The Issue Whether the Petitioner should receive on the the clinical portion of the examination additional credit, which is sufficient to receive a passing grade on the December 1997 dental licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Neda Raeisian, was a candidate for the dental licensure examination administered by the State of Florida in December 1997. The dental examination administered in December 1997 consisted of three parts: a "Florida Laws & Rules" part, an "Oral Diagnosis" part, and a "Clinical" part. The Petitioner received passing scores on the "Florida Laws & Rules" and "Oral Diagnosis" parts of the examination. Petitioner received a score of 2.95 on the Clinical part of the examination. A score of 3.00 was required on the Clinical part of the examination. The Petitioner failed the Clinical portion by .05 of a point, and, therefore, she failed the overall dental examination. Three examiners grade each candidate's clinical portion of the dental examination. Three examiners are used because by averaging the scores of the three examiners, the Respondent is more likely to capture the candidate's true score than by using one or two examiners. Before an examiner may be used for an examination, he or she must be recommended by an existing examiner or by a member of the Board of Dentistry. The proposed examiner may not have any complaints against his or her license and he or she must have been actively practicing and licensed for at least five years in the State of Florida. The examiner must complete an application that is sent to the Board of Dentistry examination committee, where it is then reviewed by the committee, and if approved, the examiner is entered into the pool of examiners. Before every examination, the Respondent conducts a standardization session, which is a process by which examiners are trained to grade using the same internal criteria. The Respondent uses assistant examiner supervisors who are appointed by the Board to train examiners on the different criteria that are used during the examination. The assistant examination supervisors go through and describe what a score of five would be, all the way down to a zero, the different criteria for each of those particular grades, and under what circumstances those grades should be given. After the examiners go through a verbal training, they are shown slides of teeth and told what the score on that procedure should be. After the standardization, there is a post- standardization exercise where the examiners are required to grade five mannequin models to make sure they have been able to internalize the criteria. After the post-standardization exercise, the Respondent evaluates the examiners to determine whether they are acceptable to use during the examination. There are also post-examination checks on the examiner, whereby the Respondent decides whether or not to use the examiners again. The Respondent runs the post-examination statistical checks to make sure that the examiners grade with consistency and reliability. There is generally a very high agreement rate between the examiners. Typically if there is an inconsistency in grading, it is usually the examiner who gives the higher grade that is incorrect because he or she missed an error; any error found by an examiner must be documented. The examiners grade the examination independently of each other; that is, they do not confer with each other while scoring the examination. The examination is also double-blind graded. Double- blind grading is the process through which examiners have no contact with the candidates. The examination is conducted in such a way that there is one clinic that is monitored by a licensed dentist in which the candidates actually perform the procedures. When the candidates are finished a proctor walks the patient over to another clinic where the examiners are located, and the examiners grade the examination. The candidates perform the patient portion of the examination on human beings that they are responsible for bringing in. If the patient has the necessary characteristics, the patient could serve for two different candidates or on two different examinations. The examination is a minimum competency examination. The grading system used during the clinical portion of the examination is as follows: A zero is a complete failure, a one is unacceptable dental procedure; a two is below minimally acceptable dental procedure; a three is minimally acceptable procedure, which is the minimum required to pass the clinical portion; a four is better than minimally acceptable dental procedure; and a five is outstanding dental procedure. An overall score is determine by averaging the three examiners' scores on the eight clinical procedures, putting different weights into a formula, and calculating the final grade. It is required in Board rule that the scores of the examiners be averaged. The Petitioner challenges the score given to her for her performance on Procedure 03, "Amalgam Final Restoration," of the Clinical portion of the examination. The Petitioner performed Procedure 03, the "Amalgam Final Restoration," on a live patient, Ms. Desiree Peacock. The Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03 was graded by three examiners: examiner number 290, identified as Dr. Richard Tomlin, of Pinellas Park, Florida; examiner number 299, identified as Dr. Haychell Saraydar, of Pinellas Park, Florida; and examiner number 176, identified as Dr. Leonard Britten, of Lutz, Florida. The Petitioner received a grade of 4 on a scale of 0-5 for her performance on Procedure 03 by examiner number 290; and a grade of 3 on a scale of 0-5 for her performance on Procedure 3 by examiner number 299. However, she received a grade of 0 on a scale of 0-5 for her performance on Procedure 03 by examiner number 176. The reason the Petitioner was given a score of 0 on procedure 03 by examiner number 176 was that the examiner felt that there was a lack of contact at the amalgam restoration site. The Respondent's dental expert, Jorge H. Miyares, D.D.S., testified that a score of 4 is given on Procedure 3 when, in the judgment of the examiner, there are only minor errors present which will not jeopardize the procedure; that a score of 3 is given on Procedure 03 when, in the judgment of the examiner, the procedure is completed at entry level; and that a score of 0 on Procedure 03 is mandatory if there is a total lack of contact. The examiners are taught and trained to check for contact when grading a candidate's performance on Procedure 03, as a lack of contact is a very significant error that jeopardizes the integrity of the amalgam restoration. There are two different types of contact involved in a Class II Restoration. The type of contact that was referenced by Examiner 176 in his grade documentation sheet is proximal contact. Proximal contact is when a tooth is restored, the proximal tooth next to it must be touching the tooth that has been prepared. Contact is something that either does or does not exist between two teeth. Contact is checked visually and by running a piece of dental floss between the teeth to see if there is resistance. Examiners 290 and 299 would have been required to give the Petitioner a grade of 0 on Procedure 03 if they had found a lack of contact. The findings of examiners 290 and 299 during their review of the Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03 were inconsistent with the findings of examiner 176 (lack of contact) during his review of the Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03. The inconsistency between the findings of examiners 290 and 299 and the findings of examiner 176 during their review of the Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03 were statistically unusual. Respondent performed Procedure 03 on the patient Desiree Peacock. Following the exam, Peacock used dental floss on the affected area and she believed she felt resistance. Although the grading on Procedure 03 of the clinical portion of the examination is inconsistent, the Respondent followed its standard testing procedures for the December 1997 dental examination. The evidence is insufficient to prove that the Respondent's examiner acted arbitrarily or capriciously or with an abuse of discretion in refusing to give the Petitioner a passing grade on procedure 03 of the clinical examination.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grade assigned her for the clinical portion of the December 1997 dental licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Anne Williamson, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Neda Raeisian 2161 Lake Debra Drive Apartment 1726 Orlando, Florida 32835 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Jennifer Lee Brown, D.M.D., should receive a passing grade on the December 1997 Florida dental licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jennifer Lee Brown, D.M.D., is a graduate from the University of Florida College of Dentistry. Respondent, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is responsible for the licensure of dentists in the State of Florida. In December 1997 the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on behalf of the Department, administered the Florida dental licensure examination which persons wishing to practice dentistry in the State were required to pass. Dr. Brown took the December 1997 dental examination (hereinafter referred to as the "Examination"). The Examination consisted of clinical, Florida laws and rules, and oral diagnosis parts. The clinical portion of the Examination consisted of 8 procedures: procedures 1-3 and 5-9. Each procedure was graded by three separate examiners. The scores awarded by the three examiners on each procedure were averaged, resulting in a truer score. Each procedure had standardized "comments" concerning a candidate's performance on the procedure which examiners could note. Examiners were selected from individuals recommended by existing examiners or members of the Board of Dentistry (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). Prospective examiners could not have any complaints against their license and they were required to have actively practiced dentistry and to be licensed as a dentist in Florida for a minimum of five years. Prospective examiners were required to file an application with the Board's examination committee. Prior to the Examination, a "standardization" session was conducted for the examiners selected. During the session, examiners were trained how to grade the Examination using the same internal criteria. The standardization session was conducted by assistant examiner supervisors appointed by the Board. After completion of the standardization session, and before the Examination, examiners were required to grade five mannequin models in order to evaluate the examiners' understanding of the grading criteria. Each examiner's performance was evaluated to determine whether the examiner should be used during the Examination. The examiners who graded Dr. Brown's clinical part of the Examination were designated as Examiners 168, 176, 195, 207, 264, 290, 298, and 299. All of these examiners completed the standardization session and the post-standardization evaluation. During the clinical part of the Examination, the examiners were required to grade each procedure independently, without conferring with each other. The clinical part of the Examination was "double blind" graded. Examiners did not see the candidates they were grading or watch their work. The test procedures were performed in a clinic in the presence of a licensed dentist. After the procedure was completed, the patient or tooth was taken to another clinic where the examiners reviewed the work performed on the patient and graded the procedure. The examiners had no direct contact with any candidate. Candidates were permitted to use "monitor-to-examiner" notes to convey information to the examiners that a candidate wanted the examiners to take into consideration when grading a procedure. Any such notes were read by the examiners and initialed "SMN" (saw monitor note) before they actually looked at the patient or tooth. For the clinical part of the Examination the following grading system was used: Zero: complete failure; One: unacceptable; Two: below minimally acceptable. Three: minimally acceptable. Four: better than minimally acceptable. Five: outstanding. After the Examination was graded, all examiners underwent a post-examination evaluation. Grades awarded by each examiner were compared to other examiners for consistency. All of the examiners who graded Dr. Brown's clinical part of the Examination were found to have performed acceptably. Dr. Brown was subsequently informed that she had failed to obtain the minimum passing grade of 3.00 for the clinical part of the Examination. Dr. Brown was informed that she had been awarded a score of 2.67. Dr. Brown was also informed that she passed the other two parts of the Examination. Dr. Brown challenged the scores she had been awarded on the clinical part of the Examination for procedures 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The procedures challenged were graded by examiners 176 (graded all the challenged procedures), 195 (graded procedures 5- 9), 207 (graded procedure 2), 298 (graded procedure 2), and 299 (graded procedures 5-9). The Department conceded that the scores awarded Dr. Brown on procedures 7 and 8 were incorrect. As a result, the Department agreed that Dr. Brown's overall score for the clinical part of the Examination should be raised to 2.82. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Brown should have received a higher score on procedures 7 and 8. Procedure 2 consisted of an amalgam (filling)n preparation on a human patient. Dr. Brown was required to select a tooth and, after the selected tooth was checked by an examiner, complete preparation for the amalgam. Dr. Brown wrote three monitor-to-examiner notes during procedure 2. All three examiners wrote "SMN" on all three notes. Dr. Brown received an average score on procedure 2 of 3.66. Dr. Brown was awarded the following individual scores for her performance on procedure 2: Examiner Score 176 4 207 4 298 3 Examiners 176 and 298 noted the following comment concerning Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 2: "Depth Prep." Examiner 298 also noted the following comment: "Marginal Finish." Examiner 207 noted the following comment: "Retention Form." Dr. Brown admitted that her performance on procedure 2 was not ideal, but expressed concern that she was graded down for matters dealt with in the monitor-to-examiner notes. Dr. Shields opined that it was possible for the examiners to have reduced the score awarded to Dr. Brown on procedure for depth preparation, marginal finish, and retention form and not have graded her down for the monitor-to-examiner notes. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Shields' opinion was not reasonable or accurate. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Brown should have received a higher score for procedure 2 of the clinical part of the Examination. Dr. Brown received a fairly consistent score from all three graders. Procedure 5 was a "class IV composite restoration." This procedure involved the selection of a tooth by Dr. Brown which she was then required to make a slice cut on to replicate a fracture. Dr. Brown was then required to restore the simulated fractured tooth to its normal contour and function. The procedure was performed on a mannequin. Dr. Brown received an average score of 1.66 on procedure 5. Dr. Brown was awarded the following individual scores for her performance on procedure 5: Examiner Score 176 3 195 0 299 2 Examiners 176 and 195 noted the following comment concerning Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 5: "Proximal Contour." Examiners 176 and 299 noted the following comment concerning Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 5: "Margin." Finally, the following additional comments were noted by the examiners: Examiner Comment: 195 Functional Anatomy Mutilation of Adjacent Teeth 289 Gingival Overhang Dr. Brown's challenge to her score for procedure 5 was essentially that Examiner 199 had given her such a low score on this procedure and procedures 7 through 9 when compared to the scores awarded by Examiners 176 and 298. Dr. Shields opined that Dr. Brown should not have received a higher score for her performance on procedure 5. Dr. Shields' opinion was based generally upon his 21 years of experience as a dentist. More specifically, Dr. Shields based his opinion upon his examination of the actual tooth that Dr. Brown performed procedure 5 on. Dr. Shields found excess material left at the gingival or gum portion of the tooth. Dr. Shields also found that Dr. Brown attempted to polish the material off and had flattened some of the surface of the tooth. Apparently, based upon Examiner 195's comment notes, Examiner 195 was the only examiner to catch these deficiencies in Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 5. Dr. Shields also found slight damage on the mesial, the approximating surface of the lateral incisor, the tooth next to the tooth that was restored. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Shields' opinions concerning Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 5 were not reasonable and accurate. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Brown should have received a higher score for procedure 5 of the clinical part of the Examination. Procedure 6 required that Dr. Brown perform an Endodontic Evaluation of the Maxillary First Premolar. Dr. Brown was required to select an extracted tooth, a maxillary tricuspid, examine x-rays of the tooth, and then perform a root canal on the tooth. The tooth had two roots. The root canal involved creating an opening in the tooth and removing the pulpal tissue from the two nerve canals of the tooth (a debridement). The canals were to be shaped for an obturation or the filling of the canal. A final x-ray of the tooth was taken after the procedure was completed. Dr. Brown received an average score on procedure 6 of 1.00. Dr. Brown was awarded the following individual scores for her performance on procedure 6: Examiner Score 176 3 195 0 299 0 All three examiners noted the following comment for Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 6: "Proper Filling of Canal Spaces with Gutta Percha." Gutta Percha is the material that was used by Dr. Brown to fill the canal of the roots after she completed the debridement. Examiner 195 noted the following additional comment for Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 6: "Access Preparation." Examiner 299 noted the following additional comment: "Shaping of Canals." Dr. Brown's challenge to her score for procedure 6 was based in part on her concern that Examiners 199 and 299 had given her a score of 0 on this procedure while Examiner 176 had given her a score of 3. Dr. Brown admitted that she had caused the gutta percha to extrude through the apex of the canals. She argued, however, that gutta percha is reabsorbed by the patient. Therefore, Dr. Brown suggested that her performance was "clinically acceptable." Dr. Brown questioned how one examiner, Examiner 176, could conclude that her performance was in fact clinically acceptable, while the other two examiners concluded it was not. The difficulty with Dr. Brown's position with regard to procedure 6 is that she assumes that the only deficiency with her performance was the extrusion of gutta percha and that it was not a significant deficiency. The evidence failed to support this position. Dr. Shields opined that Dr. Brown should not have received a higher score for her performance on procedure 6. His opinion was based upon the fact that the extrusion of gutta percha was very significant on one of the canals: it extended a millimeter and a half. On the other canal it was a half of a millimeter. Filling the canal one half millimeter to a millimeter is considered ideal. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Shields' opinion was not reasonable or accurate. During the standardization session, examiners were told that extrusion of gutta percha more than a half millimeter through the apex was to be considered an error of major consequence. Candidates who extruded guttal percha more than a half millimeter were not to receive a grade higher than one. In light of the instructions during the standardization session, it was more likely that Examiner 176 gave Dr. Brown too high of a score on procedure 6. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Brown should have received a higher score for procedure 6 of the clinical part of the Examination. Procedure 9 was a pin amalgam final restoration. Although this procedure involved, in a lay person's terms, a filling, what exactly was involved in this procedure was not explained during the formal hearing. Dr. Brown received an average score on procedure 9 of 1.66. Dr. Brown was awarded the following individual scores for her performance on procedure 9: Examiner Score 176 4 195 0 299 1 All three examiners noted the following comment concerning Dr. Brown's performance on procedure 9: "Functional Anatomy." Examiners 195 and 299, who both graded Dr. Brown below minimal acceptability, also noted the following comments: "Proximal Contour," "Contract," and "Margin." Dr. Brown failed to present any evidence to support her claim that she should have received a higher score for procedure Dr. Brown simply questioned the fact that Examiner 195 had graded her low on all the clinical procedures. Dr. Shields opined that Dr. Brown should not receive a higher score on procedure 9. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Shields' opinion was not reasonable or accurate. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Brown should have received a higher score for procedure 9 of the clinical part of the Examination. Dr. Brown's challenge in this case was based largely on the fact that Examiner 195 had graded her performance on procedures 5, 6, and 9 as a zero, procedure 7 as a one, and procedure 8 as a two. Other than the fact that Examiner 195's scores were consistently low, the evidence failed to prove that Examiner 195 improperly graded Dr. Brown except as conceded by the Department on procedures 7 and 8. Comparing the scores awarded by Examiner 195 to Examiner 176 does raise some question as to why there was such a discrepancy in the two examiners' scores. When the scores on procedures 5, 6, and 9 of all three examiners are compared, however, Examiners 195 and 298 generally were consistently below acceptable, while Examiner 176's scores were generally higher on these three procedures: Examiner Procedure 5 Score Procedure 6 Score Procedure 9 Score 176 3 3 4 195 0 0 0 299 2 0 1 This simple mathematical comparison, however, is not sufficient to conclude that Examiner 195 scored too low or that Examiner 176 scored too high. Other than a simple comparison of the scores of the three examiners, the only evidence concerning whether Examiner 195 graded too low based upon the scores alone was presented by Ms. Carnes, an expert in psychometrics. Ms. Carnes opined that Examiner 195's performance was acceptable, except with regard to procedures 7 and 8. The evidence failed to refute Ms. Canres' opinion. Based upon the weight of the evidence, Dr. Brown's score for the clinical portion of the Examination, as adjusted by the Department during the final hearing of this case, was reasonable and accurate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, dismissing Dr. Brown's challenge to the amended grade awarded for the clinical part of the December 1997 Dental Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Brown Post Office Box 39 Starke, Florida 32091-0039 Anna Marie Williamson, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be awarded a passing grade on the clinical portion of the dental licensing examination given on December 12 through 14, 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Dentistry was responsible for the licensing of dentists in this state and the regulation of the dental profession. Petitioner is a graduate of the University of Florida School of Dentistry and was eligible to sit for the examination for licensure as a dentist in Florida. Petitioner previously has taken and passed the written portion of the dental examination. He has taken the clinical portion of the examination twice and has received a failing grade each time. He is eligible to take the clinical portion alone for a third time, but must do so within a period of 13 months of taking it the second time or must take both the written and oral portions again. Dr. Scheutz first took the examination in June 1996. He received a passing grade in each of those examination portions which dealt with Florida laws and rules and with oral diagnosis. However, he received a grade of 2.31 on the clinical examination portion of the examination, and a passing grade was 3.0. Thereafter, in December 1996 he again took the clinical portion and this time received a grade of 2.71, still below the 3.0 passing grade. Dr. Theodor Simkin is a licensed dentist and consultant to the Board of Dentistry, who has been in the private practice of dentistry since 1950 and in Florida since 1975. He has been involved in the development, administration, and grading of the dental examination in Florida since 1979 and was a supervisor for the December 1996 examination. He is familiar with the standards applied in the clinical portion of the examination and how the examination is given and graded. Petitioner has challenged the grade he received on five separate procedures he performed during the December 1996 examination. The procedures chosen for accomplishment during the examination are not unusual procedures, but are common problems seen on a routine basis by a practicing dentist. Dr. Simkin reviewed the mannequin on which Petitioner did his work and which he presented to the examiners for grading. One of the grades challenged related to a "composite restoration" (Clinical D) for which Petitioner received a grade of 0. In this procedure the candidate is presented with a tooth on a mannequin. The candidate is instructed to cut off a corner of the tooth and then restore that corner with an amalgam restoration. The examiners are not present when the procedure is accomplished, but grade the procedure after completion. Instruction on the procedure is given to the candidate by a monitor who is present in the room but who does not grade the work done. The examination process is accomplished using the candidate number, not the candidate name, so that examiners do not know whose work at which they are looking. Once the procedure is done by the candidate, the mold is packed in the candidate's presence and is then held in the custody of the Board of Dentistry until examined independently by each of three examiners. Once graded, it is then shipped to Tallahassee and kept in a vault until needed, as here, for review by Dr. Simkin and others. Ordinarily, even if dropped, a model will not break. In the instant case, Petitioner performed the procedure on an upper right central incisor. The right corner of the tooth, approximately one-third of the tooth, was cut off and the candidate was instructed to rebuild it with a composite material. When the examiners evaluated Petitioner's work, they found that the filling was not bonded to the tooth and was loose. The loose restoration would be useless to the patient, whereas a properly done restoration should last for at least several years. On a human, the stresses applied to a tooth repair are significant, and the repair must be sufficient to withstand them. Notwithstanding Petitioner's claim that the tooth used was an artificial tooth to which the filling material does not easily bond, Dr. Simkin asserts that the bonding which occurs with a plastic tooth is different from that which occurs in a real tooth but the material can bond to the plastic tooth. He knows of no other complaints by other candidates at this examination of not being able to complete the restoration because the materials would not bond. Petitioner admits that when he did the procedure during the June 1996 examination, the tooth bonded correctly. In light of all the evidence regarding this point, it is found that Petitioner's claim is without merit. Petitioner also challenges his score of 2.0 received for his work on an "amalgam cavity preparation" (Clinical B). This composite score was based on a 2.0 awarded by each of the three examiners. An amalgam preparation is what is done to the tooth to get it ready for filling. In this case, an actual patient, supplied by the examines, had a cavity which was reviewed by the examiners. Once the patient was accepted by the examiners, the candidate then cleaned out the cavity and got it ready for filling. Dr. Simkin's review of the documentation prepared in regard to this candidate's performance of this procedure, in his opinion, supports the grades given by the examiners. Here, Petitioner sent the examiners a note as to what he proposed to do with his patient. Petitioner sought to deviate from a normal preparation due to the location of the caries, and the monitor agreed, as did the examiners. Thereafter, the candidate did the procedure. All three examiners graded his work against his proposal and gave him a failing grade. The examiners determined that his work on this patient merited only a grade of 2.0 because, according to two examiners, the margin of the filling was not separated from the next tooth as required. As to the "posterior endodonture procedure" (Clinical M), Petitioner received an overall score of 1.3. In this procedure, the candidate is required to bring in an extracted tooth which is mounted in an acrylic block. The candidate is to remove the nerve and diseased tissue, clean the cavity, file it, fill the canals, and seal the tooth. This is known as a root canal. In grading a candidate's work, the examiners look to see that the canal is properly cleaned out, is filled properly and sealed with a surface that is slightly shorter than the apex (highest point) of the tooth. On the x-ray taken of Petitioner's sample, it is obvious, according to Dr. Simkin, that one canal is at or short of the apex, but the other is long, and this is considered unacceptable treatment. Even Petitioner agrees. Petitioner received grades of 3.0, 2.0 and 1.0 for an overall failing grade of 2.0 on the "prep. cast restoration" (Clinical F). In this instance, the procedure called for the candidate to install a gold onlay. Normally the surface to which the onlay is to be placed is reduced slightly below the abutting face. Here, though one side was acceptable, Petitioner reduced too much on the other side without reason. Petitioner claims, however, that only one of the three examiners indicated excessive reduction. That determination calls for a very subjective opinion. He cannot understand how the propriety of reduction can be determined without looking into the mouth of a patient. However, Petitioner has presented no evidence in support of his opinion. The fifth challenge relates to the grade Petitioner received in the "pin amalgam pre. procedure" (Clinical G). This involves a situation where one cusp has been removed, and in order to hold a restoration, Repin must be placed in the solid portion of the tooth. The examiners determined that Petitioner's occlusal was too shallow at 1 mm, when it should have gone down 1~ to 2 mm. This, the examiners considered, would not give enough strength to hold the amalgam properly without risk of fracture. Dr. Simkins is of the opinion that Petitioner was subjected to a standardized test which was graded fairly. It would so appear and Petitioner introduced no evidence to the contrary. Ms. Carnes, a psychometrician and an expert in testing and test development who trains examiners to ensure they are consistent in their evaluations, agrees with Dr. Simkins' appraisal. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation tries to insure through its standardization efforts that the approach to grading of each examiner is consistent and that all examiners are grading with the same set of criteria. This was done in preparation for the December 1996 dental examination and a check done after the examination showed it was graded this way. Petitioner cites by way of explanation, if not excuse, that during his senior year in dental school, he was badly injured in an automobile accident and required stitches and several weeks of physical therapy for, among other injuries, a herniated disc. When he recovered sufficiently, he finished his course work and sat for the dental examination in June 1996, passing two of three sections, but not the clinical portion. Dr. Scheutz took the clinical portion of the examination again in December 1996 and again failed to earn a passing score. In his opinion, his knowledge has improved over time, but his procedural skills have diminished over the months due to his injuries. He contends he has work in dentistry he can do which will make accommodations for his physical condition, but does not believe he should have to wait another six months to take the examination again, especially since he would have to again take the entire examination, including those portions he has already passed since at that time more than 13 months from his last examination would have passed. Petitioner contends the clinical testing portion of the examination is too subjective to be valid. He wants to close this chapter in his life, but does not want to deal any more with the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge and sustaining the award of a failing grade on the clinical portion of the dental examination taken by the Petitioner on December 12 through 14, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Eric J. Scheutz, pro se 332 Whispering Oaks Court Sarasota, Florida 34232 Karel Baarelag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33906-0127 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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 Respondent violated Subsections 456.057(4) and 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of Dentistry pursuant to Chapters 456 and 466 and Section 20.43. Dr. Kashlak is and has been at all material times hereto a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 0011469. Dr. Kashlak has been practicing dentistry since 1985. She and her husband, Dr. Anthony Oswick, have had a small general dentistry practice in Orlando since at least 1990. On August 8, 2001, Dr. Kashlak first saw patient D.B. X-rays were taken on that date, and D.B.'s teeth were cleaned. D.B. next presented on August 21, 2001, at which time the cleaning of her teeth was completed. D.B. was scheduled for a one-hour appointment at 1 p.m. on September 19, 2001. D.B. called Dr. Kashlak's office at 10 a.m. on the morning of her appointment and advised that she had a conflict with her 1 p.m. appointment. She was advised that she would be charged a $50 cancellation fee if she did not make her appointment. D.B. advised that she would be coming, but that she would be late. D.B. arrived at 1:25 p.m. for her appointment. She was advised by the receptionist that she was too late for her appointment and that she would be charged the $50 cancellation fee. D.B. was unhappy with the situation. The receptionist told D.B. that she would have the dentist call her. It is the policy of Dr. Kashlak's office that she will deal with Dr. Oswick's patients on fee matters and that he will deal with her patients on fee matters. On the evening of September 19, 2001, Dr. Oswick called D.B. to discuss her concerns about the cancellation fee. D.B. and Dr. Oswick argued about the cancellation fee. D.B. advised him that she was not happy with the way that she had been treated and that she would be going to another dentist. D.B. told Dr. Oswick that she wanted her dental records, and he advised her to put her request in writing and send a check for $35 to cover the costs of copying the records. In a letter dated September 25, 2001, D.B. sent a letter to Dr. Kashlak stating the following: As per your instructions, I have enclosed a check for $35 to cover the cost of duplicating my dental records--x-rays, treatment plan, and notes. Please call me at the number noted below as soon as they are available and I will come by to pick them up. On October 8, 2001, D.B. received a copy of her dental x-rays and a letter enclosing a check for $99, which represented a refund of an insurance claim payment for D.B. No mention was made in the letter why all D.B.'s dental records had not been sent, and no mention was made that Dr. Kashlak or Dr. Oswick would contact D.B. concerning the remaining dental records. D.B. called Dr. Kashlak's office on October 8, 2001, and spoke to Dr. Oswick. Dr. Kashlak was with Dr. Oswick during the telephone conversation with D.B. D.B. asked why she had not received all of her dental records. He told her that the diagrams of her teeth would not copy well and that there was nothing else that she needed in her records. D.B. did not indicate to Dr. Oswick that she was withdrawing her request for the records. D.B. went to another dentist on October 17, 2001. She gave the x-rays to the dentist and told the dentist that she was unable to get the remaining records from Dr. Kashlak. Upon being advised by the new dentist that Dr. Kashlak was required to provide her with a copy of the records, D.B. went by Dr. Kashlak's office after her dental appointment in an attempt to get her dental records. The receptionist at Dr. Kashlak's office would not give D.B. her records. After her October 17 visit to Dr. Kashlak's office, D.B. never attempted to contact Dr. Kashlak again concerning her dental records. On October 17, 2001, Dr. Kashlak and Dr. Oswick were on vacation and were not in the office. They were not advised that D.B. had stopped by the office requesting her records. In April 2002, D.B. filed a complaint with the Department concerning Dr. Kashlak's treatment and the failure to provide the requested dental records. The Department investigated the complaint and contacted Dr. Kashlak by letter dated June 24, 2002, advising her of the complaint. By a Verification of Completeness of Records form dated July 15, 2002, Dr. Kashlak sent D.B.'s records, consisting of 14 pages, to the Department. One page of D.B.'s dental records, which the Department received, contained the following in the upper right- hand corner: Personal Notes: 9-19-01 Pt. showed up @ 125 pm -- caused disruptive scene in reception area/slanderous stmts. demanding refund. mk 9-19-01 called pt per request, became argumentative Re: broken appt. fee !! Also requested copy of x-rays afo 10-8-01 spoke to pt Re. Tx notes argumentative Re: BA Fee of $50 Pt's next dentist to contact us mk After receiving notice from the Department of D.B.'s complaint, Dr. Kashlak also sent D.B. a copy of D.B.'s dental records, which D.B. received on July 20, 2002. D.B.'s copy did not contain the personal notes set forth above. Dr. Kashlak has never had her license to practice dentistry disciplined.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Kashlak violated Subsections 456.057(4) and 466.028(1)(n), imposing an administrative fine of $750, issuing a reprimand, and requiring Dr. Kashlak to complete 30 hours of continuing dental education in record keeping or risk management. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2003, 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 11th day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Wayne Mitchell, Esquire Ephraim D. Livingston, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Brian D. Stokes, Esquire Unger, Acree, Weinstein, Marcus, Merrill, Kast & Metz, P.L. 701 Peachtree Road Orlando, Florida 32804 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Should Respondent's license as a dentist in Florida be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein?
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matter in issue herein, the Petitioner, Board, was the state agency responsible for the regulation and supervision of the dental profession and the licensing of dentists in Florida. Respondent was a licensed dentist holding license Number DN 0010500. At all times pertinent to the matters in issue herein, Respondent was actively engaged in the practice of dentistry at his office located at 1429 Kass Circle, Suite A, Spring Hill, Florida. In mid-January, 1990, Henrietta Pollio, then a 69 year old widow, had two teeth pulled by a Dr. Pikos, to whom she had been referred by her daughter, a patient. Dr. Pikos recommended she see Respondent for replacements for the pulled teeth, and on January 22, 1990, she saw Respondent in his office. At that time, Ms. Pollio told him she had had two teeth pulled and already wore a bridge. She initially wanted only her lower denture replaced, but Respondent suggested she replace both the lower and upper for a better fit. She agreed. In March, 1990, Mrs. Pollio went to the Respondent's office for impressions for the new dentures. In the interim, she continued to wear her existing dentures which she had worn for several years. When she got her first set of dentures from Respondent that same month, she didn't like how they looked or how they fit. She told him so, and he agreed to make her another set. When Respondent gave her her second set of dentures, she did not think they fit any better than the first set he had made for her. They were uncomfortable and she felt the lower denture was too loose. When she told him about this, he said that teeth were supposed to be placed on gums. She disagreed, saying she wanted them to be comfortable so she could chew. She claims he merely stated to her that this was the way they were to fit. He did, however, attempt to adjust both sets over the several times she saw him. Each time she went for an adjustment, Respondent would make some change to the dentures and allegedly said he would get them right even if it took 5 years. However, when he offered to reline the second set of dentures, as he had done to the first set, she refused because she didn't want a reline. She wanted the teeth to be made to fit properly. In all, Dr. Gibney performed 27 adjustments on Mrs. Pollio's dentures. According to Dr. Cadle, it is not routine for a dentist to provide a second set of denture for an unsatisfied patient but it is not unheard of. This fact and the numerous adjustment are, in his opinion, evidence that Respondent was trying to satisfy his patient. By December, 1990, Mrs. Pollio was still complaining to Respondent about the fit of the teeth he had made for her. Respondent claims she wanted a complete partial refund of the amount she had paid. He ultimately offered her a refund of $550.00 if she would sign a release and she decided to think about the offer. When she went back the next day, she claims the office was closed. She later again went to Respondent's office where his assistant, Ginger, handed her a letter terminating the doctor/patient relationship. It was after she received that letter that she agreed to accept the money Respondent had offered but she still refused to sign a release because of the "pain and suffering he had caused her." Dr. Donald I. Cadle, Jr., a dentist practicing in New Port Richey since 1971, former Chairman of the Board of Dentistry, and an expert in general dentistry, was retained by the Board to evaluate Respondent's performance in this case. He reviewed Respondent's records regarding his treatment of Mrs. Pollio including correspondence and x-rays, and the investigative report rendered herein. He also examined Mrs. Pollio on October 14, 1991 and on the basis of all the above had sufficient information on which to base an opinion of the Respondent's work. His review of the lab procedure authorization forms presented to him reveals a lack of finish date on many individual forms. This date is required so that the dentist will know when to arrange for the patient to come back for the dentures. He also noted than on several forms the description of the patient and her condition was minimal but probably enough to be acceptable. On one form the Respondent failed to state how he wanted the teeth set in the mold, (occlusion, spacing, etc.). On other forms, Respondent failed to specify the material used and on some, there was no direction as to contour. As to Respondent's patient records, used to keep all pertinent information regarding a patient in one area, both the statute and the rules say they should include such information as the results and findings of the doctor's initial examination of the patient; a written diagnosis; and a treatment plan. In evaluating Respondent's records relating to Mrs. Pollio, Dr. Cadle found that the treatment notes were adequate as to procedures performed, (what he did in day to day treatment) but that the examination findings and charting of existing conditions were, in his opinion, inadequate. This information would have been determined in the examination at the initial appointment. Respondent's entry is "Denture consult - advised new F/F denture because patient is unable to function with existing F/F denture." In Dr. Cadle's opinion, the Respondent's entry fails to show detailed examination findings which can be found no place else. Also, he claims, the patient history and the dental history forms are inadequate. There is no evidence shown of sores, irritants or other abnormalities and there should be some explanation in the history as to why the patient checked "yes" to questions asked regarding condition. There should also be a diagnosis which relates to the dental conditions in the patient's mouth. Problems had been identified in Dr. Pikos' records, but these are not diagnoses and Dr. Cadle is of the opinion it is lax practice to accept another dentists observations. Dr. Pikos indicated to Respondent by letter that he had discussed some problems and possible alternatives with Mrs. Pollio and this letter was a part of Respondent's records. Nonetheless, Dr. Cadle felt this was not enough. Respondent also should have discussed all alternatives with her. In rebuttal, Respondent asserts that the use of the term "consult" in the records covers his discussion of implants, adhesives and surgery even though they are not specifically noted. He also claims he discussed her pain and other problems when he read the dental history form filled out by Mrs. Pollio's daughter. While it is found that Respondent engaged in the appropriate discussions with Mrs. Pollio, his records do not reflect that and, as such, are inadequate to clearly identify his diagnosis and treatment plan. Cadle found Respondent's treatment plan acceptable as such but other options which existed should have been discussed with the patient and noted in the records. None were so noted. Based on his review of all the available records, Dr. Cadle opined that Respondent's records failed to justify his treatment of Mrs. Pollio and did not meet the required standards as to examination findings and diagnosis. Dr. Cadle examined Mrs. Pollio on October 14, 1991 to evaluate the treatment provided by Respondent and the conditions existing in her mouth. In his report prepared after that examination he noted that the comparison between her old dentures, those she was wearing, and the new ones prepared for her by Respondent, (second set), showed a difference which related to her complaint. He found the maxilary portion of those done by Respondent to be inadequate as to the portion of the anterior teeth which were set differently in the old set, and this related to one of her problems. The "F" sound portion was too heavy and the "S" sound caused a slight whistle. The complaint that the anterior teeth were too long related to the way they were set - the inclination of the teeth. This gave her the feeling they were too big. All of this was visible in her mouth. He also believed the mandibular denture was inadequate because of an over-extension of the border. The edge of the denture extended beyond where it should stop. The reason for this was that the soft tissue in the area was attached higher on the ridge than would be expected. This could have been compensated for during the patient examination and diagnosis and noted in the treatment plan. The patient should have been advised of the condition and what its consequences could be. Respondent's records failed to show this was done. Taken together, Dr. Cadle was of the opinion that the dentures Respondent prepared were inadequate. There were actions he could have taken to correct this. At the initial examination and diagnosis he could have discussed the options available with the patient. Also, after construction of the dentures he could have corrected the maxilary denture by removing and resetting the six front teeth. He also could have reduced the mandibular borders. If that simple procedure had been done, according to Dr. Cadle, it might have resolved the problem. If he had contemplated doing this procedure, however, he would be required to warn Mrs. Pollio that to do it might reduce the strength of the denture and as a result, surgery might become a possibility. Dr. Cadle could find no evidence in the records that any of this was done except for a discussion toward the end of the doctor/patient relationship, but there was no notation as to what action he could take to correct any but one small part of the problem. None of the previous records showed any discussion of the problem or alternatives discussed. Based on the above, Dr. Cadle opined that Respondent's treatment of Mrs. Pollio failed to meet the minimum standards of performance as to both the maxillary and mandibular dentures. In that regard, the mental capacity of the patient should not enter into a determination of the standard of care to be provided. Dr. Ronald E. Myers practices dentistry in Spring Hill and is considered an expert in maxillofacial prosthodontics. He, too, reviewed the Respondent's records of his treatment of Mrs. Pollio and formed an opinion of Respondent's performance quite different from that of Dr. Cadle. He agrees with Cadle that Respondent's treatment records were acceptable for the treatment given but he opined, with regard to the lab requests, that there was sufficient data contained thereon to allow the lab technician to do what was required. A lab order is generally supplemented by either oral or written communications which permit the technician to know what is required. This has to be so since there is no way the dentist can write down all exact specifications on dentures. Here, the Respondent and the lab technician had an understanding of what the Respondent expected in each case as to types of acrylic, the base for the denture, and like matters, unless otherwise indicated. According to Mr. Eidenschink, the technician, he and Respondent had established certain basics as to materials and procedures to be used in all work done for Respondent. On the lab prescription, Respondent would specify what teeth he wanted, and frequently they would speak by phone about specific cases. This is, according to Myers, an accepted procedure. As to the lack of a return date, he admits they are lacking on the copies he saw. Evidence otherwise submitted indicates, however, that the slips examined by both experts, which came from the pad in the dentist's office, were duplicates whereas the original was given to the receptionist who set up a return appointment with the patient before sending that original, with a return date based on that appointment on it, to the lab. A substantial number of original lab slips, furnished by Respondent without objection by counsel for the Board subsequent to the hearing, all clearly reflected a finish date. As to the Respondent's chart dealing with Mrs. Pollio's existing condition, Dr. Myers admits the notes thereon are somewhat skimpy, but since Dr. Pikos' letter to Respondent indicated he had discussed the potential for surgery with Mrs. Pollio, Gibney could have relied on that. In any event, the diagnosis is there and the treatment plan evident is to fabricate complete new dentures. In his opinion, this is sufficient and meets standards. Based on all the above, Dr. Myers is of the opinion that Respondent's records, taken together, are adequate to meet the legal standards. Mrs. Pollio's undercut condition in her upper jaw did not contra- indicate full dentures. This condition does not always indicate the need for surgery. Here high tissue attachment in the front lower jaw can interfere with denture placement but a denture could be fabricated around it.. Psychologically, this can be a problem for denture wearers, many of whom, like Mrs. Pollio dislike wearing dentures and yearn for the days when they didn't have them. This being so, and coupled with her testy personality and her apparent inability to clearly comprehend the situation, Mrs. Pollio appears to be a difficult dental patient. Dr. Myers examined Mrs. Pollio on February 5, 1993. She brought both sets of dentures made for her by Respondent to the examination and was wearing her old dentures. He had her insert both sets of dentures made for her by Respondent and did speech tests and measurements with both. Then he mixed uppers and lowers from the sets in different combinations and when he asked her to give him the first set Respondent made, she gave him the lowers from both sets. Obviously, she was confused and she could not tell which was which from the feel in her mouth. Dr. Myers found the dentures to be made of high quality materials and fabricated to the "pleasure curve" Mrs. Pollio had developed in the old teeth. He did not care for the fit of the first set but this may have been due to the appearance instructions Mrs. Pollio gave to Respondent at that time. He found the second set to be "fine", however - fitting even better than her old set. As to the lower, the anterior flange was overextended into the mouth. This, however, could have been corrected by a minor procedure. Generally, this type of problem can be corrected if the patient and the dentist work together. Here, Myers feels Mrs. Pollio's frustration with the situation precluded this. The teeth were in the proper place, however, and with a possible realignments, they would have fit. Had Mrs. Pollio worked more with Respondent, he could have made them fit. The fact that Mrs. Pollio would go back to her old dentures from time to time could materially effect the fit of the new dentures because such a practice inhibits tissue adaptation. The current looseness of the dentures is due to tissue damage occurring during the past two years since Mrs. Pollio last saw Respondent. Dr. Myers is of the opinion that Respondent did all he could to help Mrs. Pollio accommodate to her new dentures. Unfortunately, it appears, she manipulated him. From all the evidence he observed, Dr. Myers also concluded that Respondent treated the patient properly. He is of the opinion that Respondent met community standards in both his dental records and history and the treatment given.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Dentistry finding Respondent, James W. Gibney, D.M.D., not guilty of incompetence or negligence and not guilty of both preparing inadequate work orders and failing to list examination findings and to chart existing conditions in his records, but guilty only of failing to include an adequate written diagnosis and treatment plan in his records, in violation of Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of April, 1993, 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 19th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but dissatisfaction basis is as alleged by Mrs. Pollio. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as claimed by Mrs. Pollio. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Accepted in part and rejected in part. FOR THE RESPONDENT: No Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Louis Kwall, Esquire 133 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34615 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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
