The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated the applicable standard of care in the practice of dentistry in violation of section 466.028(1), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed in each of the consolidated cases; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43, and chapters 456 and 466, Florida Statutes. Stipulated Facts Respondent is a licensed dentist in the state of Florida, having been issued license number DN14223 on or about December 1, 1995. Respondent’s address of record is 530 East Howard Street, Live Oak, Florida 32064. Respondent was licensed to practice dentistry in the state of Florida during all times relevant to the administrative complaints underlying this case. Patient T.C. was a patient of Respondent. Patient S.S. was a patient of Respondent. Patient G.H. was a patient of Respondent. Patient J.D. was a patient of Respondent. Patient J.A.D. was a patient of Respondent. Other Findings of Fact On July 23, 2004, Respondent entered into a Stipulation in Department Case No. 2002-25421 to resolve an Administrative Complaint which alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (z). The Stipulation was adopted by a Final Order, dated January 31, 2005, which constitutes a first offense in these cases as to each of the sections cited. On September 21, 2007, the Department issued a Uniform Non-disciplinary Citation for an alleged violation of section 466.028(1)(n), related to the release of patient dental records. The Department offered no evidence of its disposition and, in any event, since these cases do not involve alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(n), the citation is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B5-13.005(1). On January 19, 2017, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in Case No. 2015-10804 for alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (mm). The Department offered no evidence of its disposition of the Administrative Complaint and, as a result, the Administrative Complaint is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under rule 64B5-13.005(1). On January 19, 2017, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in Case No. 2015-23828 for alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (z). The Department offered no evidence of its disposition of the Administrative Complaint and, as a result, the Administrative Complaint is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under rule 64B5-13.005(1). Case No. 19-2898PL - The T.C. Administrative Complaint Patient T.C. was a patient of Respondent from June 14, 2011, to on or about August 12, 2013. During the period in question, Respondent owned Smile Designs, a dental practice with offices in Jacksonville, Lake City, and Live Oak, Florida. The Department, in the T.C. Administrative Complaint, recognized that “Respondent, along with an associate, [Dr. Morris], are . . . licensed dentists known to work at Respondent’s practice.” The Department’s expert witness, Dr. Brotman, was also aware that Dr. Morris practiced with Respondent. Patient T.C. suffered a stroke in 2009. During the period that she was seen by Respondent, she was in “decent health,” though she was on medication for her post-stroke symptoms, which included a slight problem with aphasia, though she was able to communicate. The stroke and the aphasia are neurological issues, not mental health issues. Patient T.C. was accompanied by her husband, L.C. during her visits to Respondent’s practice. He generally waited in the waiting area during Patient T.C.’s procedures though, as will be discussed herein, he was occasionally brought back to the treatment area. L.C. testified that he had never been advised that Patient T.C. experienced a seizure while under Respondent’s care, and had no recollection of having been told that Patient T.C. ever became unresponsive. Patient T.C. died in 2015. Count I Case No. 19-2898PL, Count I, charges Respondent with failing to immediately refer Patient T.C. to a medical professional or advise Patient T.C. to seek follow-up care for the management of what were believed to be seizures while Patient T.C. was in the dental chair. From Patient T.C.’s initial visit on June 14, 2011, through her visit on September 23, 2011, Patient T.C. was seen at Respondent’s practice on five occasions. Respondent testified that the office was aware of Patient T.C.’s history of seizures because the medical history taken at her first visit listed Diazapam, Levetiracetam, Diovan, and Lyrica as medications being taken by Patient T.C., all of which are seizure medications. Nonetheless, the dental records for the four visits prior to September 23, 2011, provide no indication that Patient T.C. suffered any seizure or period of non- responsiveness during those visits. On September 23, 2011, Patient T.C. presented at Smile Designs for final impressions for crowns on teeth 20, 21, 28, and 29. Respondent testified that she was not the treating dentist on that date. Patient T.C. was given topical anesthetics, and her pulse and blood pressure were checked. The treatment notes then provide, in pertinent part, the following: Patient had seizures on the dental chair - may be due to anxiety. Seizures last 2-3 minutes. No longer. After 30 minutes, patient was calm. Able to proceed with dental procedure . . . . During seizures pt. was responsive; she was able to respond to our commands. The medical records substantiate Respondent’s unrebutted testimony that she was not the treating dentist at the September 23, 2011, appointment. The June 14, July 19, and October 7, 2011, treatment notes made by Respondent all start with “Dr. Gerry,” and are in a notably different style and format from the September 23, 2011, treatment notes. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Dr. Morris, and not Respondent, was the treating dentist when Patient T.C. experienced seizures on September 23, 2011. Much of Dr. Brotman’s testimony as to Respondent’s violation of a standard of care was based on his interpretation that, since the September 23, 2011, notes did not specifically identify the treating dentist (as did the other treatment notes described above), the notes must be presumed to be those of the business owner. Neither Dr. Brotman nor the Department established a statutory or regulatory basis for such a presumption and, in any event, the evidence adduced at hearing clearly rebutted any such presumption. Dr. Brotman testified that if another dentist had been identified in the records as having performed the treatment on September 23, 2011, that may have changed his opinion. The evidence established that Dr. Morris performed the treatment on September 23, 2011. Thus, Dr. Brotman’s opinion that Respondent violated the applicable standard of care was effectively countered. The T.C. Administrative Complaint charged Respondent with failing to comply with the applicable standard of care on September 23, 2011. The Department failed to establish that Respondent was the treating dentist on September 23, 2011, and, in fact, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that she was not. Thus, the Department failed to establish that Respondent violated the standard of care for failing to refer Patient T.C. to an appropriate medical professional for her seizures as alleged in Count I of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. Count II Case No. 19-2898PL, Count II, charges Respondent with delegating the task of intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to a person not qualified by training, experience, or licensure to perform such intraoral repair. July 17, 2012 Repair On July 17, 2012, Patient T.C. presented to Respondent because her lower partial denture was broken and the O-ring was out. The device included a female end within Patient T.C.’s jaw, and a male end with a plastic “gasket” on the denture. Respondent testified that the repair of the partial denture was performed outside of Patient T.C.’s mouth. Then, at the next scheduled visit, the treatment plan was for Respondent to “eval/repair partial denture on lower arch.” Respondent offered unrebutted testimony that “Tia of precision attachments” performed no work in Patient T.C.’s mouth. Dr. Brotman testified that, in his opinion, any repair of a precision attachment must be done by placing the attachment in the patient’s mouth to align with the teeth. However, Dr. Brotman did not know what kind of repair was done on July 17, 2012. He indicated that if a gasket or housing is missing, it can be repaired with an acrylic. Dr. Brotman testified that if acrylic was placed in the denture outside of the patient’s mouth, it would not be a violation of Florida law. The Department failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent delegated the task of adjusting or performing an intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to “Tia” or any other unlicensed person on July 17, 2012, as alleged in Count II of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. June 11, 2013 Repair On June 11, 2013, Patient T.C. presented to Respondent for an evaluation of her lower precision partial denture. Patient T.C. complained that the partial denture did not have the metal housing to connect it with the bridges to its sides. Patient T.C. was a “bruxer,” i.e. she ground her teeth, and had worn out the denture’s metal attachment. Respondent evaluated the situation, and decided to attempt a chairside repair or replacement of the denture’s male attachments. If the chairside repair was unsuccessful, a complete new partial denture would have to be prepared by a dental laboratory. Respondent attempted the chairside repair. Respondent testified that she instructed her dental assistant to add acrylic into the slot where the male attachment was to be placed in the denture. There was no evidence of any kind to suggest that the dental assistant then placed the denture into Patient T.C’s mouth. Because too much acrylic was placed in the denture, it became stuck in Patient T.C.’s mouth. Patient T.C. became understandably upset. Her husband, L.C., was brought into the room, Patient T.C. was administered local anesthesia, and the precision partial denture was removed. Respondent’s testimony regarding the incident was generally consistent with her prior written statement offered in evidence. Dr. Brotman testified that making repairs to a precision denture must be performed by a licensed dentist, except for placing acrylic into the denture outside of the patient’s mouth, which may be done by a non-dentist. The evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent’s dental assistant did anything more than place acrylic into the denture outside of Patient T.C.’s mouth. The Department failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent delegated the task of adjusting or performing an intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to her dental assistant on June 11, 2013, as alleged in Count II of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. Case No. 19-2899PL - The S.S. Administrative Complaint Count I Case No. 19-2899PL, Count I, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(m) by: Failing to keep a written record of Patient S.S.’s medical history; and/or Failing to keep an accurate written record of any consent forms signed by Patient S.S. Count II Case No. 19-2899PL, Count II, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30; Failing to adequately diagnose the condition of the roots of tooth 30; Failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 30 during root canal treatment; Failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment; Failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following changes to the tooth’s margins; and/or Failing to adequately assess and correct the crown on tooth 31 when the fit was compromised. On May 15, 2014, Patient S.S. presented to Respondent for a root canal and crown on tooth 30. Upon examination, Respondent advised Patient S.S. that she also needed a root canal and a crown on tooth 31. Patient S.S. denied that she was required to provide her medical history at the May 15, 2014, office visit, or that she was provided with an informed consent form prior to the root canal on tooth 30. Respondent’s records do not include either a medical history or an informed consent form. However, the records, which were offered as a joint exhibit, were not accompanied by a Certificate of Completeness of Patient Records, including the number of pages provided pursuant to Respondent’s investigatory subpoena, as is routine in cases of this sort, and which was provided with the records of the subsequent dentists involved in Patient S.S.’s care. Many of the records offered in these consolidated cases, including Respondent’s licensure file, include the certification attesting to their completeness. The records for Patient S.S. do not. Petitioner elicited no testimony from Respondent establishing the completeness of the records. The records offered were, by appearance, not complete. Respondent indicated that medical history and consent forms were obtained. Entries in the records introduced in evidence indicate “[m]edical history reviewed with patient” or the like. Entries for May 16, 2014, provide that “[c]rown consent explained and signed by patient” and “root canal consent explained and signed by patient.” The record for June 4, 2014, indicates that “[r]oot canal consent form explained to and signed by patient.” Patient S.S. testified that she had no recollection of having filled out a medical history, or of having signed consent forms after having Respondent’s recommended course of treatment explained to her. However, Patient S.S.’s memory was not clear regarding various aspects of her experience with Respondent and with subsequent providers. Much of her testimony was taken from notes she brought to the hearing, and some was even based on what she read in the Administrative Complaint. Her testimony failed to clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent failed to collect her medical history or consent to treatment. Respondent testified that, at the time Patient S.S. was being seen, her office was in the midst of switching its recordkeeping software and converting records to digital format. The new company botched the transition, and by the time the issue was discovered, many of the records being converted to digital format were lost, in whole or in part. Respondent surmised that, to the extent the records were not in her files provided to the Department, that they were affected by the transition. The greater weight of the evidence suggests that medical history and signed consent forms were provided. Given the issues regarding the records as described by Respondent, and given the Department’s failure to produce a certification or other evidence that the records it was relying on to prove the violation were complete, the Department failed to meet its burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent failed to keep a written record of Patient S.S.’s medical history and signed consent forms. Respondent also testified that the office notes were supplemented with handwritten notations made when a patient returned for a subsequent appointment. Several of Patient S.S.’s printed records carried handwritten notes. Respondent testified that those notes were made at some time in 2014 after Patient S.S.’s first office visit up to the time of her last visit, and were based on further discussion with Patient S.S. However, those records, Joint Exhibit 2, pages 1 through 17, bear either a date or a “print” date of March 12, 2015. Dr. Brotman testified that he knew of no software on the market that would allow contemporaneous handwriting on electronic records. Thus, the evidence is compelling that the handwritten notes were made on or after the March 12, 2015, date on which the records were printed, well after Patient S.S.’s last office visit. A root canal involves removing a tooth’s pulp chamber and nerves from the root canals. The root canals are smoothed out and scraped with a file to help find and remove debris. The canals are widened using sequentially larger files to ensure that bacteria and debris is removed. Once the debris is removed, an inert material (such as gutta percha) is placed into the canals. A “core” is placed on top of the gutta percha, and a crown is placed on top of the core. The risk of reinfection from bacteria entering from the bottom of an underfilled tooth is significantly greater than if the tooth is filled to the apex of the root. Patient S.S. returned to Respondent’s office on May 16, 2014, for the root canal on tooth 30 and crown preparations for teeth 30 and 31, which included bite impressions. Temporary crowns were placed. Respondent’s printed clinical notes for May 16, 2014, gave no indication of any obstruction of the canals, providing only the lengths of the two mesial and two distal root canals. Respondent’s hand-written notes for May 16, 2014 (which, as previously explained, could have been made no earlier than March 12, 2015), stated that the canals were “[s]ealed to as far as the canal is open. The roots are calcification.” Dr. Brotman indicated that the x-rays taken on May 15, 2014, showed evidence of calcification of the roots. However, Dr. Brotman convincingly testified that the x-rays taken during the root canal show working-length files extending to near the apices of the roots. Thus, in his opinion, the canals were sufficiently open to allow for the use of liquid materials to soften the tooth, and larger files to create space to allow for the canals to be filled and sealed to their full lengths. His testimony in that regard is credited. Patient S.S. began having pain after the root canal on tooth 30 and communicated this to Respondent. On June 5, 2014, Patient S.S. presented to Respondent to have the crowns seated for teeth 30 and 31. Patient S.S. complained of sensitivity in tooth 31. The temporary crowns were removed, and tooth 31 was seen to have exhibited a change in color. The area was probed, which caused a reaction from Patient S.S. Respondent examined the tooth, and noted the presence of soft dentin. A root canal of tooth 31 was recommended and performed, which included removal of the decay in the tooth’s dentin at the exterior of the tooth. Respondent’s removal of decay changed the shape of tooth 31, and would have changed the fit of the crown, which was made based on the May 16, 2014, impressions. There were no new impressions for a permanent crown taken for tooth 31 after removal of the decayed dentin. Respondent testified that she could simply retrofill the affected area with a flowable composite, which she believed would be sufficient to allow for an acceptable fit without making new bite impressions and ordering a new crown. There was no persuasive evidence that such would meet the relevant standard of performance. Temporary crowns were placed on teeth 30 and 31, and placement of the permanent crowns was postponed until the next appointment. Upon completion of the tooth 31 root canal on June 5, 2014, x-rays were taken of the work completed on teeth 30 and 31. Dr. Brotman testified that the accepted standard of care for root canal therapy is to have the root canal fillings come as close to the apex of the tooth as possible without extending past the apex, generally to within one millimeter, and no more than two millimeters of the apex. His examination of the x-rays taken in conjunction with Respondent’s treatment of Patient S.S. revealed a void in the filling of the middle of the distal canal of tooth 31, an underfill of approximately five millimeters in the mesial canal of tooth 31, an underfill of approximately four millimeters in the distal canal of tooth 30, and an underfill of approximately six millimeters in the two mesial root canals of tooth 30. The x-ray images also revealed remaining decay along the mesiobuccal aspect of the temporary crown placed on tooth 31. His testimony that the x-ray images were sufficiently clear to provide support for his opinions was persuasive, and was supported by the images themselves. A day after the placement of the temporary crowns, they came off while Patient S.S. was having dinner in Gainesville. She was seen by Dr. Abolverdi, a dentist in Gainesville. Dr. Abolverdi cleaned the teeth, took an x-ray, and re-cemented the temporary crowns in place. Patient S.S. next presented to Respondent on June 10, 2014. Both of Patient S.S.’s permanent crowns were seated. The permanent crown for tooth 31 was seated without a new impression or new crown being made. Patient S.S. was subsequently referred by her dentist, Dr. James Powell, to be seen by an endodontist to address the issues she was having with her teeth. She was then seen and treated by Dr. John Sullivan on July 25, 2014, and by Dr. Thomas Currie on July 29, 2014, both of whom were endodontists practicing with St. Johns Endodontics. As to the pain being experienced by Patient S.S., Dr. Sullivan concluded that it was from her masseter muscle, which is consistent with Respondent’s testimony that Patient S.S. was a “bruxer,” meaning that she ground her teeth. Dr. Sullivan also identified an open margin with the tooth 31 crown. His clinical assessment was consistent with the testimony of Dr. Brotman. The evidence was clear and convincing that the defect in the tooth 31 permanent crown was an open margin, and not a “ledge” as stated by Respondent. The evidence was equally clear and convincing that the open margin was the result of performing a “retrofill” of the altered tooth, rather than taking new bite impressions to ensure a correct fit. As a result of the foregoing, Respondent violated the accepted standard of performance by failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following the removal of dentin on June 4, 2014, and by failing to assess and correct the open margin on the tooth 31 crown. Radiographs taken on July 25, 2014, confirmed that canals in teeth 30 and 31 were underfilled, as discussed above, and that there was a canal in tooth 31 that had been missed altogether. On July 29, 2014, Dr. Currie re-treated the root canal for tooth 31, refilled the two previously treated canals, and treated and filled the previously untreated canal in tooth 31. The evidence, though disputed, was nonetheless clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the standard of performance in the root canal procedures for Patient S.S.’s teeth 30 and 31, by failing to adequately diagnose and respond to the condition of the roots of tooth 30; failing to adequately fill the canals of tooth 30 despite being able to insert working-length files beyond the area of calcification to near the apices of the roots; and failing to adequately fill the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment. The Administrative Complaint also alleged that Respondent failed to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30. Case No. 19-2900PL - The G.H. Administrative Complaint Case No. 19-2900PL charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by failing to adequately diagnose issues with the crown on tooth 13 and provide appropriate corrective treatment. On May 15, 2014, Patient G.H. presented to Respondent with a complaint that she had been feeling discomfort on the upper left of her teeth that was increasingly noticeable. Respondent diagnosed the need for a root canal of tooth 13. Patient G.H. agreed to the treatment, and Respondent performed the root canal at this same visit. Patient G.H. also had work done on other teeth to address “minor areas of decay.” On July 7, 2014, Patient G.H.’s permanent crowns were seated onto teeth 8, 9, and 13, and onlay/inlays placed on teeth 12 and 14. On July 29, 2014, Patient G.H. presented to Respondent. Respondent’s records indicate that Patient G.H. complained that when she flossed around tooth 13, she was getting “a funny taste” in her mouth. Patient G.H.’s written complaint and her testimony indicate that she also advised Respondent that her floss was “tearing,” and that she continued to experience “pressure and discomfort” or “some pain.” Respondent denied having been advised of either of those complaints. Respondent flossed the area of concern, and smelled the floss to see if it had a bad smell. Respondent denied smelling anything more than typical mouth odor, with which Patient G.H. vigorously disagreed. Respondent took a radiograph of teeth 11 through 15, which included tooth 13 and the crown. The evidence is persuasive that the radiograph image revealed that the margin between tooth 13 and the crown was open. An open margin can act as a trap for food particles, and significantly increases the risk for recurrent decay in the tooth. Respondent adjusted the crown on tooth 9, but advised Patient G.H. that there was nothing wrong with the crown on tooth 13. She offered to prescribe a rinse for the smell, but generally told Patient G.H. that there were no complications. Patient G.H. began to cry and, when Respondent left the room, got up from the chair and left the office. Respondent indicated in her testimony that she would have performed additional investigation had Patient G.H. not left. The contemporaneous records do not substantiate that testimony. Furthermore, Respondent did not contact Patient G.H. to discuss further treatment after having had a full opportunity to review the radiograph image. On March 10, 2015, after her newly-active dental insurance allowed her to see a different in-network provider, Patient G.H. sought a second opinion from Dr. Ada Y. Parra, a dentist at Premier Dental in Gainesville, Florida. Dr. Parra identified an open distal margin at tooth 13 with an overhang. Dr. Parra recommended that Patient G.H. return to Respondent’s practice before further work by Premier Dental. Patient G.H. called Respondent’s office for an appointment, and was scheduled to see Dr. Lindsay Kulczynski, who was practicing as a dentist in Respondent’s Lake City, Florida, office. Patient G.H. was seen by Dr. Kulczynski on March 19, 2015. Upon examination, Dr. Kulczynski agreed that the crown for tooth 13 “must be redone” due to, among other defects, “[d]istal lingual over hang [and] open margin.” The open margin was consistent with Patient G.H.’s earlier complaints of discomfort, floss tearing, and bad odor coming from that tooth. The evidence was persuasive that further treatment of Patient G.H. was not authorized by Respondent after the appointment with Dr. Kulczynski. Dr. Brotman credibly testified that the standard of care in crown placement allows for a space between the tooth and the crown of between 30 and 60 microns. Dr. Brotman was able to clearly identify the open margin on the radiograph taken during Patient G.H.’s July 29, 2014, appointment, and credibly testified that the space was closer to 3,000 microns than the 30 to 60 microns range acceptable under the standard of performance. His testimony is accepted. An open margin of this size is below the minimum standard of performance. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent fell below the applicable standard of performance in her treatment of Patient G.H., by seating a crown containing an open margin and by failing to perform appropriate corrective treatment after having sufficient evidence of the deficiencies. Case No. 19-2901PL - The J.D. Amended Administrative Complaint Case No. 19-2901PL charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations; Failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing an implant in the area of tooth 14; Failing to appropriately place the implant by attempting to place it into a curved root, which could not accommodate the implant; Failing to react appropriately to the sinking implant by trying to twist off the carrier instead of following the technique outlined in the implant’s manual; and/or Paying, or having paid on her behalf, an indemnity in the amount of $75,000 as a result of negligent conduct in her treatment of Patient J.D. Patient J.D. first presented to Respondent on June 28, 2014. At the time, Respondent was practicing with Dr. Jacobs, who owned the practice. Patient J.D. had been a patient of Dr. Jacobs for some time. Respondent examined Patient J.D. and discovered problems with tooth 14. Tooth 14 and tooth 15 appeared to have slid into the space occupied by a previously extracted tooth. As a result, tooth 14 was tipped and the root curved from moving into the space. Tooth 14 had been filled by Dr. Jacobs. However, by the time Respondent examined it, the tooth was not restorable, and exhibited 60 percent bone loss and class II (two millimeters of movement) mobility. Respondent discussed the issue with Patient J.D., and recommended extraction of the two teeth and replacement with a dental implant. Patient J.D. consented to the procedure and executed consent forms supplied and maintained by Dr. Jacobs. The teeth at issue were in the upper jaw. The upper jaw consists of softer bone than the lower jaw, is more vascular, and includes the floor of the nose and sinuses. The periapical radiographs taken of Patient J.D. showed that he had a “draped sinus,” described by Respondent as being where “the tooth is basically draped around the sinuses. It’s almost like they’re kind of one.” Prior to Patient J.D., Respondent had never placed an implant in a patient with a draped sinus. The x-rays also indicated that, as a result of the previous extraction of teeth and the subsequent movement of the remaining teeth, the roots of tooth 14 were tipped and curved. The evidence was persuasive that Respondent did not fail to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, the extent of available bone support, and the configuration of the roots. Dr. Kinzler testified credibly that the pneumatized/draped sinus, the 60 percent bone loss around tooth 14, and the tipped and curved roots each constituted pre- operative red flags. Respondent extracted teeth 14 and 15. When she extracted the teeth, she observed four walls. She was also able to directly observe the floor of the sinus. She estimated the depth of the socket to be 12 millimeters. Sinus penetration is a potential complication of implant placement. Being able to see the sinus floor was an additional complicating factor for implant placement. Dr. Kinzler credibly testified that if Respondent was going to place an implant of the size she chose (see below), then the standard of care required her to first do a sinus lift before placing the implant. A sinus lift involves physically lifting the floor of a patient’s sinus. Once the sinus has been lifted, material typically consisting of granulated cortical bone is placed into the space created. Eventually, the bone forms a platform for new bone to form, into which an implant can be inserted. The evidence established that the standard of care for bone replacement materials is to place the material into the space, close the incision, and allow natural bone to form and ultimately provide a stable structure to affix an implant. The implant may then be mechanically affixed to the bone, and then biologically osseointegrate with the bone. In order to seal off Patient J.D.’s sinus, Respondent used Bond Bone, which she described as a fast-setting putty-like material that is designed to protect the floor of the sinus and provide a scaffold for bone to grow into. She did not use cortical bone, described as “silly sand,” to fill the space and provide separation from the sinus because she indicated that it can displace and get lost. Respondent’s goal was to place the implant so that it would extend just short of the Bond Bone and Patient J.D.’s sinus. She also intended to angle the implant towards the palate, where there was more available bone. Bond Bone and similar materials are relatively recent innovations. Dr. Fish was encouraged by the possibilities of the use of such materials, though he was not familiar with the Bond Bone brand. The evidence was clear and convincing that, although Bond Bone can set in a short period, and shows promise as an effective medium, it does not currently meet minimum standards of performance for bone replacement necessary for placement and immediate support of an implant. Bond Bone only decreases the depth of the socket. It does not raise the floor of the sinus. As such, the standard practice would be to use a shorter implant, or perform a sinus lift. Respondent was provided with an implant supplied by Dr. Jacobs. She had not previously used the type of implant provided. The implant was a tapered screw vent, 4.7 millimeters in diameter, tapering to 4.1 millimeters at the tip with a length of 11.5 millimeters. Respondent met with and received information from the manufacturer’s representative. She used a 3.2 millimeter drill to shape the hole, as the socket was already large enough for the implant. The 3.2 millimeter drill was not evidence that the receiving socket was 3.2 millimeters in diameter. Respondent then inserted the implant and its carrier apparatus into the hole. The implant did not follow the root, and had little bone on which to affix. The initial post-placement periapical radiograph showed “placement was not correct.” Despite Respondent’s intent, the implant was not angled, but was nearly vertical, in contrast with the angulation of the socket which was tipped at least 30 degrees. Given the amount of bone loss, and the other risk factors described herein, the risk of a sinus perforation, either by having the implant extend through the root opening or by a lateral perforation through one of the sides of the socket, was substantial. After adjusting the implant, Respondent went to remove the carrier. The carrier would not release, and the pressure exerted caused the implant to loosen and begin to sink through the Bond Bone. Dr. Kinzler testified credibly that, because of the mechanics of the implant used, had it been surrounded by bone, it would not have been possible for the implant to become loose. In his opinion, which is credited, the loosening of the implant was the result of the lack of bone to hold it in place. Respondent was so intent on removing the carrier that she was not paying attention to the implant. As a result, she screwed the implant through the Bond Bone and into Patient J.D.’s sinus. By the time she realized her error, the implant had sunk in to the point it was not readily retrievable. She was hesitant to reaffix the carrier “because [she] knew [she] had no support from the bone, that it was just a matter of air.” Nonetheless, she “stuck the carrier back in, but it would not go back in.” She then turned to get forceps or a hemostat but, by that time, the implant was irretrievably into Patient J.D.’s sinus. At the hearing, Respondent testified that she could have retrieved the implant but for Patient J.D. doing a “negative pressure sneeze” when the implant was already into the sinus. At that point, she stated that the implant disappeared into Patient J.D.’s sinus, where it can be seen in Petitioner’s Exhibit 9, page 35. There is nothing in Respondent’s dental records about Patient J.D. having sneezed. Respondent further testified that Patient J.D. “was very jovial about it,” and that everyone in the office laughed about the situation, and joked about “the sneeze implant.” That the patient would be “jovial” about an implant having been screwed into his sinus, resulting in a referral to an oral surgeon, and that there was office-wide joking about the incident is simply not credible, particularly in light of the complete absence of any contemporaneous records of such a seemingly critical element of the incident. Respondent believed that the implant must have been defective for her to have experienced the problem with removing the carrier, though her testimony in that regard was entirely speculative. There is no competent, substantial, or persuasive evidence to support a finding that the implant was defective. After determining that the implant was in Patient J.D.’s sinus, Respondent informed Patient J.D. of the issue, gave him a referral to an oral surgeon, prescribed antibiotics, and gave Patient J.D. her cell phone number. Each of those acts was appropriate. On July 29, 2014, an oral surgeon surgically removed the implant from Patient J.D.’s sinus. Patient J.D. sued Respondent for medical malpractice. The suit was settled, with the outcome including a $75,000.00 indemnity paid by Respondent’s insurer on her behalf. The Office of Insurance Regulation’s Medical Malpractice Closed Claims Report provides that the suit’s allegations were based on “improper dental care and treatment.” The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance prior to the procedure at issue by failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations prior to the procedure. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance by failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing the implant in the area of tooth 14, and by placing the implant into a curved root which could not accommodate the implant. The placement of Bond Bone was not adequate to address these issues. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the standard of care by failing to pay attention while trying to twist off the carrier and by failing to appropriately react to the sinking implant. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent paid, or had paid on her behalf, an indemnity of $75,000 for negligent conduct during treatment of Patient J.D. The perforation of Patient J.D.’s sinus was not, in itself, a violation of the standard of care. In that regard, Dr. Kinzler indicated that he had perforated a sinus while placing an implant. It was, however, the totality of the circumstances regarding the process of placing Patient J.D.’s implant that constituted a failure to meet the minimum standards of performance as described herein. Case No. 19-2902PL - The J.A.D. Amended Administrative Complaint Count I Case No. 19-2902PL, Count I, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to take adequate diagnostic imaging prior to placing an implant in the area of Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8; Failing to pick an appropriately-sized implant and placing an implant that was too large; and/or Failing to diagnose and/or respond appropriately to the oral fistula that developed in the area of Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8. Count II Case No. 19-2902PL, Count II, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(m) by: Failing to document examination results showing Patient J.A.D. had an infection; Failing to document the model or serial number of the implant she placed; and/or Failing to document the results of Respondent’s bone examination. Patient J.A.D. first presented to Respondent on March 3, 2016. His first appointment included a health history, full x-rays, and an examination. Patient J.A.D.’s complaint on March 3, 2016, involved a front tooth, tooth 8, which had broken off. He was embarrassed by its appearance, and desired immediate care and attention. Respondent performed an examination of Patient J.A.D., which included exposing a series of radiographs. Based on her examination, Respondent made the following relevant diagnoses in the clinical portion of her records: caries (decay) affecting tooth 7, gross caries affecting fractured tooth 8, and caries affecting tooth 9. Patient J.A.D. was missing quite a few of his back teeth. The consent form noted periodontal disease. The evidence is of Patient J.A.D.’s grossly deficient oral hygiene extending over a prolonged period. A consent form signed by Patient J.A.D. indicates that Patient J.A.D. had an “infection.” Respondent indicated that the term indicated both the extensive decay of Patient J.A.D.’s teeth, and a sac of pus that was discovered when tooth 8 was extracted. “Infection” is a broad term in the context of dentistry, and means any bacterial invasion of a tooth or system. The consent form was executed prior to the extraction. Therefore, the term “infection,” which may have accurately described the general condition of Patient J.A.D.’s mouth, could not have included the sac of pus, which was not discovered until the extraction. The sac of pus was not otherwise described with specificity in Respondent’s dental records. A pre-operative radiograph exposed by Respondent showed that tooth 8 had a long, tapering root. Respondent proposed extraction of tooth 8, to be replaced by an immediate implant. The two adjacent teeth were to be treated and crowned, and a temporary bridge placed across the three. Patient J.A.D. consented to this treatment plan. The treatment plan of extracting tooth 8 and preparing the adjacent teeth for crowns was appropriate. Respondent cleanly extracted tooth 8 without fracturing any surrounding bone, and without bone adhering to the tooth. When the tooth came out, it had a small unruptured sac of pus at its tip. Respondent irrigated and curretted the socket, and prescribed antibiotics. Her records indicated that she cleaned to 5 millimeters, although a radiograph made it appear to be a 7 millimeter pocket. She explained that inflammation caused the pocket to appear larger than its actual 5 millimeter size, which she characterized as a “pseudo pocket.” She recorded her activities. The response to the sac of pus was appropriate. Respondent reviewed the earlier radiographs, and performed a physical examination of the dimensions of the extracted tooth 8 to determine the size of the implant to be placed into the socket. Dr. Kinsler and Dr. Fish disagreed as to whether the radiographic images were sufficient to provide adequate information as to the implant to be used. Both relied on their professional background, both applied a reasonable minimum standard of performance, and both were credible. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to take adequate diagnostic imaging prior to placing an implant to replace Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8. Respondent placed an implant into the socket left from tooth 8. The implant was in the buckle cortex, a “notoriously thin” bone feature at the anterior maxilla. The fact that it is thin does not make it pathological, and placement of an implant near a thin layer of bone is not a violation of the standard of performance as long as the implant is, in fact, in the bone. The implant used by Respondent was shorter than the length of tooth 8 and the tooth 8 socket, and did not have a full taper, being more truncated. The evidence of record, including the testimony of Dr. Kinzler, indicates that the length of the implant, though shorter than the tooth it was to replace, was not inappropriate. The evidence of record, including pre-extraction and post-implantation scaled radiographs offered as a demonstrative exhibit, was insufficient to support a finding that the implant diameter was too great for the available socket. Patient J.A.D. felt like the implant was too close to the front of his maxillary bone because it felt like a little bump on the front of his gums. That perception is insufficient to support a finding that the placement of the implant violated a standard of performance. Subsequent x-rays indicated that there was bone surrounding the implant. Clinical observations by Respondent after placement of the implant noted bone on all four walls of the implant. Her testimony is credited. The evidence that the tooth 8 implant was not placed in bone, i.e., that at the time the implant was placed, the implant penetrated the buccal plate and was not supported by bone on all four sides, was not clear and convincing. Respondent’s records document the dimensions and manufacturer of the implant. Implants are delivered with a sticker containing all of the relevant information, including model and serial number, that are routinely affixed to a patient’s dental records. It is important to document the model and serial number of implants. Every implant is different, and having that information can be vital in the case of a recall. Patient J.A.D.’s printed dental records received by the Department from Respondent have the implant size (5.1 x 13 mm) and manufacturer (Implant Direct) noted. The records introduced in evidence by the Department include a page with a sticker affixed, identified by a handwritten notation as being for a “5.1 x 13mm - Implant Direct.” (Pet. Ex. 11, pg. 43 of 83). The accompanying sticker includes information consistent with that required. Dr. Fish testified to seeing a sticker that appears to be the same sticker (“The implant label of 141, it just has the handwritten on there that it should be added.”), though it is described with a deposition exhibit number (page 141 of a CD) that is different from the hearing exhibit number. Dr. Fish indicated the sticker adequately documented the implant information. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the sticker was not in Patient J.A.D.’s records, or that Respondent failed to document the model or serial number of the implant she placed. Later in the day on March 3, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was fitted for a temporary crown, which was placed on the implant and the adjacent two teeth, and Patient J.A.D. was scheduled for a post-operative check. Patient J.A.D. appeared for his post-operative visit on March 10, 2016. He testified that he was having difficulty keeping the temporaries on, and was getting “cut up” because the two outer teeth were sharp and rubbed against his lip and tongue. Respondent noticed that Patient J.A.D. was already wearing a hole in the temporary. Since Patient J.A.D. was missing quite a few of his back teeth, much of his chewing was being done using his front teeth. His temporaries were adjusted and reseated. On March 17, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was seen by Respondent for a post-operative check of the tooth 8 extraction and implant placement. The notes indicated that Patient J.A.D. had broken his arm several days earlier, though the significance of that fact was not explained. He was charted as doing well, and using Fixodent to maintain the temporary in place. The records again noted that Patient J.A.D. had worn a hole in the back of the tooth 9 temporary crown. A follow up was scheduled for final impressions for the permanent crowns. On March 10 and March 17, 2016, Patient J.A.D. complained of a large blister or “zit” that formed over the area above the end of the implant. Patient J.A.D. had no recollection of whether Respondent told him he had an infection. He was prescribed antibiotics. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the “zit” was causally related to the placement of the implant. Patient J.A.D. also testified that the skin above tooth 9 was discolored, and he thought he could almost see metal through the skin above his front teeth. Patient J.A.D. next appeared at Respondent’s office on June 2, 2016, for final impressions. Respondent concluded that the site had not healed enough for the final impression. She made and cemented a new temporary, and set an appointment for the following month for the final impression. Patient J.A.D. did not return to Respondent. On September 28, 2016, Patient J.A.D. presented to the office of Dr. Harold R. Arthur for further treatment. The records for that date indicate that he appeared without his temporary restoration for teeth 7 through 9, stating that he had several at home, but they would not stay on. Dr. Arthur probed a “[s]mall (1.0 x 1.0 mm) red spot in facial keratinized gingiva communicating with implant.” After probing the opening in the gingiva and the “shadow” in the gingiva, he believed it was at the center of the implant body and healing screw. Dr. Arthur’s dental records for Patient J.A.D. over the course of the following year indicate that Dr. Arthur made, remade, and re-cemented temporary crowns for teeth 7, 8, and 9 on a number of occasions, noting at least once that Patient J.A.D. “broke temps” that had been prepared and seated by Dr. Arthur. On December 1, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was reevaluated by Dr. Arthur. He noted the facial soft tissue at the implant was red, with an apparent fistula. A periapical radiograph was “unremarkable.” The temporary crowns, which were loose, were removed, air abraded to remove the cement, and re-cemented in place. Patient J.A.D. was prescribed an antibiotic. He was again seen by Dr. Arthur on December 13, 2016. The temporary on tooth 9 was broken, which was then remade and re-cemented. The fistula was smaller but still present. Patient J.A.D. was seen by Dr. Arthur on February 2, 2017, with the tooth 9 temporary crown fractured again. The fistula was still present. Patient J.A.D. advised that “the bone feels like it’s caving in around where she put that implant.” That statement is accepted not for the truth of the matter asserted, but as evidence that the complaint was first voiced in February 2017. On April 4, 2017, more than a year after the placement of the implant, Patient J.A.D was seen by Dr. Arthur. Dr. Arthur determined that the implant for tooth 8 was “stable and restorable in current position.” The fistula was still present and, after anesthesia, a probe was placed in the fistula where it contacted the implant cover screw. Although Dr. Arthur replaced the implant abutment, he ultimately placed the final crown on the implant placed by Respondent, where it remained at the time of the final hearing. The fact that incidents of Patient J.A.D. breaking and loosening the temporary crowns that occurred with Respondent continued with Dr. Arthur supports a finding that the problems were, more likely than not, the result of stress and overuse of Patient J.A.D.’s front teeth. On October 24, 2016, a series of CBCT radiographs was taken of the implant and its proximity to tooth 7. Dr. Kinzler testified that, in his opinion, the implant was of an appropriate length, but was too large for the socket. Much of his testimony was based on the October 24 radiograph and his examination of the resulting October 29, 2016, report. Although the report indicated that there was minimal bone between the implant and the root of tooth 7, and that the buccal cortex appeared thinned or eroded, those observations are of limited persuasive value as to whether the standard of performance was met almost eight months prior. Patient J.A.D. obviously worked, and overworked, his dental appliances. Without more, the evidence is not clear and convincing that his subsequent and repeated problems, including “thinned or eroded” bone in the buccal cortex, were the result of a violation of the standard of performance in the sizing and placement of the tooth 8 implant by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, enter a Final Order: Dismissing the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 19-2898PL and the Amended Administrative Complaint in Case No. 19-2902PL; With regard to Case No. 19-2899PL: 1) dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint; 2) determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient S.S. by: failing to adequately diagnose the condition of the roots of tooth 30; failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 30 during root canal treatment; failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment; failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following changes to the tooth’s margins; and failing to adequately assess and correct the crown on tooth 31 when the fit was compromised, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; and 3) determining that Respondent did not fail to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient S.S. by failing to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; With regard to Case No. 19-2900PL, determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient G.H. by seating a crown containing an open margin on tooth 13 and failing to adequately diagnose issues with the crown on tooth 13, and by failing to perform appropriate corrective treatment after having sufficient evidence of the deficiencies, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; With regard to Case No. 19-2901PL: 1) determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient J.D. by: failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing an implant in the area of tooth 14; failing to appropriately place the implant by attempting to place it into a curved root which could not accommodate the implant; failing to react appropriately to the sinking implant by trying to twist off the carrier instead of following the technique outlined in the implant’s manual; and paying, or having paid on her behalf, an indemnity in the amount of $75,000 as a result of negligent conduct in her treatment of Patient J.D., as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and 2) determining that Respondent did not fail to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient J.D. by failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations; Suspending Respondent’s license in accordance with rule 64B5-13.005(1)(x) and rule 64B5-13.005(3)(e), to be followed by a period of probation, with appropriate terms of probation to include remedial education in addition to such other terms that the Board believes necessary to ensure Respondent’s practical ability to perform dentistry as authorized by rule 64B5- 13.005(3)(d)2.; Imposing an administrative fine of $10,000; and Requiring reimbursement of costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: George Kellen Brew, Esquire Law Office of George K. Brew Suite 1804 6817 Southpoint Parkway Jacksonville, Florida 32216 (eServed) Kelly Fox, Esquire Department of Health 2585 Merchant’s Row Tallahassee, Florida 32311 (eServed) Octavio Simoes-Ponce, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Chad Wayne Dunn, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Jennifer Wenhold, Interim Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health Bin C-08 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3258 (eServed) Louise Wilhite-St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should receive on the the clinical portion of the examination additional credit, which is sufficient to receive a passing grade on the December 1997 dental licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Neda Raeisian, was a candidate for the dental licensure examination administered by the State of Florida in December 1997. The dental examination administered in December 1997 consisted of three parts: a "Florida Laws & Rules" part, an "Oral Diagnosis" part, and a "Clinical" part. The Petitioner received passing scores on the "Florida Laws & Rules" and "Oral Diagnosis" parts of the examination. Petitioner received a score of 2.95 on the Clinical part of the examination. A score of 3.00 was required on the Clinical part of the examination. The Petitioner failed the Clinical portion by .05 of a point, and, therefore, she failed the overall dental examination. Three examiners grade each candidate's clinical portion of the dental examination. Three examiners are used because by averaging the scores of the three examiners, the Respondent is more likely to capture the candidate's true score than by using one or two examiners. Before an examiner may be used for an examination, he or she must be recommended by an existing examiner or by a member of the Board of Dentistry. The proposed examiner may not have any complaints against his or her license and he or she must have been actively practicing and licensed for at least five years in the State of Florida. The examiner must complete an application that is sent to the Board of Dentistry examination committee, where it is then reviewed by the committee, and if approved, the examiner is entered into the pool of examiners. Before every examination, the Respondent conducts a standardization session, which is a process by which examiners are trained to grade using the same internal criteria. The Respondent uses assistant examiner supervisors who are appointed by the Board to train examiners on the different criteria that are used during the examination. The assistant examination supervisors go through and describe what a score of five would be, all the way down to a zero, the different criteria for each of those particular grades, and under what circumstances those grades should be given. After the examiners go through a verbal training, they are shown slides of teeth and told what the score on that procedure should be. After the standardization, there is a post- standardization exercise where the examiners are required to grade five mannequin models to make sure they have been able to internalize the criteria. After the post-standardization exercise, the Respondent evaluates the examiners to determine whether they are acceptable to use during the examination. There are also post-examination checks on the examiner, whereby the Respondent decides whether or not to use the examiners again. The Respondent runs the post-examination statistical checks to make sure that the examiners grade with consistency and reliability. There is generally a very high agreement rate between the examiners. Typically if there is an inconsistency in grading, it is usually the examiner who gives the higher grade that is incorrect because he or she missed an error; any error found by an examiner must be documented. The examiners grade the examination independently of each other; that is, they do not confer with each other while scoring the examination. The examination is also double-blind graded. Double- blind grading is the process through which examiners have no contact with the candidates. The examination is conducted in such a way that there is one clinic that is monitored by a licensed dentist in which the candidates actually perform the procedures. When the candidates are finished a proctor walks the patient over to another clinic where the examiners are located, and the examiners grade the examination. The candidates perform the patient portion of the examination on human beings that they are responsible for bringing in. If the patient has the necessary characteristics, the patient could serve for two different candidates or on two different examinations. The examination is a minimum competency examination. The grading system used during the clinical portion of the examination is as follows: A zero is a complete failure, a one is unacceptable dental procedure; a two is below minimally acceptable dental procedure; a three is minimally acceptable procedure, which is the minimum required to pass the clinical portion; a four is better than minimally acceptable dental procedure; and a five is outstanding dental procedure. An overall score is determine by averaging the three examiners' scores on the eight clinical procedures, putting different weights into a formula, and calculating the final grade. It is required in Board rule that the scores of the examiners be averaged. The Petitioner challenges the score given to her for her performance on Procedure 03, "Amalgam Final Restoration," of the Clinical portion of the examination. The Petitioner performed Procedure 03, the "Amalgam Final Restoration," on a live patient, Ms. Desiree Peacock. The Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03 was graded by three examiners: examiner number 290, identified as Dr. Richard Tomlin, of Pinellas Park, Florida; examiner number 299, identified as Dr. Haychell Saraydar, of Pinellas Park, Florida; and examiner number 176, identified as Dr. Leonard Britten, of Lutz, Florida. The Petitioner received a grade of 4 on a scale of 0-5 for her performance on Procedure 03 by examiner number 290; and a grade of 3 on a scale of 0-5 for her performance on Procedure 3 by examiner number 299. However, she received a grade of 0 on a scale of 0-5 for her performance on Procedure 03 by examiner number 176. The reason the Petitioner was given a score of 0 on procedure 03 by examiner number 176 was that the examiner felt that there was a lack of contact at the amalgam restoration site. The Respondent's dental expert, Jorge H. Miyares, D.D.S., testified that a score of 4 is given on Procedure 3 when, in the judgment of the examiner, there are only minor errors present which will not jeopardize the procedure; that a score of 3 is given on Procedure 03 when, in the judgment of the examiner, the procedure is completed at entry level; and that a score of 0 on Procedure 03 is mandatory if there is a total lack of contact. The examiners are taught and trained to check for contact when grading a candidate's performance on Procedure 03, as a lack of contact is a very significant error that jeopardizes the integrity of the amalgam restoration. There are two different types of contact involved in a Class II Restoration. The type of contact that was referenced by Examiner 176 in his grade documentation sheet is proximal contact. Proximal contact is when a tooth is restored, the proximal tooth next to it must be touching the tooth that has been prepared. Contact is something that either does or does not exist between two teeth. Contact is checked visually and by running a piece of dental floss between the teeth to see if there is resistance. Examiners 290 and 299 would have been required to give the Petitioner a grade of 0 on Procedure 03 if they had found a lack of contact. The findings of examiners 290 and 299 during their review of the Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03 were inconsistent with the findings of examiner 176 (lack of contact) during his review of the Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03. The inconsistency between the findings of examiners 290 and 299 and the findings of examiner 176 during their review of the Petitioner's performance on Procedure 03 were statistically unusual. Respondent performed Procedure 03 on the patient Desiree Peacock. Following the exam, Peacock used dental floss on the affected area and she believed she felt resistance. Although the grading on Procedure 03 of the clinical portion of the examination is inconsistent, the Respondent followed its standard testing procedures for the December 1997 dental examination. The evidence is insufficient to prove that the Respondent's examiner acted arbitrarily or capriciously or with an abuse of discretion in refusing to give the Petitioner a passing grade on procedure 03 of the clinical examination.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grade assigned her for the clinical portion of the December 1997 dental licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Anne Williamson, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dr. Neda Raeisian 2161 Lake Debra Drive Apartment 1726 Orlando, Florida 32835 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle Southeast Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Phillip Kibbee Parsons holds a dentist's license issued by petitioner, No. DN 0003193, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, and has at all pertinent times. Also at all pertinent times, he has been engaged in the private practice of dentistry in Keystone Heights, Florida. In May of 1986, Bruce Robert McHollan made his first visit to Dr. Parsons' office, to "have [his] teeth checked and to see if [he] needed any work done." T.10. Dr. Parsons caused radiographs to be taken, and Mr. McHollan's teeth were cleaned on this initial visit. When Dr. Parsons suggested replacing his fillings with "non-mercury amalgam fillings," (T.11), Mr. McHollan rejected the idea, and told Dr. Parsons he "was only interested in having decay . . . [and] any cavities . . . repaired." T.11. During two visits in September of 1986 Dr. Parsons placed or replaced nine fillings in Mr. McHollan's teeth. At the time, Mr. McHollan assumed this work was necessary to repair damage done by tooth decay, and the evidence did not establish otherwise. The following year and again on June 8, 1989, Mr. McHollan returned. He had his teeth cleaned on both occasions and, on June 8, 1989, Dr. Parsons who caused a second set of radiographs to be taken that day, advised Mr. McHollan that he needed additional fillings. Under the impression that these fillings were needed on account of decay that had developed since the earlier fillings, Mr. McHollan authorized Dr. Parsons to proceed. He submitted to six fillings on June 13, 1989, and another ten fillings on July 25, 1989. Eventually he noticed that his original fillings had all been replaced. Dr. Parsons' testimony at hearing that the original fillings all leaked and required replacement was uncontroverted. When Mr. McHollan returned to Dr. Parsons' office on August 1, 1989, to discuss his dental health, Dr. Parsons told him "that there w[ere] at least nine [more] areas where there was decay and needed to be filled, but he [Dr. Parsons] couldn't be sure of the total amount until he installed a rubber dam." T.15. Estimating the cost of additional restorations, Dr. Parsons continued, "Let's be conservative and let's say there are 12 more," id., then jotted down the following: ESTIMATE: 8/1/89 BRUCE McHOLLAN 12 90 1080 Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. He wrote this estimate on a piece of paper on which his name and address are printed. At the time, Dr. Parsons charged $90 per filling. Suspicious about the need for additional fillings, Mr. McHollan went to his mother's dentist, George W. Boring, for a second opinion. On September 8, 1989, Dr. Boring examined Mr. McHollan's teeth and two bite-wing radiographs he had taken of them that day. He found no decay nor any evidence of decalcification or other demineralization. Later asked to compare radiographs taken in his office on September 8, 1989, with copies of those taken in Dr. Parsons' office on June 13, 1989, Dr. Boring concluded that they "basically looked the same." T.47. Cavities or carious conditions do not always show up on x-rays; in fact, "as often as not," (T.4a) they cannot be detected in this fashion. On December 7, 1989, Mr. McHollan sent Dr. Parsons a letter, the body of which began, "Send me my complete dental office records and all of my x-rays as soon as possible." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. He received x-rays taken in Dr. Parsons' office on June 13, 1989, but obtained no other records directly from Dr. Parsons' office. Later a collection agency sent Mr. McHollan copies of some, but not all, of the records Dr. Parson had maintained on him. In performing the restorations in the summer of 1989, Dr. Parsons had used rubber dams. A rubber dam permits isolation of a tooth surface so that the dentist can dry it for work (or observation) free of a film of saliva. Both Dr. Parsons and his assistant of twelve years, Pamela Slocumb, saw "white spots" on dry surfaces of Mr. McHollan's teeth, but neither saw carious lesions penetrating to the dentin. Expert testimony established that white spots on dry teeth evince demineralization. "[A]ccording to dental textbooks," (T.168E) demineralization constitutes active decay. In the early stages, demineralization usually is not very visible to the eye on a wet tooth, and either isolation with a rubber dam or isolation with cotton rolls, and then drying the tooth, would demonstrate this, whereas to the naked eye and, for that matter, even to the little sharp explorer, . . . if they were wet, they probably wouldn't be observable. T.190. Demineralization can lead to further decay, but it can also be a transitory condition: [C]ertain of the chemicals that are in the enamel are also dissolved in the saliva, and under certain circumstances . . . the calcium and other products in the saliva, will redeposit in these areas, and will actually build it back up. T.192. Remineralization can occur very rapidly, (T.193) and easily be completed over a period as long as that which elapsed between Dr. Parsons' last examination and the examination Dr. Boring performed. On October 29, 1990, some fourteen months after Dr. Parsons told him he needed at least nine fillings, Mr. McHollan's teeth had "moderate plaque and some stain," but not the kind of stain sometimes incorporated into the structure of the teeth in the course of remineralization. On October 29, 1990, a third dentist, Hugh B. Avant, examined Mr. McHollan's mouth as well as roentgenograms taken that day, bite-wing views from either side and three periapical views. On the cheek side of the upper left wisdom tooth, one of the places on which Dr. Parsons had seen white spots, Dr. Avant found a carious lesion of moderate size, which had penetrated the enamel into the dentin. He found no other carious lesions. In keeping with the standard of care for a general dentist practicing in Keystone Heights and elsewhere in that part of Florida, teeth require restoration by a dentist once a carious lesion penetrates the enamel into the dentin. Both Doctors Avant and Boring adhere to this standard. Filling a tooth which has demineralized but has no carious lesion would "not generally" be in conformity with the standard, at least the standard DPR's expert is "accustomed to." T.110. DPR's expert testified: "I don't think it's the standard of practice to start filling all areas like that, just because you think they are susceptible and they have some decalcification." T.112. But the patient's history may have a bearing. Dr. Bliss, a former member of the Board of Dentistry, testified for respondent, specifically with reference to Mr. McHollan and in light of his particular history, that "in a patient like this . . . it would not be below the standard to recommend that these [white-spotted] areas be cleaned and restored." T.189. He further testified that he had "had patients where I have identified these areas, and in my extreme conservatism, didn't do something, and within a month's time, it had gone into the dentin." T.200.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, in keeping with Rule 21G-13.005(3)(v), Florida Administrative Code, RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Dentistry impose a fine of five hundred dollars ($500), reprimand respondent, and place him on probation for a period of three years. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 44 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 13, whether Dr. Parsons had a recollection concerning the use of an explorer was not established. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 15, Dr. Parsons testified that he filled teeth when there was a history of severe decay and decalcification, and he felt further decay was likely, but he did not testify to any standard on page 180. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 16 and 26 pertain to immaterial matters. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 21, 22, 23, 33, 34, 35 and 36 pertain to subordinate matters. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 25 and 43 have been rejected as unsupported by the evidence cited. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 16 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 4, the testimony was that "these decalcified areas" would not have been visible if wet. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 5 and 11 were not convincingly disproven. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 8, there were nine, not twelve, surfaces. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, there are other ways to dry teeth for observation. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 15 relates to a subordinate matter. COPIES FURNISHED: Anna Cam Fentriss, Esquire Newell & Stahl, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32303-6313 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire One North Dale Mabry, Suite 1010 Tampa, FL 33609 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should receive a passing score on the December 2001 dental license examination.
Findings Of Fact In December 2001, Petitioner took the dental licensure examination and failed to pass the clinical portion of the exam. The examination is a three-day process involving two days of clinical examination. Those two days of clinical examination consist of nine procedures. Four of the nine procedures were challenged by Petitioner. The clinical portion is where the candidate is required to perform certain patient procedures. The work product of the student, or candidate, is evaluated following the performance of those procedures by three examiners. Each examiner grades the candidate independently of whatever score the other examiners may award on a particular procedure. Then the average grade for each procedure is weighted in accordance with requirements of Rule 64B5-2.013, Florida Administrative Code. This produces the overall score for the entire clinical exam. The Department uses three examiners' scores because this provides a more reliable indication of the candidate's competency and true score. Further, each examiner must be a licensed dentist for a minimum of five years and have no complaints or disciplinary actions against their license. Examiners have no contact with the candidate taking the examination and, accordingly, have no idea of who they are grading. To further ensure fairness, each examiner must attend and successfully complete a standardization session. The purpose of these sessions is to ensure that each examiner is trained to use the same internal grading criteria. In standardization, each examiner is thoroughly taught specific grading criteria with the result that examiners are instructed on how to evaluate the work of the candidates. The examiners who graded Petitioner’s examination had successfully completed the foregoing standardization session. Also, the Department’s post-exam check found these examiners’ grading to be reliable. Petitioner contested the score he received on Procedure 4, the Endodontic procedure, a root canal. The Endodontic procedure required removal of infected nerve tissue and blood vessels pulp from the tooth. Petitioner was required to access the canal and pulp tissue from the outside. Then, Petitioner was required to remove the bad nerve and cleanse the canal. Finally, Petitioner was required to seal the canal to prevent recurring bacteria. Petitioner failed to observe a fracture in the tooth. He claimed that a fracture to the root of the tooth was caused by the Department after he reviewed his examination and that no one advised him the root was fractured. Petitioner requested a score of 3.00 for this procedure. However, the Department's witness, Dr. William F. Robinson, a licensed dentist for 32 years who examined the tooth and X-ray prepared by Petitioner, testified that the fracture to the root was noticed in both the X-ray and on the tooth when he examined the same. Additionally, two of the three re-graders also noted the fracture of the root. With regard to Petitioner's preparation of the X-ray at the conclusion of the examination, Dr. Robinson opined that Petitioner caused the fracture to the root during the examination and not the Department, as alleged by Petitioner. Dr. Robinson further opined that even without a fracture to the root of the tooth, Petitioner failed the procedure and the failing grade he received was fair. Dr. Robinson would not recommend that Petitioner receive a passing score of 3.00 on the procedure. The examiners' comments and grades and the testimony of Dr. William F. Robinson establish that Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure. The grade Petitioner received was fair. Petitioner challenged the grade he received on Procedure 5, the Class IV Composite Restoration of the front tooth, but did not offer any testimony at the hearing as to why the score was not correct for the procedure. Petitioner requested that the score of 1.00 given by one of the examiners be thrown out, thus giving him a passing grade on this procedure. Procedure 5 of the dental licensure examination is a procedure that involves the candidate’s ability to replace the edge of the front tooth with a composite resin material, which is a tooth-colored filling. As established by the examiners’ comments and grades and the testimony of Dr. William F. Robinson, Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure and the grade Petitioner received was fair. Specifically, the examiners found that the tooth was abraded and the re-grader noted, as did the examiners, the excessive “flash” on the tooth. Dr. Robinson also noted both deficiencies in the procedure. Petitioner contested the score he received on Procedure 6, the Class II Composite Restoration procedure in his original petition, but offered no testimony at the hearing concerning this procedure. Dr. Robinson reviewed the examiners' grades and the tooth prepared by Petitioner and opined that Petitioner’s grade of 2.66 for this procedure is fair. Based on the examiners’ comments and grades and the testimony of Dr. Robinson, Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure and the grade Petitioner received was fair. Petitioner contested the score he received on Procedure 7, the preparation for a 3-unit Fixed Partial Denture, claiming that on the re-grade one of the examiners reviewed the wrong procedure. The Preparation for a 3-unit Fixed Partial Denture procedure of the dental licensure examination is a procedure that involves the candidate’s ability to provide preparations of two (2) teeth in order to replace a missing tooth with a fixed bridge. Dr. Robinson established that Petitioner’s work on this procedure resulted in one tooth, No. 29, being grossly over reduced and tooth No. 31 was insufficiently reduced. The result of such work is that it is impossible to place a bridge on such an improper preparation. As established by testimony of Dr. Robinson, Petitioner's problem with this procedure resulted from Petitioner’s undercut. This undercut indicated that Petitioner’s preparations were not properly aligned to accept a bridge. Based on the examiners’ comments and grades, and the testimony of Dr. Robinson, Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure and the grade Petitioner received was fair. The Department's “re-grade” process was utilized in this case. Used to give all candidates who timely request a hearing another chance at passing, the re-grade process allows the Department to go back and determine whether any grades rendered were inconsistent. The Department selects the top three examiners who had the highest reliability from that examination to participate in the re-grade process. The Department maintains post-standardization statistics of the examiners’ performance. In this case, those statistics indicated that Petitioner’s examiners graded reliably. In addition, the Department calculates post- examination statistics for the examiners, which are as follows for the examiners who graded Petitioner’s challenged procedures: Examiner Accuracy Index & Rating #206 95.8-Excellent #375 98.8-Excellent #380 92.1-Good #334 97.8-Excellent #298 95.9-Excellent #375 98.8-Excellent-was an original and a re-grader. All of Petitioner's examiners exhibited a reliability significantly above the minimum acceptable accuracy index of 85.0.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the grade assigned him for the December 2001 dental licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Jason S. Baker, D.M.D. Westchester Medical Center 95 Grasslands Road, Box 572 Valhalla, New York 10595 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, a dentist, failed to maintain adequate records regarding his treatment of patient R.S. and/or provided R.S. dental care that fell below minimum standards of performance, as Petitioner alleges. If Respondent committed any of these offenses, it will be necessary to determine an appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Joseph Gaeta, D.D.S., was licensed to practice dentistry in the state of Florida. Petitioner Department of Health (the "Department") has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed dentists such as Dr. Gaeta. In particular, the Department is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint against a dentist, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Dentistry has found that probable cause exists to suspect that the dentist has committed a disciplinable offense. Here, the Department alleges that Dr. Gaeta committed two such offenses. In Count I of the Complaint, the Department charged Dr. Gaeta with the offense defined in section 466.028(1)(m), alleging that he failed to keep written dental records justifying the course of treatment of a patient named R.S., whom Dr. Gaeta saw six times over a five-month period from November 15, 2002, through April 11, 2006. In Count II, Dr. Gaeta was charged with incompetence or negligence——again vis-à-vis R.S.——allegedly by failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance, an offense under section 466.028(1)(x). The Material Historical Facts The events giving rise to this case began on November 15, 2005, when R.S., a retired septuagenarian who spent winters in Florida but considered Michigan——where he resided the rest of the year——to be his home, arrived at Dr. Gaeta's office with an acute problem, namely a loose tooth. The tooth——#24, an incisor located in the lower jaw, center-left——had recently been knocked loose when R.S. bit into a cashew. Dr. Gaeta's office had scheduled R.S. for an immediate visit when he had called for an appointment, advising that they would "work [him] in." Upon being seen, R.S. informed Dr. Gaeta that he would be leaving in a couple of days for a cruise, and that, consequently, he wanted the bare minimum amount of dental treatment. Dr. Gaeta performed a comprehensive examination of R.S.'s mouth and took X-rays, including periapical X-rays of front tooth #9 (upper jaw, center-left) and tooth #24 . The examination revealed multiple problems besides the loose tooth, including lingual and buccal decay, bone loss, periodontal disease, and a loose amalgam filling in tooth #29 (lower right bicuspid), which filling popped out when probed. These issues were recorded in R.S.'s dental record. Dr. Gaeta prepared a treatment plan in accordance with R.S.'s desire to have as little dental work done as possible. Dr. Gaeta proposed to extract tooth #24, which was noted to have class III mobility (meaning it was quite loose as a result of bone loss caused by periodontal disease), and, in place of the absent tooth, substitute an artificial tooth known as a pontic, which would be supported by a five-unit bridge using the adjacent teeth (##22-23 and ##25-26) as abutment teeth. He proposed to place a crown on tooth #9 due to lingual decay, and another on tooth #29, from which the amalgam filling had fallen out. This treatment plan was documented in R.S.'s chart. Dr. Gaeta informed R.S. of his diagnoses, explained the treatment options, and obtained verbal consent to proceed with the prescribed course of treatment (described above). Dr. Gaeta noted in R.S.'s dental record that he "gave pt [patient] tx [treatment] plan," but did not otherwise memorialize the substance of their discussion, nor did he obtain written consent to treatment from R.S. After agreeing on a course of treatment, R.S. paid in advance for the procedures he had orally authorized Dr. Gaeta to perform. Thereafter, an anesthetic drug known by its brand name, Septocaine®, was injected to numb R.S.'s mouth, and Dr. Gaeta pulled tooth #24. He also "prepped" tooth #9, tooth #24, and the abutment teeth (##22-23 and ##25-26) and seated temporary crowns on them. Finally, Dr. Gaeta installed a temporary bridge, which would remain in R.S.'s mouth until the arrival and placement of a custom-made fixture from a dental laboratory. All of this dental work (including the use of the anesthetic), which was performed on November 15, 2005, was noted in R.S.'s chart. The evidence is in conflict as to whether Dr. Gaeta gave R.S. "post-operative" instructions following the provision of any dental treatments, including but not limited to the procedures performed on November 15, 2005. Dr. Gaeta testified that he did provide such instructions, as necessary, but did not note having done so in R.S.'s chart (which is undisputed) because in his opinion the recordkeeping laws do not require dentists to document the occurrence or substance of such routine dentist-patient communications (a legal point with which the Department disagrees). R.S. testified (via deposition) that Dr. Gaeta never provided any instructions. Neither witness is more believable than the other on this issue. As a result, the undersigned is unable to determine without hesitancy that Dr. Gaeta failed to provide post-operative instructions, as the Department alleged. The evidence offered in support of this allegation, in sum, is legally insufficient because it is not clear and convincing. R.S. next saw Dr. Gaeta on January 3, 2006. This appointment was for the purpose of making final impressions for the crowns, but R.S. presented with a new problem, which was that tooth #9 was painful. A panoramic X-ray was taken and the fact noted in R.S.'s record. Based on that X-ray plus the previous pariapical X-ray of tooth #9, which radiographs showed significant decay and a large filling in the tooth, together with the patient's complaint that the tooth was sensitive (a symptom noted in the chart), Dr. Gaeta determined that tooth #9 needed root canal therapy and documented his conclusion in the chart. Dr. Gaeta performed a root canal on tooth #9. The Department has alleged that Dr. Gaeta failed to measure the root canal length using either an X-ray or, alternatively, an instrument called an apex locator. Dr. Gaeta testified credibly that he used an apex locator to determine that the canal length was 15 millimeters. This measurement is noted in R.S.'s record, and Dr. Gaeta's testimony regarding the use of an apex locator is credited. The Department further alleged that Dr. Gaeta failed to take a post-operative X-ray to determine whether the root canal had been completely filled. The record, however, includes such an X-ray. Finally, the Department alleged that Dr. Gaeta failed to use a rubber dam when performing the root canal procedure on tooth #9. But based on Dr. Gaeta's credible testimony, the undersigned finds that Dr. Gaeta did, in fact, use a rubber dam. Dr. Gaeta did not note in R.S.'s record the use of an apex locator or rubber dam; he denies having an obligation to document the use of common dental implements in a patient's chart. Dr. Gaeta gave R.S. Septocaine® to produce local anesthesia during the root canal procedure. He did not note this fact, or the strength and dosage of the anesthetic drug administered, in R.S.'s chart. Dr. Gaeta maintains that there is no legal requirement to record such information in the patient's dental record. R.S. saw Dr. Gaeta four more times, on February 7, March 27, March 31, and April 11, 2006. Over the course of these visits, excluding the final one in April, Dr. Gaeta placed permanent crowns on tooth #9 and tooth #29 and completed the dental work required to install the permanent bridge spanning tooth #22 and tooth #26. The details of these visits are largely irrelevant, except as set forth below. During the visit on April 11, 2006, Dr. Gaeta learned that R.S.'s tooth #29, which had been crowned earlier that year, had broken near the gum line. The Department did not allege that Dr. Gaeta's treatment of tooth #29 caused the tooth to fracture, but rather charged that Dr. Gaeta: (a) placed the crown without first determining whether the tooth was strong enough to support it; and (b) failed to determine, in April 2006, why the tooth had broken. The Department failed to prove these allegations by clear and convincing evidence, as explained below. Regarding the first of these allegations, it must be observed, initially, that Dr. Gaeta is charged with failing to determine whether tooth #29 could support a crown, not with making an improper determination as measured against the standard of care. Consequently, unless the evidence shows clearly and convincingly that Dr. Gaeta placed the crown despite having not made up his mind one way or the other about the strength of tooth #29, Dr. Gaeta must be found not guilty. Indeed, strange as it sounds, Dr. Gaeta would be not guilty even if the evidence showed that he determined tooth #29 was not strong enough to support a crown and proceeded to place one anyway, for the charge, again, is failing to make a determination, not making a mistaken determination. That said, it is undisputed that the only reasonable alternative to placing a crown on tooth #29 was extraction. Contrary to the Department's allegation, the evidence suggests that Dr. Gaeta did, in fact, determine that tooth #29 might be saved with a crown——a course of treatment that would spare R.S. the loss of yet another tooth. Without more than is present in the instant record, the mere fact that tooth #29 later broke is insufficient to prove, clearly and convincingly, that Dr. Gaeta's judgment fell below the standard of care, much less that he gave little or no thought to the question of whether the tooth could support a crown, as charged. To be sure, the Department's expert witness, Dr. Spiro, testified that, in his opinion, tooth #29 should have been pulled because, he "believe[s]," the "crown to root ratio" was too high. Putting aside that Dr. Gaeta was not actually charged with violating the standard of care by crowning a tooth that could not support a crown, Dr. Spiro did not give an opinion——based on generally prevailing peer performance——as to what an acceptable crown-to-root ratio would be, nor did he (or anyone else) testify about what the crown-to-root ratio of R.S.'s tooth #29 actually was, making it impossible for the undersigned to determine independently whether the latter ratio was too high relative to the standard of care. Thus, Dr. Spiro's belief that Dr. Gaeta violated the standard of care in placing a crown on tooth #29 was an unpersuasive "net opinion" that was, moreover, plainly personal in nature as opposed to being evidently grounded on an objective standard deduced from knowledge of the prevailing practices of dentists as a group. For these reasons, Dr. Spiro's testimony in this regard is not accepted as clear and convincing evidence in support of the allegation that Dr. Gaeta failed to determine whether tooth #29 could support a crown. As for the allegation that Dr. Gaeta failed to determine why tooth #29 broke, the evidence shows otherwise. It is noted in R.S.'s chart that during the visit on April 11, 2006, Dr. Gaeta explained to R.S. that he (R.S.) was "placing extreme force" on tooth #29, which was the patient's "only posterior tooth on [the] lower right" jaw. Even assuming for argument's sake, therefore, that the standard of care required Dr. Gaeta to make a determination as to why the tooth had broken, the evidence fails to prove that he did not do so. Further, the Department neither alleged nor proved that Dr. Gaeta erred, or otherwise violated the standard of care, in determining that tooth #29 had broken apart because, being R.S.'s only lower right rear tooth, it was exposed to extreme force when R.S. chewed his food. This particular allegation, in sum, was not proved by clear and convincing evidence. The Charges The charges against Dr. Gaeta are set forth in the Complaint under two counts. In Count I, the Department accused Dr. Gaeta of failing to keep adequate dental records, an offense disciplinable pursuant to section 466.028(1)(m). The Department alleged that, in the course of treating R.S., Dr. Gaeta violated the recordkeeping requirements in 13 separate instances, which are identified in paragraph 27, subparagraphs a) through m) of the Complaint. In Count II, the Department charged Dr. Gaeta with dental malpractice, which is punishable under section 466.028(1)(x). Fifteen separate instances of alleged negligence in the treatment of R.S. are set forth in paragraph 31, subparagraphs a) through o). The allegations in paragraphs 27 and 31 are largely parallel to one another, so that, when aligned side-by-side, they can be examined in logical pairs. Generally speaking, the Department's theory in relation to each allegation-pair can be expressed as follows: Where the circumstances required that the dental act "X" be done for R.S. to meet the minimum standards of performance as measured against generally prevailing peer performance, Dr. Gaeta failed to do X, thereby violating the standard of care. Dr. Gaeta also failed to record doing X in the patient's record, thereby violating the recordkeeping requirements. The parallel propositions comprising each allegation- pair are mutually exclusive. For example, if Dr. Gaeta did not, in fact, do X, then he might be found to have violated the standard of care, if the Department were successful in proving, additionally, that, under the circumstances, X was required to be done to meet the minimum standards of performance. If Dr. Gaeta did not do X, however, he obviously could not be disciplined for not recording in R.S.'s chart that he actually performed X.2 (If a dentist were to write in the patient's chart that he performed X when in fact he had not performed X, he would be making a false record; that would be a recordkeeping violation, but it is not the sort of misconduct with which the Department has charged Dr. Gaeta.) On the other hand, if Dr. Gaeta in fact did X and failed to note in R.S.'s chart having done X, then——if the law required Dr. Gaeta to document the performance of X——he would be guilty of a recordkeeping violation. But if Dr. Gaeta performed X, then (with one exception) he could not simultaneously be found guilty, here, of a standard-of-care violation, even if he performed X negligently. This is because nearly all of the standard-of-care allegations against Dr. Gaeta involve omissions, i.e., alleged failures to act, which means that the Department's burden was to prove that Dr. Gaeta did not do X when the circumstances required that X be performed. Such a violation of the standard of care (namely, not doing X when X should have been done) is quite different from performing X negligently; the latter would be a disciplinable offense, but (with one exception) it is not the type of wrongdoing with which the Department has charged Dr. Gaeta. The specific charges against Dr. Gaeta are reproduced in the table below, which places the corresponding allegation- pairs side-by-side in separate rows. The standard-of-care violations set forth in Count II are located in column A, while the recordkeeping violations charged in Count I are listed in column B. For ease of presentation, the undersigned has reordered the allegations to some extent. Further, in several instances a subparagraph has been divided into two parts. For example, paragraph 31 k) of the Complaint is shown in the table as paragraphs 31 k.1) and 31 k.2). An empty cell——e.g., column B, row 10 (hereafter, "B10")——denotes the absence of a corresponding allegation. Text which has been stricken through, as in B12, reflects allegations that the Department either withdrew at hearing or conceded in its Proposed Recommended Order. These allegations were not proved and will not be discussed further in this Recommended Order. The Department charges Dr. Gaeta as follows: A Count II, ¶ 31: Alleged Standard-of-Care Violations B Count I, ¶ 27: Alleged Recordkeeping Violations 1 a) [F]ail[ing] to provide a comprehensive diagnosis with adequate radiographs, study models or impressions, periodontal depth probe charting, tooth charting and a comprehensive treatment plan prior to initiating root canal treatment and crown/bridge placement . . . . a.1) [F]ailing to record an overall comprehensive written diagnosis, with periodontal depth probe and tooth charting, failing to document a written comprehensive treatment plan . . . . 2 k.1) [F]ail[ing] to provide adequate diagnosis, including symptoms, with an accompanying treatment plan for Patient R.S. prior to initiating root canal i.1) [F]ailing to record an adequate diagnosis, symptoms, and accompanying treatment plan for Patient R.S. prior to initiating root canal treatment of tooth number 9 . . . . treatment of tooth number 9 . . . . 3 k.2) Respondent failed to record adequate exam results and/or perform a complete diagnosis in support of his root canal treatment for Patient R.S. i.2) Respondent failed to record adequate exam results and/or perform a complete diagnosis in support of his root canal treatment for Patient R.S. 4 c) [F]ail]ing] to fully determine through diagnostic exam results whether teeth numbers 22 and 26 were appropriate abutment teeth for a five-unit bridge and why an anterior lower five- unit bridge was needed[.] a.2) [F]ailing to document whether teeth numbers 22 and 26 were appropriate abutment teeth for a five-unit bridge and why an anterior lower five-unit bridge was needed[.] 5 e) [F]ail[ing] to formulate and/or present treatment options with explanation of risks/benefits to, and fail[ing] to obtain informed consent from, Patient R.S. prior to initiating any of the treatments provided[.] c) [F]ailing to document presenting treatment options with explanation of risks/benefits to, or obtaining informed consent from, Patient R.S. prior to initiating any of the treatments provided[.] 6 f) [F]ail[ing] to fully determine through diagnostic exam results where the amalgam filling was located on tooth number 29 and why it came loose as observed during the initial November 15, 2005, visit and fail[ing] to provide adequate diagnosis to justify seating of a crown on the tooth in lieu of restoring the filling . . . . d) [F]ailing to notate where the amalgam filling was located on tooth number 29 and why it came loose as observed during the initial November 15, 2005, visit and failing to provide a written diagnosis to justify seating of a crown on the tooth in lieu of restoring the filling . . . . 7 g) [F]ail[ing] to provide post-op instructions or discussions for Patient R.S. following procedures performed November 15, 2005, January 3, 2006, and/or for any other treatment visits notated[.] e) [F]ailing to record in the treatment notes that post-op instructions or discussions for Patient R.S. were provided appropriately following procedures performed November 15, 2005, January 3, 2006, and/or for any other treatment visits notated[.] 8 l) [F]ailing to take a diagnostic working length radiograph, and/or use of an apex locator, and/or take a post-op fill radiograph during the root canal treatment provided on or about January 3, 2006[.] j) [F]ailing to record a diagnostic working length radiograph, and/or use of an apex locator, and/or tak[e] a post-op fill radiograph during the root canal treatment provided on or about January 3, 2006[.] 9 m) [F]ail[ing] to use a rubber dam was used during the January 3, 2006, root k) [F]ailing to record that a rubber dam was used in the January 3, 2006, root canal canal procedure, and/or indicate why it was not employed[.] procedure, and if it was not, why it was not employed[.] 10 b) [F]ail[ing] to either fully diagnose and/or properly treat the periodontal condition [that was] noted in Patient R.S.'s mouth during the initial exam November 15, 2005, before embarking upon complex restorative treatments including root canal and crown and bridge restorations[.] 11 n.1) [S]eat[ing] a crown on tooth number 29 in early 2006, which broke off with the tooth at the gum line[,] without first determining if tooth number 29 was strong enough to support a crown . . . . 12 n.2) [F]ail[ing] to diagnose and determine why the crown seated a few months earlier at tooth number 29 broke off with the tooth[.] m.1) [F]ailing to record in treatment notes for Patient R.S.'s April 6, 2006, visit, why the crown seated a few months earlier at tooth number 29 broke off with the tooth at the gum line . . . . 13 l) [F]ailing to record the types and amounts of anesthetic used during the January 3, 2006, root canal procedure[.] 14 i) [F]ail[ing] to take a diagnostic (preferably periapical) radiograph of Patient R.S.'s tooth number 9 prior to initiating root canal treatment of the tooth . . . . g) [F]ailing to take and/or interpret in the treatment notes a diagnostic (preferably periapical) radiograph of Patient R.S.'s tooth number 9 prior to initiating root canal treatment of the tooth . . . . 15 j) [F]ail[ing] to perform any thermal, pulp, or bite percussion tests performed on Patient R.S. prior to initiating root canal treatment on tooth number 9[.] h) [F]ailing to record the results of any thermal, pulp, or bite percussion tests performed on Patient R.S. prior to initiating root canal treatment on tooth number 9[.] 16 d) [F]ail[ing] to fully determine through diagnostic exam results why an extraction of tooth number 24 was required and why a five- unit bridge was being fabricated instead of a three-unit bridge or some b) [F]ailing to clarify why an extraction of tooth number 24 was required and why a five-unit bridge was being fabricated instead of a three-unit bridge or some other restorative option in the treatment notes [dated] November 15, 2005, which other restorative option [on] November 15, 2005, during which Respondent extracted tooth number 24 and then prepared for a five-unit bridge from tooth sites 22-26 to replace the extracted tooth[.] indicate that Respondent extracted tooth number 24 and then prepared for a five unit bridge from tooth sites 22-26 to replace the extracted tooth[.] 17 h) [F]ail[ing] to inform f) [F]ailing to note informing Patient R.S. that temporary Patient R.S. that temporary or or permanent parathesia is a permanent parathesia is a known known risk of extractions risk of extractions when the when the patient presented on patient presented on December 9, December 9, 2005, complaining 2005, complaining on numbness in on numbness in the lingual the lingual area proximate to area proximate to the the extraction/bridge prep site. extraction/bridge prep site. Respondent further failed to re- Respondent further failed to check the parathesia and note re-check the parathesia and progress at subsequent note progress at subsequent appointments, and/or fail[ed] to appointments, and/or failed advise Patient R.S. of possible to advise Patient R.S. of referral to an oral surgeon if possible referral to an oral surgeon if needed[.] needed[.] 18 o) [F]ail[ing] to provide m.2) [F]ailing to record adequate diagnostic results diagnostic results to justify a to justify a proposed plan to proposed plan to seat crowns at seat crowns at tooth numbers tooth numbers 27 and 28, along 27 and 28, along with placing with placing implants at tooth implants at tooth numbers 29 numbers 29 and 30. and 30, after the crown seated on tooth number 29 broke off with the tooth at the gum line. The Expert Testimony The Department presented the testimony of Victor Spiro, D.D.S., on issues relating to the standard of care. Dr. Spiro was shown to have formulated his opinions without the benefit of some potentially relevant information available to the Department, e.g., the deposition of R.S., which he had not read, and some of the X-rays Dr Gaeta had taken. In addition, he misunderstood certain facts, such as the length of the dentist-patient relationship between Dr. Gaeta and R.S., which was about six months, not many years as Dr. Spiro believed. These considerations were marginally damaging to Dr. Spiro's credibility, but not as devastating as Dr. Gaeta has argued. The real problems with Dr. Spiro's testimony go to the heart of what an expert opinion must contain to be credited as evidence of a standard-of-care violation. To be convincing, the opinion needs to establish clearly the existence of a standard of care in the profession and explain how such standard applies to the facts of the case.3 As the statute plainly specifies, the standard of care must be a minimum standard of performance, not the optimal standard or best practice.4 The standard, moreover, must be based on "generally prevailing peer performance", that is, be "recognized as necessary and customarily followed in the community."5 It is therefore not sufficient for the standard-of- care expert (who likely has a keen interest in seeing his views "recognized as being 'correct' and 'justifiable'") merely to declare his personal opinions or practices and invite the fact- finder, either implicitly or explicitly, to extrapolate——from one practitioner's ideas about how the profession should perform——a generally applicable, minimum standard for all practitioners.6 Instead, to be credited, an expert's opinion on the standard of care must result from a process of deductive reasoning, based demonstrably upon an informed understanding7 of what the dental community, as a whole, generally does in a given situation.8 Here, Dr. Spiro did not convincingly articulate minimum standards of performance against which the undersigned, as fact-finder, can independently measure Dr. Gaeta's conduct. In addition, Dr. Spiro did not establish that his criticisms of Dr. Gaeta were based on a comparison of Dr. Gaeta's conduct to that which generally prevails in the relevant peer group. Indeed, the undersigned is not persuaded, much less convinced, that Dr. Spiro is familiar with the generally prevailing peer practices, if any, relevant to the charges in this case. In sum, a thorough review of Dr. Spiro's testimony leaves the undersigned with the distinct impression that Dr. Gaeta failed to measure up to Dr. Spiro's standards of performance. This is not a factually sufficient basis for the imposition of discipline. Because the Department failed to meet its burden of proof with regard to establishing the applicable minimum standards of care, it is unnecessary to make findings based on the testimony of Dr. Fish, whose opinions Dr. Gaeta offered to rebut those of Dr. Spiro. Ultimate Factual Determinations The evidence presented with regard to A1, A2, and A3 does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Dr. Gaeta "failed" to provide a "comprehensive diagnosis" inasmuch as the existence of a standard of care defining and requiring such a diagnosis was not proved and, in any event, Dr. Gaeta did diagnose and treat multiple problems in R.S.'s mouth. The evidence does not prove that Dr. Gaeta improperly diagnosed any of the conditions he treated. The evidence fails to establish convincingly any minimum standards of performance requiring the diagnostic tests that Dr. Gaeta allegedly failed to perform. There is, on the other hand, evidence that Dr. Gaeta performed diagnostic work on R.S., including periodontal depth probing. The evidence fails to establish convincingly the existence of a standard of care requiring (or defining) the provision of a "comprehensive treatment plan." There is, however, evidence that Dr. Gaeta developed a treatment plan for R.S., consistent with the patient's desires, which was implemented. Dr. Gaeta is not guilty of the charges reproduced in A1, A2, and A3 of the table above. The evidence fails to prove clearly and convincingly that Dr. Gaeta failed to record or include in R.S.'s chart any of the diagnoses he made, the results of examinations performed, or the X-rays taken. A dispute exists between the parties regarding whether the Department possessed all of the records comprising R.S.'s chart. The evidence suggests, as Dr. Gaeta maintains, that some materials might be missing. Given the many years that elapsed between the time Dr. Gaeta treated R.S. and the commencement of this proceeding, during which period Dr. Gaeta sold the dental practice in which R.S. had been seen and, as a result, surrendered exclusive control over R.S.'s chart, it is easy to accept that a few documents or X-rays have gotten lost or been misplaced. Dr. Gaeta was not charged, however, with failing to preserve dental records he had made, but rather with failing to enter certain required information upon R.S.'s chart.9 Therefore, he is not subject to discipline in this case for losing materials originally contained in R.S.'s chart.10 In sum, Dr. Gaeta is not guilty of the charges set forth in B1, B2, and B3 in the table above. Contrary to the allegations in A4, the evidence shows that Dr. Gaeta did, in fact, make a determination based on diagnostic examination results, including X-rays, that a five- unit bridge spanning tooth #22 and tooth #26 was appropriate. The evidence thus fails to prove clearly and convincingly that Dr. Gaeta gave little or no thought to the propriety of a five- unit bridge. He is not guilty of violating the standard of care as alleged in A4, even if his determination were wrong (which the evidence does not clearly establish either). Dr. Gaeta documented in R.S.'s chart the plan to install a five-unit bridge as a means of replacing tooth #24 with a false tooth. In doing so Dr. Gaeta clearly manifested his determination that the abutment teeth were appropriate. Although he did not write a detailed explanation of why a five- unit bridge was needed, Dr. Gaeta did prepare a dental record that justifies this course of treatment; thus he is not guilty of the recordkeeping violation alleged in B4. With regard to A5, the evidence is insufficient to prove clearly and convincingly that Dr. Gaeta failed to present treatment options, explain risks and benefits, and obtain informed consent before treating R.S., for there is credible evidence suggesting that he did those things. For that reason alone, Dr. Gaeta is not guilty of this alleged standard-of-care violation. Further, the failure to obtain informed consent is a disciplinable offense under section 466.028(1)(o) and thus is not punishable under section 466.028(1)(x), which defines the separate offense (dental malpractice) that Dr. Gaeta has been accused of committing.11 For this additional and independent reason, Dr. Gaeta cannot be found guilty of the standard-of-care violation alleged in A5. As just mentioned, providing dental services without first obtaining the patient's informed consent is an offense punishable under section 466.028(1)(o). Dr. Gaeta was not charged pursuant to that statute. Moreover, presenting treatment options, explaining risks and benefits, and obtaining informed consent do not justify the course of treatment; doing them does not transform an improper diagnosis into a correct one, nor does failing to do them deprive dentally necessary treatment of justification. Dr. Gaeta is not guilty of the recordkeeping violation as charged in B5. Contrary to the allegations in A6, the evidence shows that Dr. Gaeta provided a diagnosis for tooth #29 which supported his determination that the tooth might be saved with a crown. The evidence is undisputed that replacing the filling was not a reasonable option; the only alternative treatment was extraction. The evidence fails to establish that Dr. Gaeta was required, in meeting minimum standards of performance, to determine why the amalgam filling came loose from tooth #29. The evidence fails to prove that Dr. Gaeta was unaware of the location of the filling in tooth #29; to the contrary, there is credible evidence that he dislodged the loose filling while probing it. Dr. Gaeta is not guilty of the standard-of-care- violation alleged in A6. The notes and materials in R.S.'s chart justify Dr. Gaeta's treatment of tooth #29. No more than that is legally required. Dr. Gaeta is not guilty of the recordkeeping violation alleged in B6. There is credible evidence that Dr. Gaeta provided post-operative instructions to R.S. In light of such evidence, the allegation that he failed to do so, as charged in A7, is not established by clear and convincing proof. Dr. Gaeta is therefore not guilty of this alleged standard-of-care violation. While the failure to give post-operative instructions might in some circumstances be shown to fall below minimum standards of performance, the failure to record in the patient's chart the giving of such instructions does not make an appropriate course of treatment unjustified, any more than giving——and noting in the record the giving of——post-operative instructions would justify an inappropriate course of treatment. The purpose of section 466.028(1)(m) is not to ensure that every dentist-patient communication is noted, every tool or instrument used listed, all actions taken, however routine, described in detail; nor is it to obligate the dentist to defend in writing his every diagnosis, treatment decision, exercise of professional judgment, and therapeutic act against potential criticism, as a sort of preemptive rebuttal to a possible future malpractice claim. Rather, the statute is designed, more modestly, to ensure that patient records contain information showing that every course of treatment has a rational basis in dentally relevant facts. Dr. Gaeta was not legally required to document his discussions with R.S. regarding post-operative instructions, and therefore he is not guilty of the recordkeeping violation as alleged in B7. The evidence shows that Dr. Gaeta used an apex locator to measure the canal length of R.S.'s tooth #9. Consequently, the allegation in A8 that he failed to do so is not established by clear and convincing evidence. Dr. Gaeta is not guilty of this charge. R.S.'s record contains X-rays and reflects the fact that Dr. Gaeta determined the canal length of tooth #9. The minimum statutory requirements were satisfied with respect to these particulars. Dr. Gaeta is not guilty of the recordkeeping violation alleged in B8. There is credible evidence, which the Department failed sufficiently to overcome, showing that Dr. Gaeta used a rubber dam when he performed a root canal on R.S. Thus, the evidence is not clear and convincing that he failed to use this common dental implement, as alleged in A9. Dr. Gaeta is not guilty of this alleged standard-of-care violation. Section 466.028(1)(m) does not demand that a patient's record reveal that the dentist used common dental tools in the customary fashion. If the statute were held to require that level of detail, the dentist would need to note, e.g., the routine use of scalers and currettes, periodontal probes, latex gloves, drills, etc.——an absurd result. Therefore, although Dr. Gaeta did not document the use of a rubber dam, he was not legally required to do so. Dr. Gaeta is not guilty of the recordkeeping charge found in 9B. The evidence shows that Dr. Gaeta diagnosed R.S.'s periodontal condition. The evidence does not clearly and convincingly establish any minimum standards of performance that Dr. Gaeta failed to meet, under the facts of this case, in addressing the periodontal condition. As a result, Dr. Gaeta is not guilty of the standard-of-care violation alleged in A10. The evidence shows that Dr. Gaeta made a determination regarding tooth #29's ability to support a crown. He is therefore not guilty of the standard-of-care violation charged in A11. The evidence shows that Dr. Gaeta made a determination concerning the cause of tooth #29's collapse. He is therefore not guilty of the standard-of-care violation charged in A12. It is undisputed that Dr. Gaeta did not record in R.S.'s chart the type and amount of anesthetic used during the root canal procedure. Dr. Gaeta contends that producing local anesthesia with Septocaine® is not "treatment" and therefore need not be noted in the dental record. This argument is rejected; the use of medicine to control pain and anxiety is surely a form of "treatment" as that term is commonly used and understood. Consequently, section 466.028(1)(m) requires that the patient record contain justification for the use of anesthetic agents, which means that the drugs and dosages administered must be documented.12 Dr. Gaeta is guilty of the recordkeeping violation charged in B13. He has, moreover, been found guilty of, and been disciplined for, recordkeeping violations on two previous occasions.13 Credible evidence, which the Department failed rebut with clear and convincing evidence, shows that Dr. Gaeta took X- rays of R.S.'s tooth #9 before initiating root canal therapy. The X-rays and other information in R.S.'s chart justified that course of treatment. The allegations in B14 are not supported by clear and convincing evidence, and thus Dr. Gaeta is not guilty of this alleged recordkeeping violation. The evidence does not demonstrate clearly and convincingly that Dr. Gaeta performed any thermal, pulp, or bite percussion tests before initiating root canal therapy. Therefore, he cannot be punished for failing to record in R.S.'s chart the results of such tests, as charged in B15. Dr. Gaeta is not guilty of this alleged recordkeeping violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order finding Dr. Gaeta guilty of the recordkeeping violation alleged in paragraph 27 l) of the Complaint (failure to record types and amounts of anesthetic agents used); finding Dr. Gaeta not guilty of the remaining violations; and imposing the following penalties: suspension from practice for three months, followed by probation for 18 months with conditions reasonably related to the goal of improving Dr. Gaeta's recordkeeping skills; and a fine in the amount of $2,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 12th day of June, 2012.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations that the Respondent provided dental treatment which was below minimum acceptable standards of performance. At the hearing, the Petitioner called Charlene Willoughby and Richard J. Chichetti, D.D.S., as witnesses. The Respondent called Victoria Osborn and Stewart Dropkin, D.D.S., as witnesses and also testified on his own behalf. Both parties also offered documentary exhibits and transcripts of deposition testimony. A transcript of the hearing was filed on June 16, 1987, and the parties were allowed until July 31, 1987, (subsequently extended) within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Both parties filed proposed recommended orders on August 3, 1987, and the despondent filed an amended proposed recommended order on August 4, 1987. On August 3 and 4, 1987, the Respondent also filed separate documents specifically addressed to the issues raised by the Respondent's motion to dismiss. The parties' proposed recommended orders have been carefully considered during the formulation of this recommended order. Specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by the parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bruce Larrick, D. D.S., whose license number is DN0007282, was licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida on August 26, 1977, and has been so licensed from that date until the present time. Respondent provided dental, services to a Mr. Quinton G. Anglin during the time period of February to April of 1985. The Respondent first saw and examined Mr. Anglin on February 20, 1985. Prior to the examination, all of Mr. Anglin's teeth were cleaned. The Respondent's examination of Mr. Anglin included radiographs, visual, and tactile techniques. The Respondent's treatment of Mr. Anglin consisted of bonding the facial surfaces of Mr. Anglin's six upper front teeth, also known as teeth numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Bonding is a type of restorative dentistry which consists of mechanically bonding a coat of plastic to the tooth surface and then chemically bonding a composite material to that coat of plastic. Bonding is a part of the general practice of dentistry and is not recognized as a specialty in dentistry. As a result of problems he was experiencing with the bonding and because of an inability to get in touch with the Respondent, Mr. Anglin filed a complaint against the Respondent. The ultimate facts alleged in Mr. Anglin's uniform complaint form included the following: Dr. Larrick bonded several teeth for me during March and April. The last tooth he bonded was not bonded well and the bonding came off. Dr. Larrick rebonded the tooth. Bonding came off once again. The problem I now have is: (1) I have an upper right canine tooth that has been ground down and the bond has come off. Prior to this I only had a small cavity. (2) I have a right upper incisor on which the bond material was ground down so thin that when something touches the front surface it is quite painful On January 15, 1986, Richard Chichetti, D.D.S., examined Mr. Anglin to evaluate the six restorations performed by the Respondent. The examination lasted approximately thirty minutes. Dr. Chichetti did not examine tooth number 9, because that tooth had been further restored by another dentist subsequent to the restoration work done by the Respondent. Dr. Chichetti's examination of Mr. Anglin's upper front teeth consisted of taking x-rays, a physical examination and inspection using a mouth mirror and explorer, photographs of the teeth, and study models of the teeth. Dr. Chichetti looked at each tooth and observed whether any areas on each tooth indicated the presence of decay. He then used the explorer to tactilely examine the surfaces of the teeth where he suspected decay to be and to confirm the presence of decay. Decay is readily distinguishable from stain when the tip of the explorer comes into contact with the tooth surface. Dr. Chichetti found only a small amount of plaque and materia alba and found no calculus on Mr. Anglin's teeth. Therefore, it was not necessary to clean Mr. Anglin's six upper front teeth in order to determine if decay was present. At the time of Dr. Chichetti's examination of Mr. Anglin, teeth numbers 6, 7, S, and 10, each had bonding on the facial side and recurrent decay on the lingual side. Tooth number 8 had a ledge present at the margin of the veneer closest to the gum line. A ledge exists when the veneer is not smooth and confluent with the tooth surface. At the time of Dr. Chichetti's examination of Mr. Anglin, tooth number 11 no longer had the bonding restoration performed by the Respondent. A large carious lesion was present on the visible portion of the tooth and extended into the enamel and dentin. There are two broad categories of decay known as acute decay and chronic decay. Chronic decay is decay that has progressed at a very slow rate as compared to acute decay. Chronic decay may take place over a period of several years. A chronic carious lesion is darker in color than acute decay and has a firm and leathery texture as compared to the softer texture of acute decay. It is not possible to determine the exact date on which a chronic carious lesion began, nor is it possible to determine the exact rate of decay of such a lesion. Nevertheless, by observation of a chronic carious lesion it is possible to determine that the lesion has been present and detectable for at least a specific period of time. The carious lesion on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11 had a relatively hard texture and a dark brown color, both of which are consistent with chronic decay. Sclerotic dentin was also present on tooth number 11, which is indicative of the presence of a long-term carious lesion. The decay present on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11 at the time of Dr. Chichetti's examination was chronic in nature. That decay was present and detectable at the time of the Respondent's treatment of Mr. Anglin. The Respondent used Dycal in connection with the bonding performed on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11. Dycal is a product used in areas of deep decay to provide insulation between the bonding material and the pulp of the tooth. The use of Dycal by Respondent corroborates the conclusion that decay was present when the Respondent bonded Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11. The fact that the bonding came off of Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11 shortly after the Respondent's treatment of that tooth also corroborates the conclusion that decay was present when the bonding was performed on that tooth, because a tooth surface of a carious nature precludes long-term retention of the bonding material. By bonding over a carious lesion present on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11, the Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. The recurrent decay observed by Dr. Chichetti on Mr. Anglin's teeth numbers 6, 7, 8, and 10, also constituted chronic decay. The chronic carious lesions on the lingual sides of those teeth were similar in color and texture to the lesion on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 11. The chronic carious lesions on the lingual surfaces of Mr. Anglin's teeth numbers 6, 7, 8, and 10 were present and detectable at the time of the Respondent's treatment of Mr. Anglin. By leaving carious lesions untreated on the lingual surfaces of Mr. Anglin's teeth numbers 6, 7, 8, and 10, while placing bonding restorations on the facial surfaces of those teeth, the Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. This failure to treat the lesions on the lingual surfaces of Mr. Anglin's teeth numbers 6, 7, 8, and 10 would be consistent with acceptable practice, if the patient refused treatment after full disclosure, and if the diagnosis, disclosure, and refusal of treatment were all documented in the patient's record. There was no such disclosure and refusal, nor is any such disclosure and refusal contained in the Respondent's records of his treatment of Mr. Anglin. Dr. Chichetti detected a ledge on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 8 by using the tip of an explorer. Due to its location, the ledge was not readily visible and it did not appear on the x-rays or on the study model. The ledge was the result of a failure to properly feather or smooth the edge of the bonding material so as to cause it to meet the existing tooth structure in a smooth and confluent manner. The ledge on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 8 resulted from the application of bonding material by the Respondent. The ledge on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 8 was not causing any significant problem at the time of Dr. Chichetti's examination. Specifically, there was no plaque or inflammation in the area of the ledge at the time of Dr. Chichetti's examination. Nevertheless, it had the potential of becoming a significant problem with the passage of time. The presence of a ledge can lead to an accumulation of plaque which can invoke an inflammatory response in the gingival tissue and lead to periodontal disease. By leaving the ledge on Mr. Anglin's tooth number 8, the Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order finding the Respondent to be in violation of Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1985), as charged in the Administrative Complaint. It is also recommended that the following penalties be imposed on the Respondent: That the Respondent's license to practice dentistry be reprimanded; That an administrative fine of $1,000.00 be imposed; and, That the Respondent's license to practice dentistry be placed on probation for a period of 12 months under such conditions as the Board may specify DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. Michael M. Parrish, Hearing Office Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-3538 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all of the parties. The references to paragraph numbers are to the numbers of the paragraphs in the parties' proposed findings of fact. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Accepted. Paragraph 4: First two sentences accepted. Last sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: First sentence rejected as constituting a comment on the evidence rather than a proposed finding of fact. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, and 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: First sentence. is accepted. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as constituting argument about the evidence rather than proposed findings of fact. (This rejection does not purport to pass upon the merits of the argument; it merely excludes the text of the argument from the findings of fact.) Paragraphs 12 and 13: Accepted. Paragraph 14: Rejected as constituting a subordinate and unnecessary conclusion that does not necessary follow from the facts. Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting commentary and argument about the evidence, rather than a proposed finding of fact. (This rejection does not purport to pass upon the merits of the argument.) Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20: Accepted. Findings submitted by Respondent: Paragraph 1: Rejected as constituting unnecessary and subordinate details. Paragraph 2: Rejected as irrelevant observation about the state of the record. Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, and 7: Accepted. Paragraphs 8 and 9: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 10: Rejected as subordinate and irrelevant details. Paragraph 11: Rejected. Depending on how the paragraph is interpreted, it is either irrelevant or contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 12: First sentence rejected as irrelevant. Second sentence rejected as constituting an inference not warranted by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 13: First two sentences rejected as irrelevant. Last sentence rejected as constituting an inference not warranted by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 14: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 15: Rejected as irrelevant and/or as constituting subordinate details. Paragraph 16: Rejected as constituting argument about the state of the record, rather than a proposed finding about the condition of the teeth. Paragraphs 17, 18, and 19: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 20 and 21: Rejected as argument about the state of the record and, in any event, as constituting irrelevant details. Portions of paragraph 20 are also contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 22: Rejected as subordinate and irrelevant details. Paragraph 23: Rejected as constituting legal argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 24: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 25: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 26: First sentence rejected as unnecessary reiteration of a portion of the Administrative Complaint. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted in substance, with unnecessary subordinate details deleted. Paragraph 27: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details and as consisting of an inference contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 28, 29, 30, and 31: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 32: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 33: Accepted. Paragraphs 34 and 35: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 36 and 37: Accepted. Paragraph 38: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 39: First sentence is accepted. Second sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 46: First sentence is rejected as a summary of testimony rather than a proposed finding. Second and third sentences are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The fourth sentence is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 47: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 48: The first sentence is rejected as incomplete and, therefore, unintelligible. Second sentence is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 49: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 50: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 51: Rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence. Paragraph 52: Rejected as irrelevant because there is no persuasive evidence that the patient did as suggested in this paragraph. Paragraph 53: Rejected as irrelevant due to insufficient evidence regarding Dr. Morton's charting and treatment. Paragraph 54: Accepted. Paragraphs 55, 56, and 57: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 58: Accepted in substance with additional clarifying details. Paragraph 59: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 60: Accepted in substance with additional clarifying details. Paragraph 61: Rejected as unnecessary and subordinate details; also rejected as suggesting inferences not warranted by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 62: Rejected because the opinion contained in this paragraph is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 63: Rejected as irrelevant in light of the totality of the evidence, especially the witness's other statements on this subject. Paragraphs 64 and 65: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Phillip B. Miller, Esquire Robert D. Newell, Jr., P.A. 102 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bill Salmon, Esquire Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1095 Gainesville, Florida 32602 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Pat Guilford, Executive Director Board of Dentistry 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
