Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this hearing, Petitioner held an active license as a dentist (No. 4385) in the State of Florida. On July 29, 1981, Respondent performed a difficult maxillary hyperplastic surgery on Mrs. Jeanette Remington which required several follow-up visits and treatment. Sometime after the surgery, Mrs. Remington made a trip to Bolivia. Upon her return in either September or October, 1981, she called Respondent regarding her treatment. He felt it was necessary for her to come to his office for further examination and treatment. However, because she was suffering from acute diarrhea, she was unable to leave the house. As a result, Respondent prescribed paregoric for her to control the diarrhea so that she could leave her home to come to his office for required dental examination and treatment. Paregoric, as a derivative of opium, is a controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes (1979 and 1981). As a result, a prescription was required to obtain it. It is not generally used in the practice of dentistry. Dr. Edgar Allen Cosby, a dentist since 1950 and a former chairman of the Florida Board of Dentistry in 1979, testified, and I so find, that often a dentist will treat minor, unrelated medical problems for the purpose of getting a patient into the office. It is only recently that prescription of any drug by a licensed dentist was limited. Prior to that time, a dentist could prescribe any drug provided his license and Drug Enforcement Agency certificate were current. In November, 1981, Dr. Peters called in a prescription for Tylenol IV for Fred Remington to Sharon S. MacMahon, a registered pharmacist at the Gainesville Pic 'N Save drugstore. Ms. MacMahon filled the prescription, which had a refill authorization on it. Mr. Remington went back two days later and requested a refill. Since Ms. MacMahon felt this was too soon for a refill, she refused to do so and attempted, unsuccessfully, to reach Respondent. The following day, when Mr. Remington came back, she was able to contact Respondent, who approved the prescription. When she asked Respondent what the prescription was for, he indicated it was for a head injury resulting from a fall. Mr. Remington, on the other hand, indicated to Ms. Collins, the investigator, the prescription was for pain resulting from an auto injury. Regardless of which one was accurate, neither relates to the practice of dentistry. Tylenol IV is a derivative of codeine and is designated as a controlled substance in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes (1979 and 1981). At some time during Respondent's first year of dental practice (in 1971 or 1972), Respondent prescribed amphetamines on one occasion to a student at the University of Florida who was studying for examinations. The amphetamine was in the form of Dexedrine, the trade name for dextroamphetamine, and is currently designated as a Schedule II controlled substance in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes (1979 and 1981). Amphetamines, in 1971, were considered as a "central nervous system stimulant," as defined in Section 404.01, Florida Statutes (1971), and a prescription was required to obtain them. Ms. MacMahon has never filled a prescription for amphetamines by Respondent during her 8 1/2 years as a pharmacist. An audit of 15 to 20 pharmacies in the Gainesville area conducted by investigators for the Petitioner failed to reveal any prescriptions for amphetamines written by the Respondent during the two or more years records were kept. At some point, well prior to March, 1982, Respondent administered nitrous oxide gas to himself for purposes not related to the practice of dentistry. Respondent was divorced in 1976 and utilized the gas to relax himself, not while engaged in practice, as a result of the stress involved with his divorce. Nitrous oxide is a gas used in the practice of dentistry to relax or sedate patients prior to dental treatment. It is a form of anesthetic. Respondent's nitrous oxide equipment has been inoperative for several years because the storage tanks were stolen and not replaced. This theft was reported to the police. Respondent is considered by Petitioner's investigator and by other practitioners to be very conservative in his prescription of drugs. He does not prescribe large quantities of Schedule II drugs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Counts I and III be dismissed for lack of evidence and that Respondent be assessed an administrative fine of $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of July, 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 8th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Gallagher, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth E. Brooten, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 788 Gainesville, Florida 32602 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 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF DENTISTRY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, CASE NOS. 0017971 (DPR) v. 82-2128 (DOAH) LICENSE NO. DN 0004385 PAUL E. PETERS, JR., D.D.S., Respondent. /
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent owes a penalty for failing to obtain workers' compensation insurance for its employees and, if so, the amount of the penalty, pursuant to sections 440.10 and 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a corporation that operated a dental practice at 16940 Southwest 94th Court, Miami, Florida, during the period in question, which is January 30, 2010, through January 30, 2013. The corporation became effective on October 25, 2007, and, as stipulated by the parties, became inactive on September 27, 2013. At all material times, Dr. Ronia Baker, a dentist licensed to practice in Florida, was an officer and shareholder of Respondent. Her brother, now deceased, served as the corporation's business manager during the period in question. Petitioner's investigator conducted a site visit on January 30, 2013. During the visit, the investigator asked Dr. Baker if Respondent maintained workers' compensation insurance on its employees. She replied that she thought so, but called the company's insurance agent to make sure. The agent informed Dr. Baker that Respondent did not have workers' compensation insurance. Dr. Baker promptly informed the investigator of this fact and apologized for this oversight. Respondent purchased workers' compensation insurance later the same day. After confirming that, based on the number of its employees, Respondent was required to have workers' compensation insurance, the investigator issued a Stop Work Order during the January 30, 2013, site visit. Cooperating fully with the investigation, Dr. Baker provided Petitioner with all Respondent's records covering employees from January 30, 2010, through January 30, 2013. From this information, Petitioner prepared the above-described Penalty Assessment, which determined a total gross payroll of $625,919.81. Respondent contends that it is not required to obtain workers' compensation insurance for two classes of employees listed on the Penalty Assessment: independent contractors and employees secured by Dental Staffing Service, which is a provider of dental office employees on a temporary or permanent basis. According to Respondent, two employees were independent contractors: Juan Morffi and Nelson Fleites. In terms of gross payroll, Respondent paid Mr. Morffi a total of $3721.67 during 2010 and 2011 and Mr. Fleites a total of $510.60 during 2011. The record is better developed as to Mr. Morffi's duties, but it appears that Mr. Fleites performed the same services under the same conditions of employment as Mr. Morffi. Mr. Morffi and Mr. Fleites worked as dental technicians who made dentures for Respondent's patients. At the start of the period in question, Respondent paid these dental technicians about $25 per hour for their services. Although Respondent later paid these technicians by the piece, Dr. Baker was unsure of when this change in compensation took place, so she could not say whether any of the above identified payments to these dental technicians constituted payments by the piece, rather than by the hour. Mr. Morffi and Mr. Fleites both had fulltime jobs, so they worked for Respondent as time permitted. Respondent gave Mr. Morffi and Mr. Fleites keys to the office, so they could work hours of their choosing, including while the office was closed. Mr. Morffi and Mr. Fleites did not see Respondent's patients. Their workplace was not visible to patients, so they wore clothes of their choosing, even if working during normal business hours. Mr. Morffi and Mr. Fleites provided their own tools, but also used Respondent's equipment in fabricating dentures. Dr. Baker did not dictate to these dental technicians how to make dentures, but insisted that their final products met her quality standards. According to Respondent, 12 employees were provided by Dental Staffing Services: Marilia Mareno, Rosana Perez, Tatiana Marrero, Soraya Mejia, Carmen Louima, Emmashea Telemaque, Jeannette Joe, Milessa Marquez, Vanessa Herrera, Zaidis Campos, Mercedes Paternina, and Gisela Robson. In terms of gross payroll, Respondent paid these employees a total of $25,348.15. Respondent's service agreement with Dental Staffing Service provides that the persons referred to Respondent "are not employees of" Dental Staffing Service, and Respondent shall pay these persons directly at the rates set by Dental Staffing Service. Respondent also holds Dental Staffing Service harmless from any liability that may arise under the agreement for persons referred pursuant to the agreement.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order determining that Respondent is guilty of failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation and imposing a penalty of $3802.93. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 24th day of June, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Alexander Brick, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6502 (eServed) Ronia Baker Beautiful Smiles South Miami, P.A. 15801 South Dixie Highway, Suite B Palmetto Bay, Florida 33157 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue The issues are whether the Respondent, a licensed dental hygienist, should be disciplined for violating section 456.072(1)(v), Florida Statutes (2015),1/ by engaging or attempting to engage in sexual misconduct, as defined by section 456.063(1); and, if so, the appropriate discipline.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed as a dental hygienist in the state of Florida, having been issued license DH 16819. Between November 2015 and February 2016, the Respondent was working as a part-time (Monday, Wednesday, Friday) dental hygienist at Coral Dental and Denture in Cape Coral (Coral Dental). Coral Dental is owned and operated by Juan Castellanos, D.D.S. On January 13, 2016, a patient identified in the hearing transcript as B.M.1, a 77-year old female, had a cleaning performed by the Respondent. This was the patient’s second visit to Coral Dental, but the first time having work done by the Respondent. Her first cleaning was performed by a female dental hygienist named Marley (sometimes spelled Marly in deposition transcripts), who is Dr. Castellanos’ wife. The patient was not used to having cleanings done by a male dental hygienist and preferred the female dental hygienist. She asked the Respondent why he was doing the cleaning, and he told her it was because she was on his schedule. During the course of the cleaning performed that day, the patient felt the Respondent touch her upper chest near her breasts with the back of his forearm once or twice. This made her feel uncomfortable. She also had several other complaints about the cleaning. When she checked out at the front desk after the appointment, she began crying. When asked why, she told the office manager what happened. (The office manager was Traci Roesler. Her name is misspelled Tracey in the hearing transcript and Rustler in Joint Exhibit 12, which is patient G.Z.’s deposition transcript.) The office manager reported B.M.1’s complaints to Dr. Castellanos. Dr. Castellanos, his wife, and his office manager viewed video taken by a surveillance camera in the cleaning room, but the Respondent was positioned with his back to the camera during the cleaning so that the view of what he was doing to the patient was blocked, and the video did not show any sexual misconduct. Dr. Castellanos then went to the Respondent to ask if everything went alright with B.M.1’s cleaning. The Respondent told him everything was fine, but the patient complained about everything. Dr. Castellanos told him about the complaint of sexual misconduct, which the Respondent denied. Dr. Castellanos told him that he had viewed the surveillance video, which did not show sexual misconduct. The Respondent understood that the video exonerated him and that Dr. Castellanos was going to preserve the video in case the patient pursued her complaint. This was a misunderstanding. The video did not exonerate him, and it was not preserved. It operated on a 90-day loop, and the video would be erased and re-recorded 90 days later. In any event, there was an electrical fire in the office in late March of 2016, and the surveillance tapes were destroyed along with many other things in the office. No video recording was available for the Petitioner’s eventual investigation or for evidence at the hearing. After the episode with B.M.1, Dr. Castellanos decided to investigate by having his office staff conduct what he called a quality control survey of the Respondent’s patients to determine whether any other patients had similar complaints. In the meantime, the Respondent continued to work for Coral Dental part- time. Another patient seen by the Respondent for a cleaning on January 13, 2016, was identified in the hearing transcript by the initials L.B. At the time, L.B. was a 65-year old woman. L.B. testified by deposition that, during the cleaning, she was fully reclined in the dental chair, and the Respondent was positioned on her right side, near her torso rather than her head. The Respondent asked the patient to hold the suction hose instrument with her right hand while he was doing the cleaning. This opened a space between her arm and her right breast. The Respondent placed a bib on the patient and patted the bib in place across her breasts, touching the area of and around her nipples. The Respondent also wiped his instruments rapidly over the patient’s breast, using a stroking motion over her nipple. L.B. estimated that he did this approximately 30 times during the cleaning. Then, while the patient rinsed her mouth, the Respondent placed his hand under the bib, pinched the nipple of the patient’s right breast, and pulled on it. L.B. estimated that he continued doing this for about a minute while saying, “very nice, very nice.” Then, when Dr. Castellanos entered the room to examine the patient’s mouth, the Respondent stood behind him and rubbed a folder against the insides of the patient’s legs, which the dentist could not see. When the dentist turned around, the Respondent quickly removed the folder from between the patient’s legs, pretended to be reviewing it, and acted as if everything was normal. L.B. was in shock and disbelief at what the Respondent did during the cleaning. At first, she gave him the benefit of the doubt, but she became convinced as his actions escalated that they had to be intentional. She did not report them to Dr. Castellanos or his office staff at the time because she was afraid they would not believe her due to her age. She did tell her husband later the same day. She was going to stop using Coral Dental and cancelled her next appointment, but she changed her mind and decided instead to continue going to Coral Dental but to stop being seen by the Respondent. The next time L.B. was at Coral Dental was on February 11, 2016. On that visit, she noticed what appeared to be a surveillance camera in the examination room. It occurred to her that images captured by the camera could show the Respondent’s sexual misconduct on January 13. When the office staff confirmed to her that there was a surveillance camera in the examination room, she decided to report the sexual misconduct. When Dr. Castellanos was given L.B.’s report, he decided to terminate the Respondent. He did not look for video evidence from his surveillance system before making this decision. Coincidentally, on the very next day, which was Friday, February 12, the Respondent was offered full-time employment as a dental hygienist for another dentist. He reported this to Dr. Castellanos when he arrived at work that day and gave notice that his last day working for Coral Dental would be February 26, 2016. He overheard Dr. Castellanos immediately ask his office manager to start calling potential replacements for the Respondent. The Respondent went to work the following Monday, February 15, and was introduced to a woman who was going to be his replacement. Dr. Castellanos told the Respondent to show her all the tools and orient her on the job. When the Respondent left the office at the end of the day, he told Dr. Castellanos he would see him Wednesday, February 17, which was his next scheduled work day. Dr. Castellanos told him not to return on Wednesday because his employment with Coral Dental was over. The Respondent thought his abrupt termination after giving two weeks’ notice was unfair. Unaware of L.B.’s report, he mistakenly thought Dr. Castellanos was terminating him in retaliation for quitting and taking a job with another dentist. Dr. Castellanos denied this and maintained that he actually terminated the Respondent’s employment because of the allegations of sexual misconduct. After the Respondent’s termination, Dr. Castellanos had his office manager continue with the quality control survey of the Respondent’s patients, which was conducted by telephone. Dr. Castellanos instructed the office manager to ask a neutral, open-ended question about the quality of the Respondent’s work and see what kind of response was given. Apart from the telephone survey, Dr. Castellanos’ office received a complaint from another patient, identified in the hearing transcript as B.M.2, on February 18, 2015. At the time, B.M.2 was just shy of 64 years old. On that day, she accompanied her husband to an appointment and, while there, told Marley about the Respondent’s sexual misconduct during the cleaning she received from him at her appointment a few weeks earlier, on February 5. Similar to L.B.’s experience, the Respondent positioned himself next to her waist instead of near her head, as other dental hygienists did, and he brushed over the nipple area of her right breast with the side of his arm every time he reached over her to perform work in her mouth, which no other dental hygienist ever did to her while performing a cleaning. The brushing motion would continue for several seconds to a minute at a time. This happened ten to 20 times during the cleaning. The Respondent also cleaned the mirror he was using by reaching under the bib that was laying on her chest, thereby touching her breast, and using the bib as a cloth to clean the mirror. This happened twice during the cleaning. This conduct made the patient very uncomfortable. She believed it was intentional because it was so repetitive. She did not say anything at the time because she was in shock that it would happen to her at a dentist’s office. On February 24, 2016, a 64-year old female patient, who is identified in the hearing transcript by the initials G.Z., responded to Coral Dental’s telephone survey. When asked about her experience with the Respondent, she told Traci the office manager that she had an appointment with the Respondent on December 2, 2015. While performing a deep cleaning, the Respondent stroked her right breast 20-30 times with his palm and forearm as he moved toward her face. She believed the motion was deliberate and intentional, but she did not react or say anything at the time. After the appointment, she told her husband about it. She testified that it made her feel uncomfortable, but she decided to give the Respondent the benefit of the doubt and made another appointment for the Respondent to finish the deep cleaning, which she was made to understand had to be done promptly. G.Z. returned to complete her deep cleaning by the Respondent on December 16, 2015. The Respondent began to repeat the sexual misconduct by stroking the patient’s breast several times. This time, the Respondent angrily sat up, moved his hand away from her breast, and swore at him, saying something like, “You touch me like that again, and you’ll be wearing your balls like earrings.” The Respondent pushed or guided her back down into the chair and finished the deep cleaning without further incident. When the patient left, the Respondent followed her to the front desk, tried to hug her, and referred to her as his “friend.” She did not report the sexual misconduct at the time because she “just wanted to get out of there.” Later that day, she told her husband what happened. In the weeks following the deep cleaning, G.Z. had a “gradual reckoning” as the import of the Respondent’s actions sunk in. She struggled to admit to herself that she had let herself be the victim of a sexual assault. She decided not to show for her next dental appointment at Coral Dental. Another patient who responded to Coral Dental’s telephone survey was a 66-year old female identified in the hearing transcript by the initials B.C. She reported what happened to her at her appointment on December 11, 2015. During the cleaning the Respondent performed on that day, he touched her breasts several times. First, he touched them with his hand while placing the bib on her. Then, he brushed his arm or wrist against her breast over and over as he cleaned her teeth. Sometimes, he lifted the patient’s breast while reaching for his instruments. He also rested his arm on her breast. Altogether, he touched her breasts six to nine times. He also placed his elbow between the patient’s thighs while scraping her teeth and moved his elbow up and down against the patient’s crotch for 30 to 40 seconds, as if trying to stimulate her. After the cleaning, the Respondent walked B.C. to the front desk with his hand on the small of her back. At the front desk, the patient tried to avoid scheduling another appointment, but the Respondent put his arms around her from behind, pressed against her back, and told her she had to come back for more work. At the Respondent’s insistence, B.C. made another appointment. When she turned to leave, the Respondent patted and squeezed her buttocks. The office staff was unable to see what the Respondent was doing on the other side of the high front desk. B.C. felt embarrassed, ashamed, and bad about herself in response to the Respondent’s actions. She did not protest to the Respondent, saying she just squirmed in the dental chair and tried to “make [her]self smaller.” She did not tell anyone at the dental office about the Respondent’s sexual misconduct because she felt humiliated. She broke down crying on the way home in the car and told her husband about it. Before the telephone survey was completed, with 50 more patients of the Respondent yet to be contacted, Dr. Castellanos notified the Petitioner what had been discovered so far. On March 24, 2016, the Petitioner’s investigator spoke to Traci the office manager. On May 5, 2016, the investigator interviewed each of the five patients by telephone. The information they gave the investigator was consistent with their testimony at the final hearing and by deposition. The Respondent does not deny that the conduct attributed to him by these patients constitutes intentional sexual misconduct. (This is clearly true as to the conduct attributed to him by L.B., B.C., G.Z., and B.M.2; it is less clear as to the conduct attributed to him by B.M.1.) Rather, he claims that none of the reported conduct ever happened. Instead, he claims that Dr. Castellanos was angry at him for quitting and taking a full-time job working for another dentist, and that he had his office staff solicit and obtain false claims of sexual misconduct from these patients. The Respondent testified that he only heard about one of the patient complaints before he was fired and that he was fired right after he gave his two-week notice. He thought those facts would help him prove his defense. But the much stronger evidence was that the victims were telling the truth; that they did not complain sooner because they were embarrassed and ashamed; and that the timing of the termination of the Respondent’s employment was merely coincidental with his giving two-weeks’ notice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Health, Board of Dentistry: finding the Respondent guilty of four violations of section 456.072(1)(v), by violating section 456.063(1); revoking his license to practice dental hygiene; fining him $2,500; and imposing the costs of investigation and prosecution. Jurisdiction to determine the costs of investigation and prosecution is retained for 30 days after rendition of the final order, in the event the parties cannot agree on them. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 19th day of September, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Lawrence A. Hall is licensed by the Florida State Board of Dentistry and the Hearing Officer has jurisdiction over the Respondent and the offenses alleged. During the time periods alleged Respondent smoked marijuana in the office after office hours in company with employees including a 16-year-old employee. During the time periods alleged Respondent wrote numerous prescriptions in the names of employees for controlled substances or drugs to be used for his personal use or for the use of his wife or friends. These drugs consisted of Eskatrol, Dexadrine, Dexamyl, Percodan, and Quaalude and were taken by Hall during office hours while he was performing work on dental patients. Some of these drugs made Respondent nervous and irritable and adversely affected his practice of dentistry. During the period between March, 1974 and July, 1975 Hall habitually used controlled substances add drugs. On many occasions he would be late getting to the office for morning appointments and late returning from lunch for afternoon appointments. Occasionally he would fail to come to the office at all and scheduled appointments would have to be cancelled - usually after the patient had appeared for the appointment. Hall wrote prescriptions for his wife and for his employees for controlled substances and drugs for uses not related to the practice of dentistry. These drugs consisted of amphetamines, Quaalude, and Percodan, and were often picked up from the pharmacy by one of his office employees not named in the prescription. Hall knew that his federal narcotics license did not authorize him to write prescriptions for drugs not intended for use in the practice of dentistry. Amphetamines are listed as Class II controlled substances in Chapter 893 F.S. On one occasion, while treating a small child, Hall became exasperated, threw a syringe across the room, then ran out of the office to jog around the adjacent shopping center for about 15 minutes to regain his composure. On another occasion a patient reacted adversely to an anesthetic and was thereafter properly treated by Hall to restore her breathing to normal. The dental procedure for which the anesthetic was given was then performed satisfactorily. The patient involved remained a patient of Hall until she moved to a location too far away to continue to use Hall as her dentist. She was satisfied with the dental treatment received from Hall. Hall sought help in his personal and drug related problems from his minister. No evidence was presented that Hall performed unsatisfactory dental work. To the contrary, all evidence presented in this regard was to the effect that Hall's dental work was above average. At the time of the hearing and for some months prior thereto Hall was not taking drugs.
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's dental laboratory license should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, W.P. Dental Lab, is a licensed dental laboratory in the State of Florida, holding license number DL 000936. Wendell Cook is co-owner of and operates W.P. Dental Lab. The lab is located in the backyard of Mr. Cook's residence, at 457 Cain Street, Crestview, Florida. On November 8, 1989, and February 8, 1990, the lab was inspected by DPR Investigator, Charles Wheelahan. Joan Ziel, Petitioner's expert on laboratory sanitation, accompanied Mr. Wheelahan on the February 8th inspection. The laboratory was also inspected by Doug Sims of HRS, Okaloosa County Health Unit, on November 14, 1989, and November 27, 1990. Doug Sims is also an expert in laboratory sanitation. The inspections of November 8 and 14, 1989, and February 8, 1990, revealed the following: The dental lab is operated out of a small dilapidated travel trailer. Window panes located on the front of the trailer were broken and all the window screens needed replacement. Insects and dust have ready access to the interior of the trailer. The linoleum flooring inside the trailer was not secured firmly to the floor and there were some holes in the floor. Adjacent to the trailer is Mr. Cook's aviary containing several exotic birds. The aviary is within 5 to 10 feet of the laboratory's entrance. Additionally, a large dog was allowed to run freely in the backyard where the laboratory is located. The presence of these animals adds to the already dusty conditions of the backyard. Water is supplied to the laboratory by an ordinary garden hose. There is no potable water connection and no backflow preventor. There was no running hot water in the facility. The trailer has only one sink. The sink is used for everything including sanitation and waste disposal. Waste water emptied onto the ground and was not connected to a sewer. There are no bathroom facilities in the trailer. There are bathroom facilities located in Mr. Cook's house. There was a large accumulation of trash and rubbish around the outside of the lab. Many insect and rodent harborages were present. There is no exhaust mechanism for the volume of dust particles generated by the dental lab work. The counter, chair, and floor surfaces in the facility were covered with a thick coating of bacteria harboring dust. Sterilization, sanitation, and disinfectant procedures appeared to be impossible within the trailer's environment, and Dental lab equipment was outdated, dirty, and rusty. The lack of a bathroom facility and the existence of only one sink create a condition in which contaminated items cannot be disposed of separate from uncontaminated items. Additionally, the lack of a bathroom facility and the existence of only one sink makes it impossible for an operator to cleanse either himself or his equipment after touching contaminated items and before handling uncontaminated items. Contamination control is important in the dental laboratory setting because the technician handles impressions form dental patients which have residue from the patient's saliva on them. The potential for transmission of disease is apparent. The inadequate exhaust mechanism allows bacteria-harboring dust to coat everything in the facility. Therefore, appropriate sterilization, sanitation and disinfectant procedures are almost impossible without an exhaust system that will handle the dust particles generated by the dental equipment. Additionally, the proximity of the bird aviary and dog creates a condition where bird and dog dander, mites, and bird droppings can easily access the trailer environment when adequate screening is not present. The possibility that airborne contaminants and contaminants in the dust can ultimately come in contact with a patient if proper sterile procedures or sanitary or disinfectant procedures are not followed exists and poses a real danger to the public. The only methods of sterilization used by Mr. Cook in his lab work consists of boiling the dental product in a pressure cooker and then placing the product in a plastic bag with an amount of listerine. Such sterilization procedures are not considered adequate infection control methods. The failure to use proper disinfectants and sterilization procedures constitutes a health hazard since such disinfectants are the only method which eliminates bacteria and prevents the potential for bacteria to be transmitted to someone else. The inspections of W.P. Dental Lab in November, 1989, and February, 1990, clearly demonstrated that W. P. Dental Lab was not maintained in a sanitary condition. An inspection of W.P. Dental Lab on November 27, 1990, one year after the first inspection, revealed that Mr. Cook had made some minor repairs to the trailer. However, the facility still falls significantly below the common standard for reasonable sanitation. Among other things, there was still no hot water under pressure, the boiler, stove and pressure cooker were all in need of cleaning, there was still no restroom facility, several pieces of the dental equipment were rusty making cleaning difficult and the vinyl flooring had been stapled together making cleaning very difficult. Additionally, the presence of animals in the yard continues to draw flies which are a carrier of bacteria. Also, numerous brushes and other sanding devices used in dental laboratory work were caked with powder. A view of the laboratory at the conclusion of the hearing demonstrated that the surface areas of the lab had been cleaned. Grit could still be felt on the surfaces of the counter tops and there were obvious signs of mildew and a distinct musty odor. In essence, the laboratory was clean, but not sanitary. Of greatest concern in this case, was the obvious lack of knowledge on Mr. Cook's part of current methods of sanitation including the appropriate products, equipment and procedures. Such products and equipment are presently available and in use in the community. Because of this lack of knowledge, the laboratory poses a potentially dangerous health hazard to the public with no assurance that the hazard will be corrected or eliminated. Therefore, Respondent's license should be revoked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order finding that W.P. Dental Lab has violated Section 466.028(1)(v), and therefore, because of the severity of the conditions and the unlikelihood of the facility being able to be brought within compliance, revoking the Respondent's license. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of January, 1991. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4159 1. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. The facts contained in paragraph 8 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 3, 5, 6 and 7 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in the first sentence of paragraph 1 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The remainder of the paragraph was not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraph 4 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are immaterial. The facts contained in paragraphs 2, 8 and 9 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William Buckhalt Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Wendell Cook
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 466, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to the authority of Section 20.43(3)(g), Florida Statutes, Petitioner has contracted with the Agency for Health Care Administration to provide consumer complaint, investigative and prosecutorial services by the Division of Medical Quality Assurance, councils, or boards. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN0006759. Respondent's dental license has been delinquent since March 1, 2000. Respondent's last known address is 8081 Park Villa Circle, Cupertino, California 95014. On or about December 16, 1993, Respondent was convicted in a jury trial of one count of soliciting prostitution, five counts of sexual battery and two counts of false imprisonment in the County of Santa Clara, California. Respondent was sentenced to three years in prison. The sentence was suspended and Respondent was placed on felony probation for five years subject to the following conditions: that he serve one year in the county jail; that he pay fines and penalties; that he undergo psychiatric counseling; that he report his conviction to future employers; that he report to the California Dental Board; that he treat male patients only; and that he have no contact with the victims. The circumstances underlying Respondent's criminal convictions involved sexual battery of female employees in the dental office and of female patients during dental treatments in his office while he was engaged in the practice of dentistry. In or around January 1996, the California Board of Dentistry accepted Respondent's surrender of his California license to practice dentistry in case number AGN 1994-18, and allowing Respondent to apply for reinstatement after one year, subject to the terms and conditions of Respondent's criminal probation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Dentistry enter a final order adopting the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and which revokes Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 9th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Rosanna M. Catalano, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Houshang J. Dayan, D.D.S. 8081 Park Villa Circle Cupertino, California 95014 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
