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 466.028(1)(m) and 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (1998); Subsections 466.028(1)(i) and 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2000); and Subsections 456.072(1)(bb), 466.028(1)(i), 466.028(1)(l), 466.028(1)(m), 466.028(1)(t), and 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2001), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times to this proceeding, Dr. D'Amico was a licensed dentist within the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 7121. From 1999 to 2000, Dr. D'Amico was practicing dentistry at Florida Dental, located at 1535 Prosperity Farms Road, Lake Park, Florida. Florida Dental was a clinical-type practice, with several general dentists and Dr. D'Amico, who was the oral surgeon. In January 2001, Dr. D'Amico and Dr. Charles McNamara entered into an agreement by which Dr. D'Amico agreed to purchase Dr. McNamara's office equipment and supplies and to sublet Dr. McNamara's office space located on Lakemont Avenue in Winter Park, Florida. Because of an extended illness, Dr. McNamara was no longer going to practice at the Lakemont Avenue office, but was going to work for another dentist. When Dr. McNamara vacated his office space, he took his patient records with him. Dr. D'Amico was not an independent contractor of Dr. McNamara's, and they did not share a practice. Dr. D'Amico did not leave any of his patients' records with Dr. McNamara. There was not an agreement between Dr. D'Amico and Dr. McNamara that Dr. McNamara would cover for any of Dr. D'Amico's patients. Dr. McNamara had difficulty with Dr. D'Amico paying the rent for the office space and with payments received by Dr. D'Amico from patients of Dr. McNamara. By September 2001, Dr. McNamara was ready to evict Dr. D'Amico from the premises. Dr. McNamara went to the Lakemont Avenue office to give Dr. D'Amico eviction papers, and Dr. D'Amico was not there. A woman was sitting at the reception desk, and it appeared that the practice was being moved. Dr. McNamara later returned to the office, and it was obvious that Dr. D'Amico was no longer practicing at the Lakemont Avenue address. In the fall of 2001, Dr. John M. Altomare was in the process of leaving his office located at 7145 East Colonial Drive, Orlando, Florida, and moving into a new office which was under construction. During the days and hours that Dr. Altomare was not in his East Colonial Drive office, he agreed to let Dr. D'Amico use the office space. Dr. D'Amico had a separate telephone line at the East Colonial Drive office. Dr. D'Amico did not see any of Dr. Altomare's patients at the East Colonial Drive office. Dr. Altomare did not agree to cover for Dr. D'Amico. The relationship between Dr. D'Amico and Dr. Altomare lasted approximately two to three months during the fall of 2001. In the early part of 2002, Dr. D'Amico associated himself with a dental group in Tampa, Florida. Dr. D'Amico failed to publish a notice in the newspaper of greatest circulation in the county where he practiced, advising his patients of the relocation of his practice, when he left Florida Dental and the East Colonial Drive office. The evidence did not establish that the East Colonial Drive office was outside the local telephone directory service of the Lakemont Avenue office. Vicki Bruno was Dr. D'Amico's office manager beginning on August 1, 2001. She filed the patient records and other information in the patients' files. The files were kept in a filing cabinet at the Lakemont Avenue office. When Dr. D'Amico left the Lakemont Avenue office, the files were removed from the office. When Dr. D'Amico starting working out of Dr. Altomare's office, Ms. Bruno was assigned a closet in which to store the files. The closet space was not adequate to store the files, and, at one time, Ms. Bruno placed the patient files in the trunk of her car. Dr. Edward Allen Rumberger testified as an expert witness for the Department. Dr. Rumberger has been licensed to practice dentistry in Florida since 1975 and is board-certified in oral surgery. He reviewed materials related to the four cases at issue, consisting of patient statements, interviews with other individuals, including a former employee, some of the medical records of the patients, and some of the x-rays related to the cases. Patient C.O. On June 20, 1999, C.O. needed to have some repair work done on his Hader bar and went to Florida Dental, where he had been treated in the past. C.O. normally dealt with another dentist, but on this particular visit, he was seen by Dr. D'Amico. C.O. had four implants in his upper mouth. Dr. D'Amico advised C.O. that he did not have enough support for the implants and that he needed to have two pins inserted, at a cost of $1,000 per pin. As Dr. D'Amico began working on C.O., he advised C.O. that the other implants were infected. C.O. was the last patient to leave Florida Dental on June 20, 1999. After Dr. D'Amico finished his work on C.O., he asked C.O. for a check for $5,300 for the work he had done. C.O., groggy from the anesthesia, wrote a check to Florida Dental and gave it to Dr. D'Amico. C.O. returned to Florida Dental for several more visits after his initial treatment by Dr. D'Amico. Dr. D'Amico removed all of C.O.'s original implants and put in new implants. The new implants became infected and had to be removed. The site of the implants had to be débrided. Several weeks after the débridment procedure, Dr. D'Amico did a tibial harvest and grafting to the maxilla in an attempt to provide bone which would support an implant. After C.O.'s last visit with Dr. D'Amico, C.O. experienced pain, infection, and swelling. Dr. D'Amico had given C.O. several telephone numbers at which C.O. could reach him. C.O. called the telephone numbers that Dr. D'Amico had given him, but he could not reach Dr. D'Amico at any of the numbers called. Dr. D'Amico did not give C.O. the name of another dentist to call in case of an emergency. C.O. returned to Florida Dental and advised the person in charge that he needed to have something done for him. Another dentist, Dr. Castillo, was called in to attend C.O. C.O. continued to see Dr. Castillo, who was eventually able to insert three implants in C.O.'s mouth. After C.O. began treatment with Dr. Castillo, Dr. D'Amico contacted C.O. in an attempt to get C.O. to return to him for treatment. C.O. declined further treatment by Dr. D'Amico. Dr. Rumberger reviewed the medical records relating to C.O.'s treatment by Dr. D'Amico. The medical notes consisted of a brief note that five implants were placed and another note stating "Left Tibial Harvest Global Maxillary Cellular Graft." There was no mention of the type of anesthesia that was used. The records did not contain a treatment plan, which should have been done for both the implants and the tibial harvest. There is no documentation that the procedures were thoroughly discussed with C.O. or that C.O. gave informed consent for the procedures. The records do not contain a diagnosis. The x-rays in C.O.'s file were of poor quality and were unsuitable for use in forming an opinion. The records do not justify the course of treatment used by Dr. D'Amico based on the clinical examinations and x-rays of C.O. Patient J.H. On June 12, 2001, J.H. visited Dr. D'Amico at the Winter Park office, to have four lower teeth extracted. Some of the four teeth were broken and infected, causing J.H. pain. J.H. wanted to be fitted with a partial denture after the lower teeth were extracted. Dr. D'Amico extracted the four teeth on June 12, 2001, while J.H. was under sedation. An assistant was present during at least part of the procedure. On July 11, 2001, J.H. returned to see Dr. D'Amico for examination of the extraction sites and to have an impression made for a partial denture. Dr. D'Amico asked J.H. to remove his upper denture plate. Upon examination, Dr. D'Amico found some redundant soft tissue in the posterior of J.H.'s mouth. Dr. D'Amico told J.H. that the lesions may be precancerous. Dr. D'Amico excised some tissue from both sides of D.H.'s mouth. One sample was sent to a laboratory for testing, and the laboratory results indicated that the lesion was benign. Although Ms. Bruno testified that laboratory work was not being done because Dr. D'Amico was delinquent in paying for laboratory work, the tissue sample that was sent to the laboratory in July was prior to Ms. Bruno's employment with Dr. D'Amico. On July 31, 2001, J.H. returned to Dr. D'Amico's office, where Dr. D'Amico removed tissue from the anterior maxillar vestibule. The lesion in the upper area was probably an epulis fissura, which would not require a biopsy, but would require justification for removal. The tissue was removed to make the area more structurally amenable to wearing a new denture. A sample was not sent to a laboratory for testing. Ten days later, J.H. returned for a post-operative visit, complaining of pain in an area where Dr. D'Amico had excised tissue. J.H. was placed under sedation, and Dr. D'Amico reopened the incision. Dr. D'Amico removed a suture needle from the site. Tiffany Callicott, who was Dr. D'Amico's assistant, was present during the procedure and witnessed the removal of the suture needle. Dr. D'Amico did not tell J.H. that a suture needle had been left in his gum. When J.H. awoke from the anesthesia, Dr. D'Amico told J.H. that he had removed a stone. Later Ms. Callicott told J.H. that Dr. D'Amico had removed a suture needle and not a stone. J.H. had difficulty in getting Dr. D'Amico to fill out and submit insurance claims for J.H.'s dental work. He went to Dr. D'Amico's office to see about the insurance. One of Dr. D'Amico's staff gave J.H. three vials containing tissue samples which Dr. D'Amico had removed from J.H.'s mouth. J.H. took the vials to his family physician so that the samples could be sent to a laboratory. J.H. was billed for laboratory analyses for the two tissue samples that Dr. D'Amico did not send to the laboratory. He was also billed for the work that Dr. D'Amico did in removing the suture needle. Lija Scherer is a medical malpractice investigator with the Department. Part of her responsibilities, include obtaining medical records for cases which are being investigated. Ms. Scherer obtained an authorization for release of patient information from J.H. and served Dr. D'Amico with a subpoena to produce the medical records for J.H. Dr. D'Amico failed to produce the medical records. The evidence is not clear how the Department obtained the dental records for J.H., but some records were furnished by the Department to Dr. Rumberger. The medical records furnished to Dr. Rumberger consisted of two anesthesia records and a few progress notes, which were in different handwritings and were not signed or identified. Patient A.P. Dr. D'Amico provided dental treatment to A.P. in September 2001. A.P. had been advised by his regular dentist that his wisdom teeth were impacted and needed to be removed. A.P. went to the office of Dr. McNamara in Winter Park, Florida, to arrange to have the teeth extracted. When A.P. arrived at the office, he was met by Dr. D'Amico, who advised A.P. that Dr. McNamara had retired and that he was taking over the practice. A.P. agreed to allow Dr. D'Amico to treat him. On the first visit, A.P. brought a panoramic x-ray which had been taken by his general dentist. Dr. D'Amico went over the x-ray with A.P., told A.P. the procedure that he would use to extract the teeth, advised A.P. that he would have anesthesia for the procedure, and advised A.P. of the number of days needed for recovery. A.P. made an appointment with Dr. D'Amico to have his wisdom teeth removed on the Friday of the following week, September 13, 1991. S.P., A.P.'s mother, accompanied A.P. to Dr. D'Amico's office for the surgical procedure. A.P. filled out a medical history form and indicated that he was allergic to codeine. A.P. was taken to a room, which contained only a chair in which A.P. sat, a stool on which Dr. D'Amico sat, and a device by which the anesthesia was to be administered. Dr. D'Amico was accompanied by an assistant. A.P. was given anesthesia through an I.V. and went completely to sleep. Dr. D'Amico extracted the four wisdom teeth. After the surgical procedure, Dr. D'Amico's assistant gave S.P. three prescriptions for A.P. and no oral post- operative instructions.1 One of the prescriptions was a pain reliever, one was an antibiotic, and one was for inflammation. Neither A.P. nor his mother was advised that the anti-inflammation medication should be started immediately following surgery. A.P. did not have the prescriptions filled until the day after the surgery. A.P. felt that one of the medications contained codeine, and he did not take that medication. The evidence does not establish that codeine or a medication containing codeine was actually prescribed. After the surgery, A.P. experienced discoloration on the arm in which the I.V. had been given. The arm turned a dark purple from his elbow to his wrist. A.P. was also experiencing pain in his jaw. On the Monday following the procedure, A.P. attempted to contact Dr. D'Amico by telephone. A.P.'s telephone calls were put through to an answering service. A.P. received no answer from Dr. D'Amico on Monday. The next day A.P. again called Dr. D'Amico and spoke with a woman with the answering service. He told the lady that it was an emergency and that he needed to speak to Dr. D'Amico. About ten minutes later, Dr. D'Amico returned A.P.'s telephone call. Dr. D'Amico advised A.P. to apply warm compresses to his arm and that it was normal to have pain after impacted wisdom teeth were removed. A.P. was told to call Dr. D'Amico's office and set up an appointment to see Dr. D'Amico in a week. A.P. was still in a lot of pain and tried to telephone Dr. D'Amico again on Wednesday and Thursday. He was unsuccessful in reaching the doctor. A.P. left messages with the answering service, but Dr. D'Amico did not respond. On Friday, September 20, 2001, A.P. again tried to telephone Dr. D'Amico. This time he was unable to reach either Dr. D'Amico or the answering service. By September 20, 2001, S.P. became frustrated with the lack of response from Dr. D'Amico to A.P.'s attempts to contact him. S.P. went back to the office where the surgery had been performed, and the office was closed. Dr. D'Amico had advised her that he would be moving his office, so she also went to the location where the office was to be moved, but that office was also closed. She left a letter marked "urgent" at both offices. The letter stated that she and her son had been unable to contact Dr. D'Amico and that her son needed to be checked because he was still in pain and his arm was swollen at the site of the I.V. injection. In the letter, S.P. listed four telephone numbers by which either she or her son could be reached. Neither A.P. nor S.P. received any response from Dr. D'Amico. S.P. called another dentist, Dr. Andre Buchs, and requested that he see A.P. Dr. Buchs, who is board-certified in oral and maxillofacial surgery, saw A.P. on September 21, 2001. Dr. Buchs diagnosed possible phlebitis of the right arm secondary to the intravenous sedation that A.P. had been given by Dr. D'Amico. Phlebitis is an inflammation of the inside of the vein. Dr. Buchs also examined A.P. for the severe pain that A.P. was having in his upper right jaw. He found that there was a hole or perforation in the sinus membrane so that there was a communication between the mouth and the maxillary sinus. About 85 percent of such openings will spontaneously close over a period of time. The treatment was to prevent the area from getting infected with antibiotic therapy and to observe the opening for two to three months. Dr. Buchs prescribed amoxicillin and told A.P. to apply warm compresses to his arm and to avoid anything that would aggravate the perforation. He also advised A.P. that if he was unsuccessful in locating Dr. D'Amico to come by for a follow-up visit. Dr. Buchs saw A.P. again on September 26, 2001. A.P. was doing better by the time of the follow-up visit. On October 17, 2001, A.P. again saw Dr. Buchs. At this time, the opening in the sinus cavity appeared to be closing. Dr. Buchs did see a raised firm lump on A.P.'s inner right arm, which meant that A.P. had a true phlebitis. Ms. Scherer obtained an authorization for release of patient information from A.P. and served Dr. D'Amico with a subpoena for the medical records of A.P. Dr. D'Amico failed to produce the medical records. Thus, there are no medical records available to document the course of treatment for A.P. Patient M.F. M.F. saw an advertisement in her local newspaper that Dr. D'Amico, a maxillofacial surgeon, was associated with Florida Dental. M.F. had been experiencing discomfort with her set of dentures that was not functioning properly. She felt that implants might be a better solution to her problems and that a maxillofacial surgeon could perform the procedure. In October 1999, she went to see Dr. D'Amico for a consultation. Dr. D'Amico explained that he would place six implants into her upper gum ridge and that it would take approximately four months to complete the process. Dr. D'Amico described the steps in the procedure. A week later M.F. returned to Dr. D'Amico to begin the procedure. After the implants were inserted, M.F. began a waiting period to see if the implants would be rejected. She did have pain with two of the implants, and Dr. D'Amico did further work on those implants, which resolved the pain. During the implant process, M.F. would wait until Dr. D'Amico called her to come in for further work. Frequently he would make an appointment with M.F. and not appear for the appointment. M.F. would go to different locations for her appointments with Dr. D'Amico. Some of the locations appeared to her to be dental offices and some did not. During the healing process, Dr. D'Amico placed healing columns in the implants. Impressions were made for temporary teeth. M.F. wore the temporary teeth until permanent teeth could be made. During one session in which Dr. D'Amico was making an impression for her permanent teeth, he broke one of the front teeth on the temporary set. Dr. D'Amico told M.F. that she could get some Crazy Glue and repair the tooth. M.F. tried to repair the tooth with Crazy Glue, but it would not hold. Thus, M.F. had a missing front tooth for three or four months. After Dr. D'Amico had fitted M.F. with temporary teeth, he told her that he was going to move his dental practice to Boynton Beach. She did not hear from Dr. D'Amico for approximately three or four months. M.F. went to Boynton Beach to look for him, but was unsuccessful in locating him. Dr. D'Amico finally called M.F. and set up an appointment in Winter Park to finish placing the permanent teeth. She went to the appointment. According to M.F., when Dr. D'Amico placed the permanent teeth in her mouth, the teeth did not fit. There was one central incisor in front, and the second incisor was placed to the side. M.F. complained that the upper and lower teeth on both sides did not touch, resulting in difficulty in chewing. The permanent teeth were a different color from her natural lower teeth. Dr. Rumberger opined that the provision of permanent teeth was beyond Dr. D'Amico's expertise and that Dr. D'Amico should have referred M.F. to another dentist for that procedure. In an attempt to get better articulation between the upper and lower teeth, Dr. D'Amico filed a cap on her lower teeth. The cap had been placed by another dentist. In filing the cap, Dr. D'Amico exposed the metal. He did not offer to repair the cap. Dr. Rumberger did not give an opinion on whether the filing of the cap was below the standard of care. His comment was, "That can happen." Dr. D'Amico told M.F. to try wearing the permanent teeth for two weeks. After the two weeks had passed, M.F. called Dr. D'Amico's office. She was told by the person answering the telephone that Dr. D'Amico would return her call, but he did not. Several months passed before Dr. D'Amico contacted M.F. to come in so that the permanent teeth could be cemented in place. At this time, five of the implants had permanent abutments, but one implant still had a temporary abutment. Dr. D'Amico was going to cement the teeth without replacing the temporary abutment with a permanent abutment. M.F. would not allow him to cement the teeth in place without all the permanent abutments inserted. Dr. D'Amico moved his practice again. M.F. could not locate him and wanted to have the work finished. M.F. had paid Dr. D'Amico in full, approximately $20,000, for the work prior to the work being finished. She had the implant work finished by another dentist at a cost of $9,000. M.F. brought a legal action against Dr. D'Amico to recover her money. The medical records of M.F., which were provided to Dr. Rumberger for his review, were minimal and illegible. There was no mention of a study model being used or that there was a pre-op consultation with a dentist who would construct the permanent teeth. The medical records for M.F. were inadequate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Dr. D'Amico violated Subsections 466.028(1)(m) and 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (1998); Subsections 466.028(1)(i) and 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2000); and Subsections 466.028(1)(i), 466.028(1)(l), 466.028(1)(m), 466.028(1)(t), 466.028(1)(x), and 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2001). It is further recommended that Dr. D'Amico's license be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dr. John R. Parry, at all times pertinent to this hearing, was licensed by the State of Florida to practice dentistry under License No. DN- 0005282. His primary practice is at the Florence Denture Clinic, located at 255 Wymore Road, Winter Park, Florida, but he also operates several other clinics under the same name in Jacksonville and St. Petersburg, Florida. In late February, 1981, Nancy Bradley, a 28-year-old married woman living in Leesburg, Florida, was experiencing extreme pain due to an abscessed tooth. She had tried to get dental treatment in her hometown, but for some reason was unable to do so, so she requested that her sister, Leslie Wilson, who lives in Orlando, get an appointment for her with a dentist in that area. Ms. Wilson contacted Respondent's Winter Park clinic and made an appointment for Ms. Bradley for February 27, 1981. During the course of her conversation with the receptionist, she was quoted the price for various services provided by the clinic. She called this clinic because she had been treated there before and it was the only place she knew that was reasonable. On February 27, 1981, Ms. Bradley and Ms. Wilson went to Respondent's clinic early in the morning. Ms. Bradley told the receptionist she had a bad tooth, filled out some forms, paid $180 in advance, and was told to wait. At this time, even though early in the morning, the waiting room was crowded. After a wait of approximately 30 minutes, she was called in for X rays and afterwards, after a wait of an additional five minutes or so, was taken into the work area. She described this area as a large room broken up by partitions into separate work stations. After being put in the chair, she waited for a few minutes until a man she identified later as Wayne Giddens came in and took a molded impression of her mouth. She described the man in question and heard him referred to by others as Wayne. Her description fits that of the Wayne Giddens who testified at the hearing. After Giddens left, Respondent came in and examined her mouth, telling her she needed to have four teeth pulled. Ms. Bradley told Respondent to pull only those teeth which could not reasonably be saved. Respondent did not tell her which teeth would have to be pulled. At this point, Ms. Wilson, who was also present, started asking questions as to why the teeth could not be saved. Respondent became upset by these questions, told Ms. Wilson to leave, threw the X rays down on the tray and told Ms. Bradley that if he did not pull the teeth, he would not do anything. When she acquiesced, he told her to come back at 2:00 that afternoon. Because she had already paid for the treatment, because she was in much pain from her teeth, and because she thought the doctor knew what he was talking about, she came back as instructed and was taken into another room for treatment. This time her sister, Ms. Wilson, remained in the waiting room. When Ms. Bradley was seated, a different dentist from Respondent came in and, after quickly looking at her chart, gave her an injection of anesthetic. Almost immediately and before the injection had a chance to take effect, this dentist started to pull her teeth. It hurt badly, and she asked for more anesthetic, which the doctor administered, and again began to pull her tooth. Partly through the procedure, however, he stopped, called someone on the phone that was there, and asked why an oral surgeon had not been called in. Apparently satisfied with the answer he received, he returned to the patient and finished the extraction. After the first tooth was removed, the doctor started to pull a front tooth. Ms. Bradley asked why he was pulling there, when her pain was in the back. The attending dentist said it was because Respondent, Dr. Parry, bad said so. The attending dentist, however, indicated his opinion that the extraction of the front tooth was questionable. A total of four teeth were pulled from Ms. Bradley's mouth that day. These were teeth numbered 3, 9, 10, and 12. Aside from the initial comment to Respondent requesting that any teeth that could be saved not be pulled and her question to the attending dentist, Ms. Bradley did not raise any objection to the extraction of her teeth. She indicated that she trusted the doctor involved, and since she had come in to seek relief from an abscess, in light of her prefatory comments, she felt that if teeth were pulled, they had to be pulled. In fact, she signed a consent form numbered 1083, which refers to an attached Information Sheet. Ms. Bradley does not recall having seen the information sheet, but no doubt was furnished one. However, review of the information sheet shows the "procedures outlined" are not at all clearly defined. In fact, it is more in the form of a disclaimer and cannot in any reasonable way be considered as forming the basis for an informed consent. Consequently, it is clear that the procedures undertaken by Respondent and his staff were not based on a full and informed consent by the patient, Ms. Bradley. After the teeth in question were pulled, Ms. Bradley was taken into another room, where she was put in a chair. At this point, though her mouth was still bloody from the extractions, the same individual who took the impressions earlier in the day came in with the dentures and inserted them in her mouth. He told her to leave them there for 24 hours and not to eat for the period, and left. Ms. Bradley was then led out to the waiting room, where her sister met her. Ms. Wilson was quite upset by the condition of Ms. Bradley and, after taking her to the car, immediately went back into the clinic to talk with someone about the situation. When she asked for Respondent, she was told that he and all other dentists were gone for the day. A few days later, Ms. Bradley went to another dentist, Dr. Rucher, who treated her for four dry sockets, where the teeth had been pulled, and a gum infection. He also made a new partial bridge for her to replace the one made at Respondent's clinic, which device did not fit properly. She did not return to Respondent's clinic. Mr. Giddens, the individual who took the impression of Ms. Bradley's mouth and who placed the completed bridgework in, is not a licensed dentist, but is a dental technician and has been for approximately 14 years. He has had no formal schooling for his work and has secured all his knowledge through on-the- job training. With the exception of a three-month hiatus in the summer of 1982, he has worked for Respondent since 1980. He primarily works in quality control, inspecting dentures when they come from the laboratory. His duties do not include taking impressions of patients' mouths or the fitting of dentures. These are functions performed by others in the office. He denies having put any dentures in Ms. Bradley's mouth. If he were to do so, he states, Respondent would fire him. The dental chart on each patient contains the initials of the individual who actually accomplished the work. For example, the chart on Ms. Bradley shows that on February 27, 1981, the examination and the X rays were performed by "P," which stands for "Parry." The delivery of the dentures is noted by the initials "WG." Mr. Giddens' first name is Wayne. Therefore, since Ms. Bradley positively identified Mr. Giddens as the individual who took the impression of her mouth and later inserted the denture, since she called him by name from overhearing his name mentioned by others in the clinic while the work was being done, and since the witness alone initialed the records denoting delivery of the dentures, it is found that Mr. Giddens did, in fact, do both, as alleged. As was previously found, four teeth were pulled from Ms. Bradley's mouth at Respondent's clinic on February 27, 1981. These teeth were identified on her dental chart as Nos. 3, 9, 10, and 12. Several experts in the field of dental surgery examined the X rays that were taken of Ms. Bradley's mouth at Respondent's clinic on the day of her visit, but before the extraction. This X- ray picture shows clearly the condition of teeth numbered 9, 10, and 12. It was the consensus of all experts that teeth numbered 9 and 10 were not in such deteriorated condition that they needed to be pulled. A reasonable amount of restoration work by a competent dentist could have saved these two teeth. It was also the consensus that tooth numbered 12 was not reasonably salvageable and was properly extracted. Because of the location of tooth numbered 3 and the quality of the X ray, no firm opinion was reached by the experts with regard to this tooth. Therefore, it is found that of the four teeth pulled, two, Nos. 9 and 10, could have been saved by the use of root canal and crown work, a reasonably simple procedure which was available, but considerably more costly than the extraction and bridgework. Ms. Bradley indicated that while she has paid little attention to her mouth and tooth condition prior to this episode, and that while her mouth, at the time in question, was not in good shape and did not reflect good dental hygiene practices, she would have paid what was necessary to save her teeth. There are numerous factors for a patient to consider before making a decision to have teeth extracted. Among these are: The willingness to have it done with the knowledge that once the tooth is gone, it is forever. The patient's dental I.Q.--the willingness of the patient to practice good dental hygiene afterwards. The cost of restoration versus extraction. The pain and inconvenience to the patient, recognizing that restorative treatment may require several visits while extraction is done in one visit. Generally speaking and based on these considerations, most dentists believe it is better to save a tooth than to extract it. With that in mind, it is generally considered to be practice below minimum community standards not to advise a potential extraction patient of available alternative treatments. It is up to the patient, then, to make the decision whether to extract or not, after being provided with all reasonable available information. If there is a proper informed consent given by the patient, then an extraction of even salvageable teeth would not be practice below minimum standards. However, if a dentist pulls a restorable tooth without informing the patient of alternative treatments, since any taking of patient tissue is serious, this action would fall below community standards. The standards stated above are no different for a high-volume clinic practice than for a routine practice. All elections of the patient, including the fact that the patient was advised and declined alternate treatment, should be made a part of the patient records. Here, the records kept by Respondent reflect no advice as to alternatives nor an election as to treatment. The "consent" form utilized by Respondent is totally insufficient to establish informed consent. Respondent did not authorize Mr. Giddens to either take the impression of Ms. Bradley's mouth or insert the appliance. To do either would be the unauthorized practice of dentistry. It is his policy that technicians do not get into a patient's mouth, particularly in the case of partial bridgework, where the fit is critical. He does not recall Ms. Bradley nor is she listed in his appointment book for the date in question. This latter factor, he states, indicates she came in either as a walk-in, or was fit in as a favor to her sister, already a patient at the clinic. As to the payment, she could not have had a fee set until it was determined what action would be taken. Also, Ms. Bradley was patient number 17 for the day. Respondent states this shows she did not come in early, but more like 8:30 or 9:00 a.m. All of these factors are claimed by Respondent to show that Ms. Bradley is not being truthful in her allegations. However, this has not been shown. Respondent, in one statement, says he does not recall this patient, nor does he recall throwing the X rays on the table and stalking out of the office. However, he contends she asked him to take out the four teeth in question. Based on the state of the evidence, Ms. Bradley is the more credible witness.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent pay an administrative fine of $2,000 and be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 6th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Gallagher, Esq. Department of professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas Infantino, Esq. Post Office Drawer 30 Winter Park, Florida 32790-0030 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Varn Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Dade Dental Laboratories was opened in 1973-74 by a nonprofit corporation which leased dental facilities contiguous and internally connected thereto to dentists. One of the original organizers of the laboratory, Samuel Kushner, was a laboratory technician who had so worked in New York for many years. Respondent was employed on a salary (hourly) basis in 1978 to work as a dentist at the dental facility located at 1225 Washington Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida and known as Dade Dental Associates (hereinafter referred to as Dade Dental). At this time, Dade Dental Laboratories was owned by the wives of Samuel Kushner and Frank Schiller. Schiller was employed as office administrator. Dade Dental Laboratories owned the lease of the premises and equipment located therein. In 1978, the dental office spaces were leased to Frederick Stang, D.D.S., who employed Respondent and other dentists on a salary basis. Effective 1 July 1979, Respondent's wife purchased the fifty percent interest in the laboratory previously owned by Mrs. Kushner and the sub1ease of the dental offices was given to Respondent. Stang continued as an employee of Respondent until September 1979. Frank Schiller spoke Yiddish and was often used as a translator for some of the older Jewish clients who came to Dade Dental. After the sublease was given to Respondent, Schiller continued as administrator until September 1979. The ownership of the fifty percent interest in the laboratory owned by Mrs. Schiller, if not still held by Mrs. Schiller, was not shown. Inspections of the premises at 1225 Washington Avenue were conducted in August, September and October 1979 and again in January 1980. The inspection conducted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on September 24, 1979 revealed X-ray equipment that was defective by reason of not being properly shielded and having a timer operating erratically (Exhibits 4 and 5); the inspections conducted September 6 and 13 revealed old equipment, improper sterilization of instruments, a very dirty laboratory, dirty impression trays, bite blocks with teeth marks indicating prior use, rusted instruments where chrome had chipped off the underlying steel, no sterile sutures, and a cold dry-heat sterilizer. Following these inspections, Respondent ordered a new X-ray machine and new instruments. No evidence was presented that the rusty instruments found in the dental operatories were ever used on a patient. Respondent's testimony, which was not rebutted, was that he didn't like the instruments located in the operatories when he started working there and he brought his own instruments which he used. The charges of allowing unauthorized persons to perform acts constituting the practice of dentistry, malpractice, misconduct in business or personal affairs of a nature to bring the dental profession into disrepute, and failing to exercise proper care in the treatment of patients involved Joseph Cedar and Hilda Hirschman. After receiving a high estimate of the cost for needed dental work from his dentist, Joseph Cedar, at the recommendation of a friend, went to Dade Dental for a second estimate. He first saw Frank Schiller, who took Cedar to Seymour Rickles, D.D.S., one of the dentists employed at the facility. Cedar described Schiller as the "boss" who gave orders and who looked into his mouth. No evidence was presented that Schiller ever put his hands or any instrument in Cedar's mouth while Cedar was being treated by Respondent or any other dentist at Dade Dental. After examination and impression, Rickles prepared crowns and a partial denture. Although Cedar testified that Rickles performed all the work done on him, the dental record (Exhibit 14) shows 5 dentists worked on Cedar at this office. However, most of the work appears to have been done by Rickles and Stang. After the work on Cedar had been completed, he complained of pain from the partial dentures which had been prepared for him and was referred to Respondent, who first saw Cedar on June 28, 1979 when he adjusted the partial plates. Exhibit 14 indicates Respondent again saw Cedar on July 3, 19, 24, 25 and August 7 for adjustments. Cedar testified he told Respondent about a sore spot near the partial denture on the upper left side of his mouth but Respondent only told him it was not caused by the dentures. Respondent's version was that he X-rayed the lower right side of Cedars' mouth where the partial had been fitted and found an abscess which could cause the pain described by Cedar, and that Cedar never complained of soreness in the upper left area of his mouth. On August 15 or 16, 1979 Cedar went to the dental clinic at Mount Sinai Medical Center complaining of a soreness in the upper left area of his mouth. He was examined by several dentists because the affected area looked suspicious, and a biopsy was done. This showed the lesion to be squalus cell carcinoma, which was subsequently excised. The lesion removed from Cedar's mouth was well-differentiated in mid- August when he was seen at Mt. Sinai. It is unlikely that a well-differentiated lesion will develop in a week to ten days, but could develop in a period of two or more weeks. A competent dentist should recognize a well-differentiated lesion and refer the patient to an oral surgeon. Failure to do so constitutes practice below minimum accepted community standards. Respondent has referred other patients to oral surgeons when suspicious conditions were observed in patients' mouths. (Exhibit 18). Hilda Hirschman first visited Dade Dental in December 1978 and was referred to Respondent. She had several teeth extracted by Respondent, partial dentures made and two crowns installed. Mrs. Hirschman testified that Schiller escorted her into Respondent's office on her first visit and wrote down and quoted to her prices for work as he and Grebin talked. She thought Schiller was the head dentist. She also testified that one time Schiller ground down one of her teeth. When told periodontal treatment was indicated, Mrs. Hirschman told Respondent she did not want root canals done. After her teeth had been extracted and partials made, the partials were inserted by Respondent, but neither of the partials fit. The upper was adjusted to fit and a second impression was taken for the lower. Mrs. Hirschman was later examined by Dr. Leonard Sakris at the request of the Dental Board. From his study of the X-rays taken in November 1978 and August 1979 and his examination of the patient, Dr. Sakris opined that the teeth extracted by Respondent could have been saved if root canal therapy had been used and crowns installed. This examination also revealed the condition of Mrs. Hirschman's mouth to be bad, with two ill-fitting partial dentures and restoration placed over decay. The conclusion this decay existed when Respondent treated Mrs. Hirschman was reached from the X-rays. On cross- examination, Dr. Sakris acknowledged that decay was not always discernible on X- rays and could be misdiagnosed absent a visual examination and probe by the dentist. Dr. Sakris' examination did not confirm Mrs. Hirschman's testimony that Schiller had ground down her tooth. He found no evidence of grinding, except possibly on Lower Left Canine 3. This is also the tooth with decay found on Sakris' examination. The crown on Lower Right 5 placed by Respondent had a bad margin and decay when Mrs. Hirschman was examined by Sakris. Unless margin of crown makes solid contact with tooth, decay can occur. It is below acceptable minimum standards to leave open margins between crown and tooth. Respondent's testimony that he suggested Mrs. Hirschman go to a periodontist for root canal treatment and she refused is corroborated by Mrs. Hirschman's testimony that she didn't want the expense of root canals. Without periodontal treatment for Mrs. Hirschman's dental condition, extraction is the standard practice. Respondent's testimony that both he and Stang worked on Mrs. Hirschman is supported by Exhibit 13 and lends credence to his testimony that he did not prepare the crowns he installed on this patient. Further, Exhibit 13 contains the notation that Mrs. Hirschman "refuses pero" (presumably periodontal treatment) and confirms Respondent's testimony that the patient's refusal to have root canals left him no choice but extraction. The parties stipulated that the advertising which forms the basis for Counts XVI II through XXI was ordered and paid for by Stang, although it continued for some two months after Respondent took over the operation of the dental clinic before it was stopped. Respondent's testimony that he neither ordered nor paid for the advertising which appeared after July 1, 1979 was not disputed. No evidence was presented regarding the character of this advertising, other than the examples thereof shown in Exhibit 8.
