's identification number and the examiner's identification number are recorded along with the number for the procedure involved and the candidate's grade. On the sheet for each procedure the criteria for successful performance of the procedure are printed, along with preprinted comments which the examiners may use to explain the reason for the grade assigned. These comments relate to the criteria being examined. The following grades may be assigned by examiners: Complete failure Unacceptable dental procedure Below minimum acceptable dental procedure 3- Minimum acceptable dental procedure 4- Better than minimal acceptable dental procedure 5- Outstanding dental procedure An examiner is not required to mark a comment if the grade assigned is 5, a comment is marked for any grade below 5. Each procedure is graded in a holistic manner. Grades assigned by each of the three examiners for a procedure are averaged; the averaged scores for each procedure are then weighted and the weighted scores are summed to provide the overall clinical grade. By averaging the scores of three examiners for each procedure, variation from examiner to examiner is minimized. The examiners are experienced Florida dentists selected by the Board of Dentistry. An examiner must have at least five years of experience as a dentist and be an active practitioner. Potential examiners attend a standardization training exercise. This training is required by Section 466.006(4)(d), Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to instruct examiners in examination procedures and the criteria to be applied in grading. Through the training the examiner group as a whole arrives at a consensus opinion about the level of grading, so that candidates' scores on the examination will be valid and reliable. The training attempts to focus on each examiner's subjective, internalized evaluation criteria, so that they can be modified, as necessary, to reflect the consensus of all graders. A standardizer explains grading criteria to the potential examiners, and discusses various divisions among schools of thought and training on the procedures which will be the subject of the examination. The standardizer uses dental exhibits from prior dental exams as examples, and identifies grades and errors on the exhibits so that the graders learn and can adhere to uniform grading standards. The training focuses on three problems which professional literature has identified in evaluation: errors of central tendency, proximity errors, and bias a priori. Errors of central tendency result when graders are uncertain of criteria, hesitate to give extreme judgments, even in appropriate cases, and thus tend to improperly grade near the average. Proximity error is a type of halo effect which is applicable in grading of mannequin exhibits. The examiner grades all of the mannequin exhibits for each candidate at one time. If the first example of the candidate's work is especially good, and deserves a grade of 5, the grader may tend to transfer a generally positive attitude towards the next example of the candidate's work and assign a grade which may not be based solely upon the merits of that second piece of work. The same process can improperly depress the grades on subsequent mannequins if the first example of a candidate's work is poor. Bias a priori is the tendency to grade harshly or leniently based upon the examiner's knowledge of the use that will be made of the grade, rather than only on the quality of the work graded. After an 8 to 12 hour standardization training session, the Department administers an examination to those who have been trained. Those with the highest scores become the examiners, i.e., dentists who will grade candidates' work, while those with the lower scores in the training session become monitors, who supervise the candidates in their work on mannequins or on patients, but who do not actually grade student work. There is, however, no minimum score which a dentist who attends the standardization session must obtain in order to be an examiner rather than a monitor. This results, in part, from the limited pool of dentists who participate in the examination processes as monitors or examiners. For the 1987 clinical dental examination 31 dentists accepted selection by the Board and attended the standardization session, 20 were then selected as examiners and 11 became monitors for the examination. None of the dentists who attended the standardization session were dismissed by Department of Professional Regulation from further service at the examination session. The process by which the Department selected the examiners for the 1987 clinical dental exam was neither arbitrary nor capricious, but comports with Rule 21G- 2.020(4), Florida Administrative Code. The standardization training and examination of dentists to determine who will serve as examiners and monitors does not provide any bright line for distinguishing among potential examiners those who will make the most assiduous effort to apply the grading criteria explained in the training session versus those who retain an innate sense of a passing work based on what the examiner considers acceptable work in his own practice. The effort to convey to examiners the standard of "minimum competency" has imperfect success, but the Department's training is appropriate. Out-of-State Candidates' Scores 11. There is a substantial difference in the failure rates for out-of- state candidates and for in-state candidates on the clinical dental examinations. In the June of 1987, exam 82.5% of the candidates who graduated from the only in-state dental school, the University of Florida, passed the entire examination, while 54.2% of the out-of-state graduates passed, and only 37.8% of candidates from foreign schools were successful. Overall, 86.5% of the candidates passed the written portion of the examination, 93.5% the portion on oral diagnosis, but only 63.3% the clinical portion of the examination. Dr. Roberts has failed to prove that the lower pass rate for out-of- state candidates is the result of any sort of conscious effort on the part of examiners to be more stringent in grading out-of- state candidates. Dr. Kennedy's testimony indicated only that the data bear more analysis, not that they prove improper grading. Procedures Performed on Mannequins The Board of Dentistry tests between 600 and 700 dental candidates per year. It is extremely difficult for the candidates to find patients who have exactly the problem which is to be tested and bring them to the examination to work on. Some portions of the clinical dental examination, therefore, are not performed on patients, but on cast models of human teeth which resemble dentures, and which are known as mannequins. This is expressly authorized by Section 466.006(4)(a), Florida Statutes. The notice to appear which candidates receive approximately 30 days before the examination informs them of the types of mannequins which will be used in the examination. Before that time, however, dental supply companies obtain lists of those eligible to take the examination, and contact the candidates in an attempt to sell them the mannequins. Candidates must bring mannequins with them to the examination and can purchase additional mannequins for practice. Testing with mannequins is also more efficient because with live patients, the student must be graded at the time of the examination, while a model can be retained and graded a day or two later. The decision of the Board to have certain procedures performed on mannequins, so that each candidate would be graded on exactly the same procedure, is reasonable. The Board had also considered having students perform all test procedures on extracted human teeth, but there are not a sufficient number of all natural teeth available, given the number of students who are tested, both for the examination itself and for practice. The Board determined that it would be better to use mannequins for some of the procedures tested in the examination because they are readily available and students can purchase extra copies for practice. For certain procedures, such as endodontics, specific natural teeth (such as first bicuspids) are often extracted and so are generally available; for procedures performed on those teeth, it is possible to have candidates work on human teeth. By contrast, testing procedures performed on teeth such as incisors is not practicable. It is impossible to obtain enough incisors in good condition, without restorations and chips, for use during an examination. The statute governing the dental examination does require that one restoration performed by candidates must be done on a live patient, and for the June 1987, clinical dental examination that procedure was a class 2 amalgam restoration. The Board directed by rule that mannequins be utilized for five test procedures: the pin amalgam preparation and restoration, Rule 21G-2.013(3)(d), Florida Administrative Code; the endodontic procedure, Rule 21G-2.013(3)(e) Florida Administrative Code; the posterior tooth preparation for a cast restoration, Rule 21G-013(3)(f), Florida Administrative Code, the class III acid etch composite preparation and class IV acid etch composite restoration, Rule 21G-2.013(3)(g), Florida Administrative Code. Performing these procedures on mannequins is not exactly the same as performing procedures on human teeth in a patient. In view of the difficulty involved in finding patients whose teeth present virgin lesions, so that each candidate would be tested on exactly the same problem, the difficulty in grading a large number of procedures performed on live patients, and the difficulty in obtaining a large number of human teeth necessary for testing and for practice, the Board's decision to use the mannequins for these procedures is reasonable. The Legislature recognized this in Section 466.006(4)(b), Florida Statutes, which prescribes that the clinical dental examination shall include restorations "performed on mannequins, live patients, or both. At least one restoration shall be on a live patient." The Board was within its authority when it determined the procedures to be performed on mannequins. Violation of Blind Grading The dental examiners who grade the work of candidates grade blindly, i.e., they do not know which candidate's work they are grading. The Clinical Monitor and Examiner Instruction Manual for the June of 1987, examination makes this clear. At page 24 paragraph 3 the Manual states Examiners are requested to disqualify themselves at anytime they are presented with models or patients treated by a dentist who they know personally or with whom they have had professional contact. All examiners are requested to give department staff the name of any examination candidate who is personally known to them to be taking the exam. The department staff will assist the examiners in avoiding any work performed by the candidates they know. Rationale: Allegations have been made about examiners who knew candidates taking the exam even though the examiners only see candidate numbers. Monitors and Examiners are strongly urged to avoid discussion with candidates about the examination. Even conversation about non-examination related matters can be misinterpreted by other candidates as an unfair privileged communication. Despite this admonition, one of the examiners, Dr. Cohen, who knew Dr. Roberts, graded the work of Dr. Roberts. Dr. Cohen met Dr. Roberts the first time Dr. Roberts took the Florida Clinical Dental Examination in June of 1986. Dr. Roberts had with him a bag which would have identified him as a student from New York University, where Dr. Cohen had taught. Dr. Cohen came over to Dr. Roberts, introduced himself, gave Dr. Roberts his card, (exhibit 44) and invited Dr. Cohen to his hotel room where they discussed practicing dentistry in Florida. In 1986 Dr. Cohen was associated with another dentist, Gerald P. Gultz, who had recently moved to Florida from New York. Dr. Gultz had also been a part-time clinical assistant professor of dentistry at New York University College of Dentistry. After Dr. Cohen returned from the June 1986, administration of the clinical dental examination, he had a conversation with Dr. Gultz in which Dr. Cohen asked Gultz if he knew Dr. Roberts, and commented on Dr. Roberts performance on the clinical examination. Dr. Cohen said Dr. Roberts had done terribly, and Dr. Cohen believed that Dr. Roberts would never get his license to practice in Florida. (Tr. 5/26/88 at 73). Dr. Roberts saw Dr. Cohen at the January of 1987, clinical dental examination, but they did not speak. In June of 1987, Dr. Cohen also spoke briefly to the wife of Dr. Gerald Gultz, Lauren Gultz, saying that he would be seeing Dr. Roberts at the June of 1987, clinical dental examination, which was coming up. He told Mrs. Gultz that Dr. Roberts was a poor practitioner, and that he did not think he would pass the examination. At the June 1987, exam, Dr. Roberts' periodontal patient was his uncle, Mr. Finkelstein. Dr. Cohen was one of the examiners who reviewed Mr. Finkelstein to determine whether his condition was appropriate to serve as a patient for Dr. Roberts on the periodontal portion of the examination. Dr. Cohen had a conversation with Mr. Finkelstein in which he told him "tell your dentist to do a good job". Because Mr. Finkelstein had stated that his dentist was a graduate from N. Y. U. Dental School, Mr. Finkelstein was convinced that Dr. Cohen knew exactly who the dental candidate who would work on Dr. Finkelstein was -- Dr. Roberts. After accepting Mr. Finkelstein as an appropriate periodontal patient, Dr. Cohen also served as a grader on the periodontal procedure performed on Mr. Finkelstein. After grading the work which Dr. Roberts had done, Dr. Cohen told Mr. Finkelstein to tell his dentist that Dr. Cohen would see him later in the hotel where they were staying. At the hotel, Dr. Cohen talked to Dr. Roberts about the dental examination, that he himself had to take the examination three times, although he considered himself to be a superior dentist, and that Dr. Cohen could help Dr. Roberts with his grades but that he could never grade Dr. Roberts more that one grade higher than any of the other examiners. Dr. Cohen served as an examiner (i.e. grader) for Dr. Roberts on six of the nine procedures tested. There were: procedure number 1, the periodontal evaluation where he assigned a failing grade of 2; procedure number 4, the class III composite preparation, where he assigned a failing grade of 1; procedure number 5, the class IV composite restoration, where he assigned a failing grade of 1; procedure number 6, the endodontic evaluation, where he assigned a passing grade of 3; procedure number 7, the preparation for a cast restoration, where he assigned a passing grade of 3; and procedure number 8, the pin amalgam preparation, where he assigned a failing grade of 1. This failure of blind grading is a serious irregularity in the evaluation of Dr. Roberts' performance on the 1987 clinical dental examination, given his prior negative comments about Dr. Roberts before the examination. By ignoring those scores, Dr. Roberts would be evaluated only by two examiners, on all the procedures for which Dr. Cohen gave a grade. This would mean that his scores would not be comparable with those of any other candidate, for his grade on each procedure would not be the result of blind grading by three independent examiners. Dr. Roberts' Challenges to Grades Assigned by Other Examiners The full nine procedures evaluated in the 1987 dental clinical examination and Dr. Roberts' grades were: A periodontal exercise performed on a live patient, Mr. Finkelstein, which involved the scaling of five teeth both above and below the gum and stain removal. Dr. Roberts was assigned scores of 1, 2, and 2 by the examiners (one grade of 2 was assigned by Dr. Cohen) An amalgam cavity preparation, performed on a live patient, Elizabeth Cox, which is the preparation of a tooth for filling. When the preparation is completed a proctor escorts the patient to the three examiners who independently grade this part. After grading, the patient returns to the candidate who completes the filling of the tooth (the restoration) which is subsequently graded independently by three examiners. Dr. Roberts was assigned grades of 1, 1, and 3 for the preparation (none of these grades were assigned by Dr. Cohen). A final amalgam restoration, which is the filling of the tooth prepared in the prior procedure. Dr. Roberts received grades of 3, 3, and 3 on this procedure (none of the grades were assigned by Dr. Cohen). A class III composite preparation, which is preformed on a model, not a live patient. This involves removing decay and shaping a tooth to hold a class III filling, i.e., one located on the side surface of an incisor. Dr. Roberts received scores of 1, 0, and 1 (Dr. Cohen assigned one of the grades of 1) A class IV composite restoration, which is performed on a model, not a live patient. This involves restoring a fractured tooth with a composite restoration material. On this procedure Dr. Roberts received scores of 0, 0, and 1 (Dr. Cohen assigned the grade of 1). An endodontic evaluation performed on a posterior tooth, which is performed on a mannequin, and involves the opening of a molar, and identification of the canals in the tooth in preparation for a root canal procedure. Originally Dr. Roberts received grades of 3, 3, and 0 (one of the grades of 3 was assigned by Dr. Cohen). Dr. Roberts work was regraded by three new examiners and the grades of the original examiners were discarded. Dr. Roberts ultimately received a grade of 3.67 on the endodontic portion of the examination A preparation of a posterior tooth for a cast restoration, which is performed on a mannequin. It involves preparing a tooth to receive a crown. Dr. Roberts' original grades were 2, 3, and 3 (Dr. Cohen had assigned a grade of 3 on this procedure). On review, Dr. Roberts' was regraded by three new examiners, and the original grades were discarded. Dr. Roberts received a final grade of 3 on this portion of the examination. A pin amalgam preparation, which is performed on a model, not on a live patient. This involves the preparation of a tooth to hold an amalgam filling by inserting a pin into a portion of the tooth, which serves to anchor the filling. Dr. Roberts was assigned grades of 2, 0, and 1 on this procedure (Dr. Cohen assigned the grade of 1). Pin amalgam final restoration, which is performed on a model. It involves filling a tooth with amalgam filling material. Dr. Roberts was assigned grades of 2, 1, and 2 on this procedure (Dr. Cohen assigned one of the grades of 2). Due to the involvement of Dr. Cohen in so many of the procedures involved here, Dr. Roberts performance on the June of 1987, clinical dental examination was not fairly evaluated. A fair evaluation cannot be provided after the fact by merely dropping Dr. Cohen's grades, because Dr. Roberts' performance would not be subject to the independent evaluation of three examiners. Dr. Roberts relies, to a large extent, on the testimony of Dr. Gultz as the basis for regrading his procedures to a passing grade of 3, or better. The testimony of Dr. Gultz does not, however, show that he has ever participated in the standardization exercises for examiners at Florida clinical dental examinations. Dr. Gultz experience as a clinical professor of dentistry at New York University provides a substantial basis for his evaluation of dental procedures. The difficulty, however, is that as with any qualified examiner, his evaluations will be based on internalized standards which are personal to him. There is no way to know whether Dr. Gultz standards for adequate performance are equivalent to those which the standardization training produces among examiners at the standardization exercise before a clinical dental examination. The standardization process "attempts to bring all examiners to the same level of grading, so that each [examiner] is grading in a valid and reliable manner." Clinical Monitor and Examiner Instruction Manual, June of 1987, at page 42. The Florida dental clinical examination uses a holistic grading method. Each score sheet which an examiner fills out has on it the criteria to be applied in evaluating the candidates performance on that procedure. They all contain a statement which reads: It is the intent of the Board that each of the criteria are to be accorded equal importance in grading. Equal importance does not mean that each criteria has a numerical or point value, but means that any one of the criteria, if missed to a severe enough degree so as to render the completed procedure potentially useless or harmful to the patient in the judgment of the examiner, could result in a failing grade on the procedure. The criteria do not have any assigned numerical or point value, but are to be utilized in making a holistic evaluation of the procedure. Each grading sheet also points out to the examiner certain critical factors which, if present, require a grade of 0 for the procedure. The standardization in grading which the Board diligently attempts to achieve through the standardization training and the standardization testing of examiners done at the close of the training is elusive at best. Nonetheless, in the absence of showing that Dr. Gultz standards of evaluation are equivalent to those of an examiner trained at a standardization session, it is impossible to know whether his standards of evaluation are more rigorous or less rigorous than those reflected by the grades assigned to other candidates by the corps of examiners which evaluated the work of candidates at the June of 1987, clinical dental examination. The same is true with respect to the testimony of Dr. Simkins, the expert for the Board in this proceeding. No useful purpose would be served in attempting to choose between the testimony of Dr. Gultz, on the one hand, and the testimony of Dr. Simkins and of the other examiners who testified by deposition in this proceeding. If this were to be done, all the hearing officer would have determined is whose testimony about the appropriate grade to be assigned for each procedure is more believable. On this record it would be impossible to make a further finding about whether that more believable testimony reflects a scoring standard more stringent, less stringent or the same as that generally applied to all candidates by the corps of examiners in the June of 1987, clinical dental examination.
Recommendation It is recommended that the results of the clinical dental examination which Dr. Roberts took in June of 1987, be found invalid, and that he be permitted to take the next clinical dental examination offered by the Department of Professional Regulation at no cost to him. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of December, 1989. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 8th day of December, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a graduate of a dental college in India, which is not accredited by the American Dental Association, and has had postgraduate training in New York and Ireland. Petitioner was a candidate for licensure by examination to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. The dental mannequin examination, which is at issue here, consists of nine (9) procedures, each of which is graded separately. Petitioner took the dental mannequin examination at the December, 1983, administration, which was his second attempt, and obtained a total overall grade for the dental mannequin examination of 2.06. An overall grade average of 3.0 is required to pass the mannequin examination. The grading scale as established by Rule 21G-2.13, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) is as follow: O - Complete failure - Unacceptable dental procedure - Below minimal acceptable dental procedure - Minimal acceptable dental procedure - Better than minimally acceptable dental procedure - Outstanding dental procedure Examiners for the dental examination are currently licensed dentists in the State of Florida who have been trained and standardized by Respondent, with training sessions taking place prior to each administration of the examination. During the standardization exercise, the examiners grade identical procedures and then discuss any grade variance and attempt to eliminate any discrepancies and interpretations of the grading criteria. Each examination is graded on the above scale by three separate examiners. They are identified only by examiner number on the grade sheet and do not confer with each other or the candidate regarding the score given on any of the graded procedures. Petitioner has challenged the overall examination which he believes was unfairly graded. In support of his argument, he relies mainly on differences in the scores assigned by the three examiners as well as their varying comments on the grade sheets. Specifically, Petitioner challenged procedures 02 through 08. In addition to the grades assigned by the three examiners who are licensed Florida dentists, Respondent presented the testimony of its consultant, Dr. Simkin, who is also a licensed Florida dentist and an experienced examiner. Petitioner presented his own testimony on each procedure and that of Dr. Lee and Dr. Rosen, who are both experienced dentists. Dr. Lee is licensed in Florida, but Dr. Rosen is not. The testimony of Doctors Simkin and Lee supported the evaluations given by the examiners, with the exception of the one high grade given on procedure 02 (discussed below) which was an error in Petitioner's favor. Dr. Muskar and Dr. Rosen generally conceded the deficiencies noted by the examiners and the other witnesses, but felt these deficiencies were not sufficiently serious to warrant the failing or minimum passing scores assigned. Procedure 02 is the distal occlusal amalgam preparation on a maxillary second bicuspid. The prepared was found to have the sides drilled too deeply, the top was too shallow, and the break in contact between the teeth was too wide, so that there was some doubt as to whether the filling would be retained. The examiners gave the candidate a 3, 3, and 2, and correctly determined that there were problems with the outline form, the depth, retention and a failure to cut the preparation into the dentin. On procedure 03, which is the distal class III preparation for a complete restoration on a maxillary central incisor, the evaluation of two of the examiners that there was no contact made between the teeth involved was correct. This is required of the candidate in the preparation of the denture form for this procedure. The examiner who assigned a grade of 5 was mistaken, but this grade was included in Respondent's overall score. On procedure 04, which is the class III composite restoration of the distal of a maxillary lateral incisor, the examiners awarded 2, 2, and 1 (all failing grades). The restorative material did not duplicate the anatomy of the natural tooth, there not being a flush finish of all margins with the natural tooth structure and the final finish not showing high polish and correct anatomical contour. On procedure 05, completed endodontic therapy using gutta percha in a maxillary lateral incisor, the x-ray (Respondent's Exhibit #3) revealed that the apex of the tooth root was not sealed against fluids in the bone and that there was approximately a one millimeter over-extension of the filling material. The examiners awarded failing grades of 2, 1, and 1, and found there was not proper apical extension in all canals, the gutta percha was not well condensed and adequate filling was not demonstrated by canal width. On procedure 06, distal occlusal restoration on a tooth previously prepared and provided by Respondent, the examiners awarded grades of 1, 2, and 3, noting that there were problems with the functional anatomy, the proximal contour contact and the margin flush with cavo-surface margin. On procedure 07, 3/4 crown preparation on a maxillary second bicuspid, grades of 3, 3, and 4 were awarded which are consistent, and the written comments supported the passing grades awarded. On procedure 08, full crown preparation on a maxillary second molar, failing grades of 1, 1, and 1, were awarded with problems noted in the occlusal reduction, the axial reduction, and the ability of the crown to draw from the gingival margin. The grades awarded for this procedure were identical, the comments supported those grades and inspection of the exhibits confirmed comments and the grades.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying the petition. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 1984.
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Section 466.24(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Albert Leo Vollmer is registered as a dentist with the Florida State Board of Dentistry, license no. 1437, and practices dentistry at Satellite Beach, Florida (Testimony of Mullins). On July 19, 1973, Allen M. Dingman made application to the Veterans Administration for medical benefits consisting of dental treatment (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Authorization was given by the Veterans Administration for the requested treatment and Mr. Dingman sought the services of the Respondent. Respondent submitted a treatment plan to the Veterans Administration which was approved. Respondent thereafter provided dental services to Mr. Dingman and, in October, 1973, billed the Veterans Administration for the completed treatment. On October 18, 1973, payment in the amount of $503.00 was approved and paid to the Respondent by the Veterans Administration. This included payment for providing a 3/4 crown on tooth 20 in the amount of $115.00, a full gold crown on tooth 19 for $110.00, and a gold pontic on tooth number 18 for $90.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). In April, 1974, Mr. Dingman visited Dr. Robert B. Downey, D.D.S., concerning a bridge which Respondent had provided him to replace the second molar (tooth number 18), which bridge Dingman had subsequently lost. He asked Dr. Downey what the cost would be to remedy his problem and informed him that the Veterans Administration had paid for the other work. Dr. Downey thereupon contacted the Veterans Administration concerning the prior treatment (Testimony of Dingman, Downey). Approximately a year later, Mr. Dingman was examined by Dr. Fred C. Nichols, D.D.S., of the Veterans Administration, who found that Dingman did not have gold crowns on teeth number 19 and 20, nor a gold pontic to replace tooth number 18. Mr. Dingman showed Dr. Nichols a cast metal frame work which had once been intended as a unilateral mandibular partial denture to replace tooth number 18 (Testimony of Nichols; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5). The Veterans Administration, by letter of May 19, 1975, advised the Respondent that he would be billed for $315.00 representing the work which had not been performed. Respondent advised the VA that Mr. Dingman had objected to crown preparations and that he had therefore prepared a cantilever bridge which had been too bulky and thereafter another bridge was made at his expense which was apparently acceptable. The Veterans Administration reasserted its claim for $315.00 and Respondent, by letter of July 14, 1975, sought a credit for the work which he had performed, and by a further letter of August 12, 1975 advised that, although all of his records concerning Mr. Dingman could not be found, he estimated the cost of his actual work to be $207.90, and sought credit therefor (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6). Respondent testified that although his original plan was to provide fixed bridge work for Mr. Dingman, upon reflection and after noting that the patient was a hypersensitive person who objected to having the necessary preparatory work that would be required for crowns, he decided to attempt to preserve the natural teeth if possible and not to "abort" them. He further testified that although he had requested his office assistant to prepare an amended VA form for the patient to reflect his decision to do a different type of work, he did not follow-up to see if it was sent in to the Veterans Administration. He further maintained that his office assistant had done poor work, that he did not pay much attention to the paper work in the office and, although he usually reviewed applications for treatment such as Exhibit 4 by "implicit faith", he would usually "skip-read" these forms and sign them without completely checking the details thereon. He stated that his accounts were in a mess during this period and that this was the reason the dental laboratory records concerning Mr. Dingman were unavailable and why he had since hired accountants to do his bookkeeping work. His present assistant supported the fact that when she was first employed about a year and a half ago, Respondent's records were sloppy and that it was her custom to prepare various forms for the Respondent's signature. Mr. Dingman denied that he had ever told the Respondent that he was afraid to have his teeth cut into, or that he was hypersensitive in nature (Testimony of Vollmer, Mander, Person, Dingman) Dr. Daniel Beirne, a physician of Indian Harbor Beach, testified that he had common patients with the Respondent, and that the Respondent had an excellent reputation for truth and veracity in the community. Dr. Downey testified to the Respondent's bad reputation as a dentist, as did Dr. Carroll D. House, a member of the Brevard Dental Society Grievance Committee (Testimony of Burre, Downey, House). Respondent's license to practice dentistry was suspended in 1958 for a period of three months for an advertising violation with the proviso that the suspension was suspended for a period of one year upon certain conditions. His license was again suspended for a period of six months in 1960 for advertising violations (Petitioner's Exhibits 7 & 8)
Findings Of Fact Respondents Respondent, John A. Rowe, D.D.S., received his license to practice dentistry in the State of Florida on or about July 30, 1982 and has been so licensed continuing to the present under license #DN 009364. Since 1977, Dr. Rowe has been board-certified in oral and maxillofacial surgery and he practices in that specialty. Dr. Rowe's license to practice dentistry in the State of Tennessee was suspended on or about October 3, 1983, and was reinstated on or about September 28, 1984. He neglected to inform the State of Florida Board of Dentistry of that disciplinary action, although he did provide to the Board a copy of the civil complaint when he applied for licensure in Florida. In early 1985, Dr. Rowe moved his practice from Tennessee to central Florida and began working with Dr. Frank Murray. During the time that he treated the patients at issue in this proceeding, Dr. Rowe was a salaried employee and part owner of a clinic, Central Florida Dental Association, in Kissimmee, Florida. He now has his own practice in Kissimmee. Ralph E. Toombs, D.D.S., has at all times relevant to this proceeding been licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida under license #DN 007026. During the period in question, 1988, Dr. Toombs was an associate at Central Florida Dental Association. The Clinic and its Procedures During the relevant period, 1988-89, Central Florida Dental Association, P.A., was owned by a group of dentists who actively practiced at the clinic. Dr. Frank Murray was the majority shareholder and President. Dr. Rowe was a shareholder; Dr. Toombs owned no interest and was an associate. The dentist/owners were under employment contracts and received salaries. By all accounts, Dr. Murray made the operational decisions affecting the clinic and its patients. He admitted that shareholders' votes were based on percentage of ownership. (Tr.-p.114) Dr. Murray set the fees for billing and reviewed patients' files. The procedures for billing were computerized. Clerical staff in the insurance department filled out claim forms that were signed in blank by the dentists, or they signed the dentists' names to the forms. Around 1987 or 1988, Dr. Murray acquired computerized diagnostic equipment for the clinic. At first Dr. Toombs, who was trained and familiar with the equipment, performed the testing. Later, Dr. Murray hired Maggie Collins to operate the equipment. Maggie Collins administered the diagnostic tests to the patients at issue in this proceeding. By the time Dr. Rowe left Central Florida Dental Association in 1989, his relationship with Dr. Murray had deteriorated, giving rise to acrimonious litigation. Patient Records After Dr. Rowe left, he had no further access to, or control over the dental records for the eight patients at issue in this proceeding. These Central Florida Dental Association records were at all times maintained under the case, custody and control of Dr. Murray and his employees. When the records were subpoenaed by the Department of Professional Regulation, copies of the records were provided and the clinic employees certified that the records provided were complete. They were, in fact, not complete, as approximately 426 additional pages were included in the originals subpoenaed by counsel for Dr. Rowe, which pages had not been provided to DPR. Many of the documents not copied for DPR related to billings. In some instances Dr. Rowe's daily reports or consultations were missing from the original records and from the copies. And, in at least one case the original record contains an entirely different version of a specific radiology consultation conducted by Dr. Rowe on 5/3/89. (Compare Rowe Exhibit #2 with Pet. Exh. #5-1). No evidence was provided to conclusively explain the discrepancies, and the records themselves are an unreliable source of evidence with regard to the allegations that Dr. Toombs failed to maintain adequate records for patient J.T. Her file contains only one X-ray from Central Florida Dental Association, and no explanation of tests, diagnoses or the continuing contacts she remembers with Dr. Toombs. The patient specifically remembers more than one X-ray being done at the clinic. The Patients At various times during 1987, 1988 and 1989, Dr. Rowe was consulted by these patients: H.W., E.M., M.Z., R.P.V., H.D., R.M. and S.R. Each had been involved in an automobile accident or other traumatic injury and each complained of headaches, pain, dizziness, and other symptoms. After examination and throughout a course of testing and treatment, these various diagnoses of TMJ disorders by Dr. Rowe were commonly found in the above patients: trismus, closed lock, and mandibular atrophy. While other diagnoses were made in the individual cases, the evidence at hearing and Petitioner's proposed recommended order address only these. Patient J.T. first consulted Dr. Toombs in August 1988, after suffering headaches which she understood from her regular dentist and her physician might be caused by dental overbite. She had a friend who had some work done by Dr. Toombs, so she looked him up in the yellow pages under "orthodontics" and made an appointment. After testing and X-rays and a brief consultation with Dr. Rowe, J.T. understood that Drs. Toombs and Rowe were suggesting jaw joint replacement, removal of some teeth and braces. She was advised to get another opinion and she returned to a prior treating physician. She did not follow up with treatment from Dr. Toombs or Rowe. Testing In addition to being administered X-rays, the above patients were tested on myotronics equipment at Central Florida Dental Association by Maggie Collins, a trained diagnostic testing operator hired by Dr. Frank Murray. Myotronics is electronic equipment developed by a Seattle, Washington company over the last twenty years. The equipment is used in diagnosis and sometimes treatment of TMJ functions, and includes sonography, which records the vibration of sound; electromyography (EMG), which measures the electrical activities of the muscles of the face; and computerized mandibular scanning (CMS), which measures a range and velocity of mandibular movement, i.e., the opening and closing of the jaw. Myotronics can also include a device like a TENS unit used for pulsating. The machines produce printouts which are available for interpretation later by the appropriate professional. On each occasion of administering the myotronics tests to the patients at issue, Maggie Collins was alone, undirected by Dr. Toombs, Dr. Rowe or other clinic staff. She utilized testing procedures she had been taught and had used in her prior dental clinic experience and which she continues to use in the clinic where she now works. In some cases, Ms. Collins administered the same tests twice on a single visit. In those cases, after the first series, the patient was pulsated with a TENS before the series was administered again to measure the effectiveness of the pulsating. This is a standard practice. The full testing takes two and a half to three hours. Diagnoses The TMJ, or temporomandibular joint of the jaw, is between the temporo bone and the mandible. A disc is between the condyle (bone) and the fossa (socket). As the mouth is opened, the bone moves and the disc moves slightly at first, until the mouth is opened wider and the disc rotates around the axis of the condyle. According to Respondent Rowe's TMJ expert witness, John Biggs, D.D.S., and as evidenced by the testimony of all of the experts in this proceeding, terminology in TMJ is open to interpretation and there is not a complete union of agreement on every single thing in the field of TMJ. (tr.-p.790) "Closed lock" can legitimately mean that the disc is out of place and is not recaptured as the mouth is closed. The term, "closed lock", can also be applied to the mandible, meaning the jaw does not open normally because it meets resistance from muscle spasm or tissue impediment from the disc. An acute closed lock would impede the opening more than a chronic condition, as the mandible may, over time, stretch the ligaments. An acute closed lock could limit the mandibular opening to 21, 25 or even 27 mm; whereas a chronic closed lock might allow an opening of up to 40 mm, and sometimes more, according to Petitioner's expert, Dr. Abdel-Fattah (rebuttal deposition, 12/2/92, p.71). The patients' files in evidence reveal findings of limited mandibular openings from a variety of sources, including manual and electronic measurement. Those openings are well within the ranges described above for closed lock and most are within the "acute closed lock" range. Another term for "closed lock" is "anterior displacement of the disc without reduction". This means the disc is not recaptured on the condyle. When a sonogram reflects sounds or clicking in the joint, analysis of those sounds is helpful in diagnosing TMJ disorders. Literature appended by Petitioner to the rebuttal deposition of its expert supports Dr. Moretti's opinion that the presence of clicks can still mean that a closed lock exists. (Pet. #3 to deposition of Reba A.Abdel-Fattah, pp. 1 and 3, figure 5 Rowe Ex. #10, p.18) Trismus is more appropriately designated a symptom rather than a diagnosis. It means spasm of the muscles of mastication. The pain of the symptom often interferes with the opening of the mandible, and for that reason, trismus is sometimes used to also denote "limited opening". It is apparent from the patient records that Dr. Rowe used the term interchangeably, and for that reason, findings of trismus where a patient is able to open to 40 mm are not inconsistent. Moreover, trismus as a symptom may be more or less pronounced under a variety of circumstances on different occasions with the same patient. For example, the patient may experience severe trismus upon rising in the morning and find that it subsides later. Mandibular atrophy is indicated by bone loss. Reviewing the same X- rays for patient E.M., Petitioner's and Respondent Rowe's experts came to opposite conclusive opinions as to whether Dr. Rowe's diagnosis of this condition in E.M. was proper. Mandibular atrophy was also diagnosed in patient S.R., but Dr. Fattah did not find a problem with that diagnosis. Treatment Dr. Rowe's treatment of the patients in issue included closed manipulation and the insertion of orthodic splints. Both are noninvasive, conservative procedures. Petitioner alleges that closed manipulation was unnecessary in the absence of closed lock, and that the method of insertion of the splints by Dr. Rowe was improper. Closed manipulation of the mandible, sometimes called "closed reduction", is manual manipulation to attempt to recapture the disc. The procedure can be done several ways, one of which is to approach the patient from the back, place the hands on the mandible and relax the mandible to where it can be opened, moving the disc into place. The patient is in a supine, or reclined, position in the dental chair. Once the disc is manually repositioned, it is important to keep the patient from closing back on his posterior teeth and losing the disc again. To avoid this, an orthodic splint is inserted and fitted in the patient's mouth. Even when manipulation does not unlock the mandible, the practitioner might want to place the splint for support. The splint can be placed with the patient sitting erect or reclined. Dr. Rowe generally places the splint while the patient is reclined in the dental chair. Adjustments may be made after the splint is initially placed and the patient is sometimes seen twice on the same day or on a weekly basis. Because it is important for the patient to be relaxed, the supine or reclining position is preferred. Insurance Claims Insurance claims at Central Florida Dental Association were handled by clerical staff in a separate department. Claim forms were commonly signed by those staff for the treating dentist, but there is no evidence that the signatures were authorized for any specific claim. Another wholly inappropriate practice at the clinic was to have the dentists sign blank forms to be filled out later. Dr. Rowe testified that Dr. Murray required that they do this, and that he did sign blank forms. Those forms include this printed statement over the signature line: NOTICE: Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing, that the facts alleged are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that the treatment and services rendered were reasonable and necessary with respect to the bodily injury sustained. (Pet. Ex. 12) There is no evidence that Dr. Rowe or Dr. Toombs filled out the claim forms in issue, or were involved in the ultimate decisions as to how much and when to bill an insurance company. In several instances, the forms reflect that tests were billed twice on the same day. As found above, tests were commonly administered twice in one day, for valid reasons. Whether the billing for such was proper was simply not addressed by any competent testimony in this proceeding. Patients' insurance companies were also billed for TENS units. H.W. was given this equipment at the clinic and he testified that he still has it. There is no evidence that any billing for TENS units was fraudulent or improper. Advertising In 1988, the Osceola County telephone directory Yellow Pages listed Dr. Toombs under "Dentists-Orthodontics". There is no evidence that anyone other than Dr. Murray was involved with the placement of that listing. Dr. Toombs is a general dentist who practices orthodontics. He is a member of various orthodontic societies. Petitioner's expert witness, Dr. Lilly, confirmed that a general practitioner of dentistry may practice some orthodontics. There is no evidence that Dr. Toombs has held himself out or limited his practice to being an orthodontist. Weighing the Evidence and Summary of Findings Competent reasonable experts testified on behalf of both Petitioner and Respondent Rowe. It is clear that, as Dr. Biggs observed, terminology in the field of TMJ is not as precise and uniform as Dr. Fattah would suggest. Some of the differences in opinion are attributed to that imprecision, and perhaps to quirks in Dr. Rowe's narratives which portray a surgical setting for a nonsurgical procedure, for example, "draping the patient" or "surgical splint". Dr. Rowe, as an oral surgeon, nonetheless, proceeded reasonably in his sequence of diagnosis and treatment; that is, he attempted conservative, noninvasive modalities before going to more invasive procedures such as arthoscopy and surgery. Other differences in opinion and in the way the computerized test results are interpreted are more difficult to resolve. Dr. Rowe contends that Dr. Fattah misread the printed data, confusing vertical with horizontal readings. Dr. Fattah uses myotronic equipment, but not the older model that was used for the tests at issue. The greater weight of evidence supports Respondent Rowe's diagnoses of the patients at issue. Since the allegations of inappropriate and unnecessary treatment are based on allegations of misdiagnosis, Petitioner's proof fails here as well. The further testing, the closed manipulation and insertion of the splints were appropriate follow up for the findings of TMJ disorders by Dr. Rowe. With one exception, it was the insurance companies and not the patients who complained. The records from Central Florida Dental Association reflect substantial billings and insurance form submittals for Dr. Rowe's and Dr. Toombs' patients, but no evidence of these Respondents' responsibility or involvement in the process. The clinic functions were performed in discrete departments under the overall management and control of Dr. Murray. There was no evidence that either Dr. Rowe or Dr. Toombs exercised influence over any patient so as to exploit the patient for personal financial gain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent Rowe be found guilty of violating Section 466.028(1)(b), (1983), and a fine of $250.00 be imposed; and that the remaining charges as to Respondents Rowe and Toombs be dismissed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 2nd day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 91-3213, 91-6022 AND 91-5362 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Adopted in paragraph 1. 2.-3. Adopted in paragraph 2. 4. Rejected as unnecessary. The statute is addressed in the Conclusions of Law. 5.-6. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 9.-13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 14.-15. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 18.-23. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 24.-25. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. 26. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 27.-30. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 31. Adopted in paragraph 27. The referenced exhibit #33 is Dr. Lilly's resume and does not support the proposed finding. 32.-34. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 35.-36. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. 37. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 38.-42. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 43.-44. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. 45. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 46.-49. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 50.-51. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 54.-58. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The reference to exhibit #33 is incorrect. 59.-60. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 63.-67. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 68. Adopted in paragraph 4. 69.-70. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in part in paragraph 34, otherwise rejected as to Respondent's involvement in the advertisement. Adopted in paragraph 35. 73.-74. Rejected as unnecessary. 75.-77. Rejected as unnecessary or unsupported by competent evidence as the absence of these records does not support the finding of a violation under the circumstances. Findings Proposed by Respondent Rowe Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. 3.-4. Adopted in paragraph 9. 5.-7. Adopted in paragraph 10. 8.-9. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 10. Rejected. The testimony of J.T. is inconclusive in this regard. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as overbroad. The records received were reliable for a limited purpose. 15.-16. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as immaterial. Respondent admitted the violation. Adopted in part in paragraph 2, otherwise rejected as immaterial (see paragraph 17, above) Adopted in paragraph 32, in substance. Adopted in substance in paragraph 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in part as unsubstantiated by the record (as to whether Rowe received any benefit other than salary), otherwise adopted in paragraph 6. 23.-24. Adopted in paragraph 6. 25. Adopted in paragraph 41. 26.-27. Adopted in paragraph 37. Adopted in paragraph 41. Adopted in paragraph 29. Adopted in substance in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 23. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 24. 34.-37. Rejected as unsupported by conclusive evidence. The witness was at times confused in his haste. He does not know this particular equipment but it is not clear from the record that he was reading the data wrong. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 23. Adopted in paragraphs 37 and 38. Adopted in paragraph 33. Rejected in part, adopted in part (see conclusions of law). Finding of Fact Recommended by Respondent Toombs Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 14. 4.-5. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 36. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 35. 9.-11. Rejected as unnecessary. 12. Adopted in paragraph 5. 13.-18. Rejected as unnecessary. 19. Adopted in paragraph 12. 20.-26. Rejected as unnecessary. 27. Adopted in paragraph 41. COPIES FURNISHED: William Buckhalt, Executive Director Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Albert Peacock, Sr. Atty. Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth Brooten, Jr. 660 W. Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, FL 32789 Ronald Hand 241 E. Ruby Ave., Ste. A Kissimmee, FL 34741
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, the Board of Dentistry, (Board) was the state agency responsible for the licensing of dentists and the regulation of the dental profession in Florida. Respondent, Carl T. Panzarella, was licensed as a dentist in Florida holding license No. DN 0008948, and was in practice in Palm Beach County. Dr. Panzarella graduated from the University of Maryland Dental School in 1981 and practiced in Baltimore, Maryland for approximately 1 year after graduation. In the Spring of 1982 he moved to Florida and for several years, up through the Autumn of 1983, worked for other dentists. At that time, however, he decided to open his own office and, in the course of preparing to do this, met with a dental supplier who advised him as to the relative merits of the locations for dental offices he was considering in various areas within Palm Beach County. After consideration of several vacant offices, he ultimately opened his practice in an office building where he was the only dentist. Within a year, however, 5 or 6 other dentists had opened in competition, primarily in retail locations in the area, where they could advertise by large signs affixed to or adjacent to their buildings. Because Respondent's practice was located in a discrete office building, he was unable to do this and he found his practice was not growing as he had desired because of that inability to attract patients. As a result, he decided to advertise. In the Spring of 1989, some 5 years after he opened his practice, and being dissatisfied with the speed with which it was growing, he attended a practice-building seminar at which one of the presentations recommended starting a dental referral service after a check was first made with the Department to see what type of activity could be approved. Considering that a good idea, Dr. Panzarella contacted 2 other dentists who shared office space and who agreed to go in with him if the proposal could be approved by both the Department and their attorney. Dr. Panzarella then called the Department's office in Tallahassee at an information number listed in one of its brochures. He was advised by an unidentified individual that there were no laws in Florida which regulated dental referral services. His lawyer and the lawyer for the other 2 dentists with whom he was considering opening the service agreed. Based on what he believed was a clear path toward the opening of such a service, Dr. Panzarella then went back to the practice-building firm and retained it to design the advertisement which he then placed in the October, 1989 edition of the telephone yellow pages in his area. As soon as the advertisement came out, Dr. Panzarella began getting a number of phone calls from dentists practicing in the local area objecting to it. Some were reasonable and some were quite vituperative in nature. At his own request Dr. Panzarella subsequently went to a meeting of the North County Dental Society at which he described his service and answered all the questions put to him by the members about it. Dr. Peter A. Pullon, President of the Central County Dental Society but not a member of the North County Society, was also present at that meeting and was most aggressive in his questioning of Respondent about the advertisement. After asking numerous pointed questions and apparently not getting the answers he wanted, Dr. Pullon left the meeting before it was terminated. In substance, however, Dr. Panzarella was told, at or after the meeting, that in the opinion of the members of the North County Society, he was in violation of the Board's advertising rules and he would either have to cancel the advertisement or let all dentists practicing in the area join his referral service. After Dr. Pullon left the meeting, the members agreed to query the Department for guidance on the issue and be bound by the Board's response, but before that could be done, Dr. Pullon, on behalf of the Central County Society, filed the Complaint which culminated in this hearing. In the interim period between the North County Society's meeting and the filing of the Administrative Complaint, Dr. Panzarella and his associates attempted to get additional dentists to sign up with their service. No one wanted to do so, however, especially in light of the complaints about it that had been raised. Once the Complaint was filed, Respondent called the Department and spoke with Mr. Audie Wilson, asking him about the propriety of a dental referral service, and again was informed there were no rules of the Board of Dentistry governing dental referral services. The advertisement in issue here was placed by Dr. Panzarella and 2 other dentists who were practicing together. The telephone number listed in the advertisement rang in one of the two offices; in Respondent's office several days a week and in his associates' office several days a week. That procedure was followed for a period of time until they were able to determine the volume of the business, at which time the referrals were turned over to a commercial answering service to handle. The referral service was not organized as a separate legal entity. The 3 dentists in question got together as a group to do it, and all calls which came in were referred either to Respondent's office or to the office of the other two dentists. All three were general dentists, and if anyone called with a specialized problem beyond their degree of competence, they did not refer that person to another dentist but, instead, directed that person to call another referral service. Respondent and his associates had written procedures under which the referrals to their practices were regulated, such as: how the calls were to be answered; who was to get the referral; and how questions asked were to be answered. Nonetheless, no one was hired by Respondent or his associates to operate the service. Any calls were answered by the regular receptionist in the office which was receiving the calls on that day. They did, however, keep records as to from whom and when the calls were received and to which office of the participants they were referred. From this, it becomes clear that the service organized by Respondent and his associates was no more than an avenue to funnel patients to their respective dental practices and was not, in fact, a bona fide referral service such as is operated by the Palm Beach County Dental Association and by others who also advertise in the phone book. The advertisement complained of here indicates that all members of the referral service had been checked on through the American Dental Association, insurance carriers, dental schools, and had a number of years in practice. In reality, these checks were done by the Respondent's wife who merely verified that the participants had the credentials claimed. The inspections of offices and equipment referred to were done by Respondent visiting his associates' office and their visiting his, and references were provided to each other. Dr. Pullon attended the North County Society's meeting where Respondent explained his service and spoke with him and his associates. Dr. Pullon has been in practice in Florida for 11 years and is licensed in Florida and other states. He is a member of and accredited by numerous accrediting agencies and organizations. In his 11 years of practice he has become familiar with referral services and it is his understanding there are only two bona fide referral organization types. One charges the client for referral to any one of several dentists in various specialties who are signed up with it. The other is operated by a dental society which refers on the basis of membership in the society. Those societies are, however, open to membership by all licensed dentists in the community. One must belong to the society to be eligible for the society's referral service. The instant situation, in Pullon's opinion, was not a bona fide referral service but more an advertisement for the participants' practices. It has been so found. Dr. Pullon filed his complaint with the Department in his capacity as President of the Central County Dental Society. On the complaint form he listed several witnesses to the operation of the service, none of whom are members of the Central County Society. After attending the pertinent meeting of the North County Society, Dr. Pullon advised Dr. Krauser, the president of that society, that he intended to advise the Respondent of the problem and would ask for an opinion from the Department before asking Respondents to pull their advertisement if it was determined to be inappropriate. He noted that if they were so advised and thereafter refused to pull the advertisement, he would then file a complaint with the Department. However, after briefing the executive committee of the Central County Society after the North County Society meeting, the committee voted to report the matter to the Department immediately. This is the second complaint Dr. Pullon has filed with the Department concerning another dentist. The former was not related to dental advertising or to this Respondent. It resulted in no action being taken.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case imposing on the Respondent, Carl T. Panzarella, a reprimand and an administrative fine of $1,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 12th day of October, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 George P. Bailey, Esquire The Raquet Club Plaza 5160 Sanderlin, Suite 5 Memphis, Tennessee 38117 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Board had charged the Petitioner, Dr. Jules Klein, with violations of Sections 466.27(2) and 466.24(3)(g)(k) and (m), Florida Statutes. Dr. Alvin H. Savage was called by the Board to testify that he had seen Dr. Klein in the early spring of 1974. At that time Dr. Savage mentioned to Dr. Klein a sign on the side of the building in which Dr. Klein maintained his professional office. Dr. Savage identified Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 as photographs of said building and the signs at the building as they existed at the time. Dr. Savage testified that the sign bearing Dr. Klein's name was not objectionable and that he had received no complaints regarding said sign. Dr. Savage testified that he had received complaints about the sign as it existed on Dr. Klein's building at that time. The wording of that sign was "Longwood Dental Arts Center". Dr. Savage, on cross-examination, testified that Dr. Klein had invited him to his office to discuss Dr. Klein's status in the local professional association. During their discussion Dr. Savage testified that he had suggested to Dr. Klein that as Jews the community probably held them to a higher standard than other members of their profession, and that Dr. Klein should attempt to avoid even the appearance of anything questionable. Although it was suggested that Dr. Savage's comment was evidence of antisemitic discrimination, in the context of discussion as revealed by both Dr. Savage's and Dr. Klein's testimony, it would appear general advice from an older professional man who had practiced in the community for some time to a younger colleague. During this visit Dr. Savage raised the question of the sign on Dr. Klein's building and was advised by Dr. Klein that he would see the landlord of the building about altering the sign. Thereafter, Dr. Savage testified that the sign was changed, and identified Exhibit 5 and 6 as photographs of the building in which Dr. Klein's professional office was located and the amended sign which read, "Longwood Dental Bldg." Dr. Savage testified that he had received only two complaints regarding the amended sign during the preceding year and that one of the two complaints had been received shortly before the date of final hearing. On cross-examination, Dr. Savage opined that Dr. Klein's sign violated the statute by calling attention to the practice of dentistry by an individual, indicating further that if more than one dentist were practicing at Dr. Klein's office that it would not, in his opinion, be in violation of the statute. Dr. Savage based his opinion upon the Code of Ethics of the Florida Dental Association, Bearing Officer's Exhibit 10. Mr. John F. Plumb testified that he had taken the photographs introduced as Exhibits 5 and 6 on the morning of the hearing. He further testified that he visited Dr. Klein's office on March 12, 1975, April 29, 1975, and July 28, 1975. On both the March and April visits he had spoken with Dr. Klein and had found him very cooperative, although quite concerned about why his sign was an apparent violation while some of the signs in the locality, one of which was immediately across the street from his office, were not in violation. Mr. Plumb testified that he had discussed with Dr. Klein the provisions of Section 466.27(2), Florida Statutes, and the sign's apparent violation of its provisions. Mr. Plumb testified that during the March 12, 1975 visit with Dr. Klein that Dr. Klein indicated that he would modify the sign; however, during the April 29, 1975 visit, Dr. Klein indicated that he would not alter the sign on the advice of his attorney. Dr. Klein then testified in his own behalf. Dr. Klein testified that the sign, "Longwood Dental Arts Center" had been chosen originally because patients had indicated that they could not find his office. Dr. Klein testified that he had become truly concerned about the ability of persons to find his offices when dental supply salesmen reported difficulty in finding his offices. At that time Dr. Klein was practicing with his brother-in-law, Dr. Guy. Dr. Klein testified that having determined the need for a sign on the building, that he looked at the building signs on other buildings in the vicinity. Together with Dr. Guy, he determined that the building be named "Longwood Dental Arts Center" because he and Dr. Guy eventually intended to have am orthodontist in association with then. On cross- examination Dr. Klein testified that "medical arts" was not used because they had had no intention of having doctors of medicine practice there. Dr. Klein testified that he then contacted a sign maker who had dome other similar signs, who suggested the layout and size of the sign used on the building. Dr. Klein testified that after Dr. Savage's visit that he had received a visit from Dr. Franklin. Dr. Klein testified that he had the impression that the removal of the words "Arts Center" would eliminate the objection to the sign, and the sign was so modified. After the sign was changed, Dr. Klein testified that he was again contacted but that he had been unable to determine what was acceptable wording for the sign. He testified that in am effort to obtain guidance as to what was "professionally" acceptable he had contacted the American Dental Association and received a copy of their ethic advisory opinions. See Exhibit 16. This exhibit provides: "1. A building may be identified as the '...Dental Building,' except that the full name of the building cannot include the name of a participating dentist. The mane selected should not imply the practice of superior or more artful dentistry, imply any connection with any institutional or governmental unit or organization, or imply or specify the practice of any special area of dentistry. The full name selected shall be limited to the function of helping the patient locate the building. 2. A component society may determine community custom to prohibit dentists from using floodlights to draw attention to their nameplates on the outside of their private practice facilities. Component societies should be aware, futhermore, that the state dental practice acts ordinarily establish regulations on the use of office door lettering and signs." The Florida Dental Association rules would also allow the use of "Dental Building", but only where two or more dentists practice within the professional building. The basis for this distinction was explained by Dr. Savage, who stated that the provisions of Subsection k of Section 466.24(3) relating to".. calling the attention of the public to any person engaged in the practice of dentistry..." were not violated if two or more persons practiced in a building identified as a "Dental Building."
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should have received a passing score on the June 2001 Florida Dental Licensure Examination, notwithstanding Respondent’s determination that he failed the test.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Siegel, who graduated from dental school in 1999, took the June 2001 Florida Dental Licensure Examination (the “Exam”), which was administered by the Department on June 2 through June 5, 2001. The Exam had two parts, a Clinical Part and a Laws and Rules Part. The Clinical Part was further divided into ten sections, each of which consisted of a separate clinical procedure. The minimum passing score on the Laws and Rules Part was 75.00; on the Clinical Part, a minimum score of 3.00 was required to pass. As calculated by The Department, Siegel scored 70.00 and 1.49, respectively, on the two parts. Thus, according to The Department, Siegel failed both parts of the Exam. Each candidate’s performance on the Clinical Part of the Exam was scored independently by three examiners chosen by the Department.1 These examiners were not informed of any candidate’s identity, nor were the candidates told the examiners’ names; they were not permitted to speak directly to one another while the Exam was being administered. The examiners who graded Siegel’s clinical performance had successfully completed standardization training.2 Additionally, the Department determined, as part of a routine post-Exam statistical review of examiner performance, that these particular examiners were reliable in terms of their consistency in applying the proper grading criteria.3 To determine a candidate’s overall score on the Clinical Part of the Exam, the Department first computed the average of the three examiners’ raw scores for each individual procedure. Each average score was then adjusted using the percentages prescribed in Rule 64B5-2.013, Florida Administrative Code, to arrive at a weighted mean score. A candidate’s overall score on the Clinical Part was equal to the sum of his or her weighted mean scores for each section. At hearing, Siegel challenged just one clinical procedure, the Patient Amalgam Restoration.4 An amalgam restoration is a dental procedure that involves filling a cavity so that the affected tooth is restored to proper form and function. After this procedure, the treated tooth should closely resemble its original size and shape. Siegel’s raw scores on this procedure were very low. One of the examiners who testified at the hearing, a dentist with some 40 years’ experience, had awarded Siegel no points for the Patient Amalgam Restoration procedure because, after completion of the work, the restoration was fractured and the patient’s gingival margin was open. Another examiner, a dentist with 35 years of experience, explained at hearing that Siegel's work on the amalgam restoration was a failure; in this examiner’s opinion, the patient's tooth was actually in worse condition after Siegel had finished the procedure. The testimony of these examiners was credible and is accepted as being truthful and accurate. Accordingly, it is found that Siegel failed to perform the amalgam restoration with the minimum degree of skill and competence required for licensure as a dentist in this state. For his part, Siegel contended that one of the examiners (presumably the one who did not testify at hearing) had caused the restoration to fracture. Siegel based this theory on the account of his patient, Scott Graham, who testified that one of the examiners had "picked" at his tooth with a sharp instrument.5 (Mr. Graham is not a dentist.) Mr. Graham, however, had not complained about any alleged examiner misconduct at the time of the examination. Likewise, no examiner ever reported any such irregularity. In the absence of contemporaneous corroborating evidence, created before it became known that Siegel had failed the Exam, Mr. Graham’s testimony is simply not persuasive evidence of examiner misconduct. To be sure, it is theoretically possible that an examiner might damage a candidate’s work and then attempt to cover up his error by blaming the candidate. The evidence in this case, however, is not nearly sufficient to support such a finding. To underscore the point: Siegel’s theory is speculative at best. As for the remaining clinical procedures, while Siegel complained that his scores were not a reliable or accurate measure of his performance, he failed to introduce any persuasive evidence in support of this allegation. At bottom, the trier is not persuaded that the scores Siegel received were arbitrary, capricious, unfair, inconsistent, or otherwise objectionable. To the contrary, the evidence in the record demonstrates convincingly that the scores Siegel received on this Exam were reliable, correct, impartially rendered, and consistent with the grading practices used in scoring other candidates’ work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department advise the Board Of Dentistry to enter a Final Order (a) holding that Siegel's administrative challenge to the scores he received on the June 2001 Florida Dental Licensure Examination is without factual and legal merit and (b) declaring that Siegel failed said examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 2002.
