Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed as a dentist by Petitioner. During the period between September 1978 and March 1979 Marcia Girouard was a patient of Respondent. Following consultation on September 15, 1978, Respondent and Ms. Girouard agreed that she would have three crowns and upper and lower partial dentures installed. The dentures were priced at $300 for the lower, $500 for the upper precision partial and the crowns were $200 each. Respondent installed two crowns for Ms. Girouard and made her lower and upper partial dentures. The bill for these services was $1200. While the temporary crown was on tooth 11 it came off a few times and was recemented by Respondent. When the precision partial was installed the permanent crown was in place. Ms. Girouard had no posterior teeth aft of the two number 3 teeth on the lower jaw and teeth 6 and 11 and the upper jaw (Exhibit 5). Accordingly, the upper partial plate was anchored to tooth 11. In view of the lack of teeth to which to anchor the upper partial denture, Respondent, after discussing it with Ms. Girouard, made precision partial dentures for the upper jaw. Tooth 11 was ground down and fitted with a crown to which the female part of the precision partial was attached. When the precision partial was completed and the crown installed Respondent put the upper precision partial in place and adjusted it. Shortly after the upper precision partial gas installed Ms. Girouard complained of pain in tooth 11 and Respondent performed root canal therapy on this tooth. As is customary with root canal therapy a temporary closure was made of the cavity drilled and filled where the root had been removed. From the time this root canal work was done on February 1, 1979, until Ms. Girouard's last visit to Respondent's office on March 12, 1979, Ms. Girouard continued to complain about some sensitivity in tooth 11. When the lower and upper partials were seated on December 14 and 27, 1978, Ms. Girouard was instructed in removing and reinstalling these dentures. The lower partial was attached by clasps and never presented any problem to Ms. Girouard. How- ever, the upper precision partial did present serious problems in that while at home Ms. Girouard had great difficulty and little success in removing this upper precision partial. During the period between the initial seating of the upper precision partial on December 27, 1978, Exhibit 5 indicates Ms. Girouard was in Respondent's office on January 24, 1979,to have the crown on tooth 11 reseated; on February 1, 1979, for root canal; on February 8 for reseating partial; on February 9 for recementing crown; and on February 15 for an impression to convert the upper precision partial to conventional clasps. On March 12, 1979, Ms. Girouard made her last visit to Respondent's office and on this occasion she had her teeth cleaned. A subsequent appointment some two weeks later Was cancelled by Ms. Girouard as she was unsatisfied with the dentures she had received from Respondent. When the precision upper partial was converted to clasps Ms. Girouard was able to remove the denture but it did not fit as snugly as had the precision partial. Ms. Girouard's testimony that Respondent had difficulty installing and removing the upper precision partial from Ms. Girouard's mouth and that on several occasions he had to resort to the use of a dental tool to remove the denture was contradicted by Respondent and several assistants who worked in the office during the period Ms. Girouard was a patient. Respondent acknowledged that when the upper precision partial was first installed it did fit tight and he may have resorted to a dental tool to remove it the first time but that after making standard and routine adjustments he had no further difficulty removing this partial. Several witnesses observed Ms. Girouard insert and remove the precision partial in the dental office and confirmed her testimony that she complained about being unable to remove the precision partial at home. Because of her inability to remove this precision partial Respondent replaced the male connectors on the precision partial with clasps so the partial could be removed by Ms. Girouard. The female connection was left on the crown in case Ms. Girouard subsequently went back to the precision connection. At the time of Ms. Girouard's last visit to Respondent's office on March 12, 1979, she was complaining about the looseness of the upper partial and the root canal hole had not been permanently sealed. Respondent intended to permanently seal this tooth after the pain stopped and further treatment of this tooth would be unnecessary. Believing that she had been treated unfairly by Respondent Ms. Girouard in April 1979, contacted an attorney to institute a malpractice action against Respondent. This attorney sent her to Dr. Steve Hager for a dental examination. On April 25, 1979, when examined by Dr. Hager, Ms. Girouard had both upper and lower partials in her mouth. Hager's examination indicated no evidence that the work performed on Ms. Girouard by Respondent was below acceptable community standards or that anything was wrong with the work performed by Respondent (Exhibit 8). By letter of April 30, 1979, (Exhibit 9) Ms. Girouard was advised of Dr. Hager's findings. Nevertheless, by letter dated June 5, 1979, the attorney advised Respondent of Ms. Girouard's dissatisfaction with the work done and suggested a monetary settlement to Ms. Girouard of the money she paid for the partial dentures would deter her from filing a complaint with the Florida Board of Dentistry. In reply thereto Respondent, by letter dated June 8, 1979 (Exhibit 7), advised Ms. Girouard he did not feel the partials were improperly constructed or fitted but he would make further adjustments if it would help her. After Ms. Girouard was examined by Dr. Hager, Mr. Girouard returned the partials to Respondent's office. He does not recall with whom he left the dentures and none of Respondent's employees recall receiving these dentures. The fact that these dentures were returned was not disputed. On March 21, 1979, Mr. Girouard wrote a letter to Governor Graham complaining about the treatment his wife had received from Respondent and requested something be done about it. Girouard was referred to the Department of Professional Regulation and an investigation was initiated. In November 1981, Ms. Girouard was examined by a board-appointed dentist. She had received no dental treatment between her last visit to Respondent on March 12, 1979, and November 1981. At this time the permanent closure had not been placed on the root canal and Ms. Girouard did not have any of her partial dentures. This board-appointed witness testified that the work done by Respondent was below minimally acceptable standards because the root canal hole had not been closed with a permanent seal. Upon cross-examination he acknowledged that the six weeks from the time the root canal was done until Ms. Girouard's last visit to Respondent's office was not necessarily too long to wait for permanently closing the root canal opening and that if the patient refused to cooperate with the dentist the latter could not install the permanent seal. This witness also acknowledged under cross-examination that it was difficult to determine that dentures do not fit properly if the dentures are not seen in the patient's mouth. Expert witnesses called by Respondent testified that it was proper to leave the temporary filling on a root canal until the pain was gone or its cause ascertained and that this period could take upwards of six months. These witnesses further concurred that without seeing the dentures in the patient's mouth it is difficult to determine whether they fit properly. They also concurred that precision partial dentures should easily be removable by patients and that adjusting these precision partials is not a difficult process. The fact that the upper partial had to be attached to an anterior tooth and the lack of natural posterior teeth created greater pressure on the tooth to which this partial was attached. The increased leverage on this tooth due to the length of the partial would also create more torque and could lead to potential problems.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the dental examination given on June 4-7, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Shahmohamady took the clinical portion of the dental licensure examination on June 4-7, 2000. He received a failing score of 2.98. The clinical portion of the dental examination consists of nine parts: a written clinical, three patient procedures, and five mannequin procedures. The five mannequin procedures consist of the endodontic, preparation for a three- unit fixed partial denture, the Class IV composite, the Class II composite, and the Class II amalgam. Shahmohamady challenges the grades that he received for the preparation for a three-unit fixed partial denture and the Class IV composite. The Department retains examiners and monitors during the examination. The examiners actually grade the clinical procedures performed by the candidates during the examination. The monitors give instructions to the candidates, preserve and secure the integrity of the examination, and act as messengers between the examiners and candidates. The procedures are blind graded independently by three examiners. The examiners do not know the name of the candidates they are grading. Each examiner grades the procedures independently of the other examiners. Discussion among the examiners is not allowed. The three examiners' grades for each procedure are averaged for the overall grade for the procedure. Each examiner must attend and successfully complete a standardization course prior to the examination. The standardization session trains each examiner to use the same grading criteria. After the examination is concluded and the final grades are given, the Department performs an analysis of the examiners' grading to determine the reliability of each examiner's grading. Candidates and examiners do not have contact during the examination. If a candidate has a problem during the examination, he is to alert a monitor. Candidates may fill out a Monitor-To-Examiner Instruction form, advising the monitor of any problem experienced during the examination. The monitor will read the comments of the candidate, and if the monitor agrees with the comments the monitor will write his monitor number on the form and circle the number. The monitor will provide the comment forms to the examiners when they are grading the procedures. Each examiner is to read the comment forms. The examiner is to acknowledge that he has read the forms on the grade sheet by either writing SMN followed by the number of comment sheets he read for all the procedures or by writing under each procedure SMN followed by the number of comment sheets that he read for that particular procedure. Shahmohamady filled out a Monitor-to-Examiner Instructions form on June 6, 2000, for the preparation for a three-unit fixed partial denture procedure and wrote the following: Doctor, As I was prepping tooth #20 on the sital aspect, the gas torch of the Candidate sitting in front of me (one row over) suddenly burst into a 3 foot flame that caused everyone to yell out. I inadvertently looked up and saw the flame without knowing where it was coming from and paniked [sic] and my bur gouged the mesial aspect of #19 (area of box [sic] There is no disagreement among the parties that the incident involving the gas burner occurred and no disagreement that points should not have been deducted for the gouge of the adjacent tooth resulting from the gas burner incident. The clinical procedures are graded on a scale of zero to five, with five being the best score. If an examiner gives a score of less than five, the examiner is to list a comment number, which corresponds to a list of comments for each procedure. The examiner may also list a comment number for things that the examiner observes during the grading, but for which no points are deducted. For procedure 7, which is the preparation of a three-unit fixed partial denture, the comment list to be used by the examiner was as follows: Outline Form Undercut Insufficient Reduction Excessive Reduction Marginal Finish Unsupported Enamel Parrallelism Mutilation of Opposing or Adjacent Teeth Management of Soft Tissue X Additional Comments - Written For procedure 7, Shahmohamady received a score of 5 from Examiner 289, a score of 4 from Examiner 315, and a score of 3 from Examiner 366. Each of the examiners was given the Monitor-to Examiner Instructions form with the note from Shahmohamady concerning the Bunsen burner incident. Shahmohamady challenges the score that he received from Examiner 366. Examiner 366 put numbers 4, 5, and 8 on the comment portion of the grading sheet for procedure 7. Those comments referred to excessive reduction, marginal finish, and mutilation of opposing or adjacent teeth. He indicated that he had read the three comment sheets that were submitted for the mannequin procedures and so indicated by writing "SMN-3" on the grading sheet for Shahmohamady. Examiner 366 did not deduct points for the mutilation of the adjacent tooth due to the Bunsen burner explosion. The grade which Shahmohamady received for procedure 7 is correct and should not be increased. After a candidate receives his grades for the dental examination, he may request an administrative hearing if he fails the examination. When the Department receives a request for an administrative hearing, the Department will regrade the procedures done by that candidate. The top three examiners from the examination based on the post-examination analysis that is done by the Department are chosen to regrade the procedures which are being contested. In addition to regrading candidates who have failed the examination, the examiners also regrade some candidates who have successfully passed the examination in order to ensure the integrity of the regrading process. Shahmohamady challenged the grade he received on procedure 7 and procedure 4; thus his examination was regraded. Each of the grading sheets had the following comment listed on the grading sheet for procedure 7 prior to the regrading: "Ignore nicked adjacent tooth bunson [sic] burner explosion." Procedure 7 was regraded by three examiners, one of whom was Examiner 366. Examiner 366 again gave Shahmohamady a score of three and included comment 4 on the comment section. Examiner 298 gave Shahmohamady a score of 2 for the procedure, included comment 4, and wrote "overtapered" on the grading sheet. Examiner 316 gave Shahmohamady a score of 3 and included comments 1, 4, and 5. Comment 1 referred to outline form. On regrading, Shahmohamady received an overall lower score for procedure 7 than he did in the original grading. Procedure 7 was graded correctly, and Shahmohamady is not entitled to additional points for that procedure. Shahmohamady challenged the score that he received for the Class IV composite restoration. He received an overall score of 2.66. The Class IV composite restoration is a procedure that involves the candidate's ability to cut a section of the tooth off the corner of the biting edge of the front tooth below the level where it contacts the adjacent tooth. The candidate is required to restore the contact and the tooth structure to proper form and function in a tooth- colored material. Based on the expert testimony of the Department's witness, Dr. Dan Bertoch, the restoration done by Shahmohamady was not done properly and would fail prematurely. Examiner 366 opined that Shahmohamady did not appropriately restore the proximal anatomy and the proximal contour. Shahmohamady did not properly perform the Class IV composite restoration procedure and should not be given a passing score for that procedure. Petitioner claims that Examiner 366 consistently graded Shahmohamady lower than the other two examiners. Based on the post-examination statistical analysis performed by the Department, Examiner 366 tied for second place in reliability for scoring. On a scale of 100, he scored 96, which is considered to be excellent. The other two examiners who were grading Shahmohamady clinical procedures scored lower on reliability than Examiner 366. Examiner 366's was a reliable grader and correctly graded Shahmohamady's examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Shahram Shahmohamady failed the clinical portion of the June 4-7, 2000, dental examination with a score of 2.98. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Orlando Rodriquez-Rams, Esquire Lerenzo & Capua 9192 Coral Way, Suite 201 Miami, Florida 33165 Cherry Shaw, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Joseph L. Ratchford is a graduate of the University of Georgetown School of Dentistry and took the Florida dental exam in June, 1984. The clinical, or practical, portion of the dental exam consists of ten procedures and the examinee must obtain a total combined weighted grade of 3.0 to pass the clinical portion of the exam. Petitioner received a total overall grade of 2.96 and has questioned the grades he received on two of the ten procedures. In grading the clinical portion of the exam, three examiners separately review and grade each procedure performed by the examinees. At each examination, approximately twelve to thirty examiners are used, and three hundred to four hundred candidates are examined. Each examiner must successfully complete an eight to twelve hour standardization exercise during which they are trained on the grading scale, procedures, and the criteria to be used in grading the clinical portion of the exam. The Board of Dentistry determines the criteria to be used in grading the exams and the grading scale. A perfect score is a "5" and a complete failure is a "O". Examiners are chosen by the Board of Dentistry based upon their successful completion of the standardization exercise and must also have been licensed in Florida for at least five years. Petitioner received grades of 2, 3, and 5 from the three examiners grading the Periodontal procedure on his exam. This resulted in a grade of 3.33 on the Periodontal procedure. Petitioner objects to the grading of this procedure due to the wide disparity in the three examiners' grades. The periodontal procedure is performed on a live patient and is an evaluation of the patient's teeth, root structure, and supporting structures. In grading this procedure, five criteria are used: Presence of stain on assigned teeth. Presence of supra-gingival calculus on assigned teeth. Presence of sub-gingival calculus on assigned teeth. Root roughness on assigned teeth. Tissue management. While several of these criteria are easily observable, criteria (c) and (d) are not, and in fact are sometimes hard to distinguish from each other. The grading system requires two points to be taken off when sub-gingival calculus is present on the assigned teeth (criteria c), and allows one to four points to be deducted for root roughness on the assigned teeth (criteria d). Examiner 10 gave Petitioner a grade of 2 since the examiner found Petitioner was deficient on criteria (a), (c), (d) and (e). A grade of 2 is appropriate with these deficiencies, although such a grade may even be a bit high. Examiner 10 had participated in seven exams prior to the one in question and a post-exam evaluation of all examiners shows that Examiner 10 ranked 6th out of 18 examiners in terms of grading accuracy. Examiner 35 gave Petitioner a grade of 3 since the examiner found Petitioner was deficient on criteria (c). A grade of 3 is mandatory is this situation since the presence of subgingival calculus requires two points to be deducted from the grade. Examiner 35 had participated in no previous exams but ranked 7th out of 18 examiners in terms of grading accuracy, according to a post-exam evaluation of all examiners. Examiner 82 gave Petitioner a perfect score of 5, noting no deficiencies. This was the second exam Examiner 82 had participated in and he ranked 17th out of 18 examiners in terms of grading accuracy. Therefore, the perfect score which Petitioner received from Examiner 82 is the least reliable of the three grades on the Periodontal procedure since Examiner 82 had the worst ranking for accuracy among these three examiners, and was next to last among all examiners. On the Cast Class II Onlay Prep procedure, Petitioner received grades of 1, 0, and 1. This resulted in a grade of .66 on this procedure. Petitioner objects to the grading of this procedure. He states he performed this procedure the way he was taught in dental school, he alleges that the comments of the examiners conflict, and he feels it is impossible to measure tooth reduction without an opposing model. The Cast Class II Only Prep procedure is performed on a model, or mannequin, and consists of a restoration onlay wax-up on a posterior tooth. In grading this procedure five criteria are used: Outline form Depth Retention Gingival level Mutilation of opposing or adjacent teeth Examiners 6 and 37 gave Petitioner a grade of 1. Examiner 6 commented on his score sheet that "Distal box too deep and undercut; excess facial cusp reduction." Examiner 37 commented that outline form was poor and "no lingual cusp protection." Examiner 15 gave Petitioner a score of 0 and commented that there was insufficient reduction of the functional cusp. Each of these examiners had participated in at least two previous exams, and each had a high grading accuracy ranking according to a post-exam evaluation of all examiners. Specifically, Examiner 15 ranked 1st, Examiner 37 ranked 4th and Examiner 6 ranked 8th out of 18 examiners. The comments of the examiners do not conflict and, in fact, do support the grades given. An examination of the mannequin used by Petitioner to perform this procedure (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) by a dental consultant who has been a licensed dentist in Florida since 1971, and who was accepted as a expert on the technical aspects of the clinical portion of the dental exam, confirms and supports the grades given by the examiners on this procedure. The major and significant deficiency on this procedure was Petitioner's failure to adequately reduce the functional or lingual cusp, and excessive reduction of the facial cusp resulting in the subject tooth being almost level. Although it is difficult to determine the amount of tooth reduction without an opposing model, and no opposing model was used in the exam, the teeth used for the exam mannequin are manufactured in large quantities from the sane mold or form. Therefore, variations in these model teeth before the procedures are performed are not visible to the naked eye. Improper reductions on these teeth are visible to the examiners who have seen this procedure performed many times on these same models, both in exams and in the standardization procedure. According to an examination development specialist employed by Respondent who was accepted as an expert in testing and measurement, specifically for the dental exam, the grading of exams which involve hands-on, practical demonstrations of an examinee's skill level is not entirely objective. There is some subjectivity in assigning grades after criteria for each procedure are evaluated. This is why three examiners separately review each procedure, and the average of their grades is used. In addition, Respondent performs the standardization exercise prior to the exam and then evaluates each examiner's grades for accuracy after the exam in order to minimize disparity and the effects of subjectivity. Examiners who do not receive a good evaluation in the post-exam review are not used in subsequent exams. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law have been submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)4, F.S. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Recommended Order, except where such proposed findings of fact have been rejected as subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary. Specifically, Petitioner's proposed findings numbered 7, 10, 11 and 12 are rejected for these reasons, and also because they are not based upon competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order upholding the grades given to Petitioner and denying the relief sought by Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael S. Rywant, Esquire 240 Hyde Park Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed dentist holding license No. DN0003704. In 1980, Karen Hansen was a patient of Respondent. In August of 1980, Respondent furnished Ms. Hansen a four-unit fixed bridge encompassing the upper left cuspid, the left lateral incisor, the left central incisor, and the upper right central incisor. Despite pain and sensitivity to hot and cold, Ms. Hansen was satisfied initially with the work performed by Respondent. However, shortly after the bridge was installed, she began to experience pain and sensitivity to hot and cold, and became dissatisfied with the aesthetics of the bridge. She returned to Respondent for adjustments, but Respondent was unable to correct the problems or alleviate her pain and sensitivity. On June 8, 1981, Ms. Hansen was examined by Petitioner's dental consultant. Upon examination of Ms. Hansen, the following conditions were observed: The porcelain was badly chipped on the upper left cuspid; The facial margin of the crown on the upper left cuspid was short of the gingiva; The porcelain on the facial aspect of the upper left central incisor was chipped and a jagged edge was present; The facial margin of the crown on the right central incisor was short of the gingiva; and Occlusion was extremely heavy and traumatic in the bridge area. Ms. Hansen was examined by Petitioner's expert several months after the bridge was seated. As a result, he was unable to state with absolute certainty that the short margins existed at the time the work was completed. However, since less than a year had passed since the bridge was seated, it is likely that the short margins were present in August of 1980. The bridge provided by Respondent to Ms. Hansen is neither functionally nor aesthetically serviceable. There was nothing so unusual about Ms. Hansen's oral condition that would have made it difficult to fabricate a serviceable bridge for her. The roots of her teeth were not so large that it would have been impossible to crown the teeth to the gingiva, in accordance with acceptable dental practice. Furthermore, the patient's decision not to crown an additional tooth had no effect on the occlusion or the short margins found upon later examination of the bridge. For these reasons, the bridge furnished by Respondent to ?s. Hansen failed to meet the minimum acceptable standard of practice. Respondent first saw Eileen Murray as a patient on or about December 13, 1976. Ms. Murray at that time was a 23-year-old female who had approximately 11 teeth missing including her four wisdom teeth. At the time she was first seen by Respondent her mouth was in very poor condition. She needed bridgework involving 22 teeth, including the two upper right bicuspids which were missing. She also gave a history of having had severe bruxism for over ten years prior to seeing Respondent. The dental work performed by Respondent was completed on or about March 20, 1977. In September of 1977, Ms. Murray returned to Respondent because the porcelain on one of her bicuspids had fallen away from the gold backing. From that point until May of 1981, Ms. Murray experienced many problems with the crown and bridgework installed by Respondent and returned to his office numerous times for repairs and adjustments. In addition to the aforementioned problem, Ms. Murray again saw Respondent in March of 1978 when she experienced sensitivity to hot and cold and the short margin developed on an upper cuspid. In January of 1979, the last two teeth on the upper bridge broke away from the bridge itself. In July of 1979, the last two teeth on the lower bridge broke away. In June of 1980, the lower bridge broke into four pieces when it was removed by Respondent. Finally, in September of 1980, the porcelain chipped on the upper central incisor of the bridge. In July of 1981 Ms. Murray was examined by a consultant to Petitioner. She was also examined in September of 1981 by another consultant retained by Petitioner. Both consultants noted the following conditions present in Ms. Murray's mouth: The metal substructure of the ontics was fractured between the pontics which replaced the maxillary right, first and second bicuspids; There were open margins on the facial aspect of tooth Nos. 6, 8, 10, 11, 18, 22, and 27; There were short margins on the facial aspect of tooth Nos. 22, 23, and 26; There were short margins on the lingual aspect of tooth Nos. 3, 23, 26, and 30; Porcelain was chipped on the incisoral edge of the maxillary right cuspid and the maxillary right central; Metal was exposed on the occlusal or incisal surfaces of tooth Nos. 12, 26, 27, and 30; The porcelain in the bridge exhibited an overall contamination indicative of poor dentistry; There was generalized periodontal involvement of the soft tissues; and There was severe malocclusion. As a result of the foregoing problems, the record in this cause establishes that the work done by Respondent on Ms. Murray is not salvageable, but must be redone in its entirety. The breakage problems experienced by Ms. Murray would not have occurred had the porcelain not been of such poor quality. In addition, the metal utilized by Respondent was inadequate and could not withstand the stress of the prosthesis as designed by Respondent. When the metal substructure of Ms. Murray's bridge fractured, the bridge should have been remade, but Respondent chose not to do so. The margin on tooth No. 10 was never adequate. The incisal edges of several teeth are opaque and do not resemble natural teeth. On most teeth this is largely a cosmetic consideration, but on the molars, this thick, opaque, rounded "mothball" appearance severely effects the function of the teeth, in that the lack of a properly contoured incisal edge makes chewing extremely difficult. Apparently, little consideration was given by Respondent to the function of the bridgework. The upper bridge was apparently designed to be aesthetically pleasing, and the lower bridge was then shaped to fit around or under the upper prosthesis. This lack of consideration for function is further indicated, in part, by a flat spot on one lower tooth, and a generally poor occlusal table. The record in this cause also reflects that Ms. Murray had active periodontal disease when she first consulted Respondent. The inadequate restorative dentistry described above contributes to the progress of periodontal disease. In Ms. Murray's case, it is likely that her periodontal disease was exacerbated by the poor restorative dentistry performed by Respondent. It is clear from the record in this cause that Ms. Murray had a long history of bruxism when she was first seen by Respondent. She made this fact known to Respondent, and Respondent in fact furnished certain appliances to Ms. Murray because of her bruxing problem. In most cases, properly done crown and bridgework will eliminate bruxism. However, neither the mouth guards prescribed by Respondent nor the restorative dental work performed by him served to alleviate Ms. Murray's bruxism. However, the record in this cause establishes that the poor restorative dentistry practiced by Respondent in fact worsened Ms. Murray's bruxism. Both counsel for Petitioner and counsel for Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those findings of fact have not been included in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by evidence of record.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed dentist practicing in Holiday, Florida. He has practiced dentistry for approximately 30 years and has limited his practice to prosthetics (dentures) since 1974. Doctors Christian, Bliss and Venable are likewise dentists licensed and practicing in Florida. On the basis of education and experience, each was qualified as an expert witness in the filed of dental prosthetics. In determining whether a denture meets or falls below the minimum standard of acceptability, several technical factors are considered. The denture is placed in the patient's mouth to check area of coverage or the adaptation of the denture to the ridges of the mouth; the extension of the flanges or borders of the dentures; the occlusion of the teeth and bite; the extension of the dentures into the soft palate; esthetics and finally, speech. The expert testimony of Dr. Christian in the evaluation of the dentures is accorded greater weight than that of Doctors Venable and Bliss since Dr. Christina conducted his examinations in May and June 1979, while Doctors Bliss and Venable performed their examinations some two years later. Changes in the patients mouth as well as the dentures over time make such later evaluations less meaningful. Dr. London's testimony is entitled to greater weight than that of his complaining patients with respect to precise financial agreements and dates on which various services were performed. This determination is based on the fact that Dr. London maintained contemporaneous records on each patient (office charts) and was able to refer to these documents during the course of his testimony. However, the testimony of his former patients with respect to the difficulties they encountered with their dentures was not lacking in credibility. On April 13, 1979, Rose Edwards went to Dr. London for treatment, and she agreed to pay $265.00 for a full set of porcelain dentures. On that same date impressions were taken for the construction of upper and lower dentures. On May 4, 1979, Respondent delivered the upper and lower dentures to Ms. Edwards. On May 8, 1979, she returned to Respondent's office complaining that the two front teeth were crooked and too far apart. Respondent found that the two front teeth needed reversing and he did so. On May 11, 1979, Ms. Edwards returned to Respondent's office complaining that she could not chew with the dentures, that the lower denture would not stay in her mouth, that food particles would get under the lower dentures and that she had blisters in her mouth from the loose dentures. Respondent adjusted the dentures. On July 24, 1979, Ms. Edwards returned to Respondent and stated that she was still having a great deal of difficulty with the dentures delivered by Respondent. Respondent advised Ms. Edwards that he would make no further adjustments and dismissed her as his patient. Dr. Christian conducted an examination of Ms. Edwards and the dentures prepared by Dr. London. He found that the borders of the lower denture were overextended into the cheek area. Dr. Bliss later examined Ms. Edwards and the same dentures and found the border areas to be greatly overextended into the soft tissue and muscle. The fact that the lower denture was overextended into the border areas caused it to lift up on movement of Ms. Edwards' mouth making it impossible for her to chew with the denture. Dr. Venable also conducted an examination of Ms. Edwards and the dentures delivered by Respondent. He found that the upper denture was overextended in the posterior or postdam area, and the lower denture underextended in the posterior area. The dentists generally agreed that Ms. Edwards was difficult to fit as she had poor ridges (required to support the denture) from having worn false teeth for many years. However, Ms. Edwards was relatively satisfied with her old dentures and returned to wearing them after being dismissed as a patient by Dr. London. The testimony taken as a whole established that the dentures Dr. London prepared for Ms. Edwards were deficient in several respects and did not meet the overall standards of quality required as a licensed dentist. Dr. Bliss and Dr. Christian stated that their fee for fitting Mrs. Edwards with dentures would have been $800 and $1,000 respectively. However, none of the dentists who testified, including Dr. London, regarded his substantially lower fee of $265 as any excuse for less than satisfactory work. On February 20, 1978, Lila Andrews went to Dr. London for treatment and agreed to pay Dr. London $290 for a full set of dentures, including adjustments and a relining, if required. On that same date impressions were made for the upper and lower dentures. On March 27, 1978, Dr. London delivered upper and lower dentures to Ms. Andrews for insertion by her oral surgeon. On April 7, 1978, Ms. Andrews returned to Dr. London complaining of severe pain on her lower gum. An adjustment was made to the lower denture by Dr. London. On May 18, 1978, Ms. Andrews returned to Dr. London complaining that she still could not put any pressure on her lower gums without a great deal of pain. In addition, she had developed sores in her mouth. At that time, Dr. London told her that he would remake the lower denture if Ms. Andrews agreed to pay Dr. London $45.00 to reline the upper dentures. Ms. Andrews agreed to pay him $45.00 since she wanted a usable denture, although she believed this charge was contrary to their agreement. On June 12, 1978, Dr. London delivered a second lower denture to Ms. Andrews and on June 14, 1978, she returned for an adjustment and told Dr. London that her dentures would not stay in her mouth and that her mouth continued to be extremely sore. Dr. London relined the lower denture. On December 14, 1978, Ms. Andrews returned to Dr. London's office and informed him that her dentures still would not stay in her mouth and that the soreness had continued. Dr. London advised Ms. Andrews that he would reline the dentures but that he would charge her for this service. She refused to pay and received no further treatment from Dr. London. Ms. Andrews currently uses the denture prepared by Dr. London but does so only with the aid of commercial fastening products. She also suffers a "lisp" which she did not previously have. On May 9, 1979, Dr. Deuel Christian examined Ms. Andrews and the dentures delivered by Dr. London. His examination revealed the following: The borders on the upper denture were grossly underextended into the soft tissue. The upper denture was not extended far enough into the postdam area, that area of soft tissue along the junction of the hard and soft palate of the roof of the mouth. The aesthetics of the upper denture were poor and the phonetics were such that the denture caused lisping. The borders of the lower denture were underextended into the soft tissue and the tooth placement in relation to the gum was poor. The bite relation between the upper and lower jaw was such that when the jaw was closed only four teeth made contact. The grossly underextended borders, the underextension in the postdam area, the poor tooth placement in relation to the gum and the poor bite relationship resulted in a lack of stability (especially when chewing), lack of retention and soreness in the mouth. Dr. Venable's examination revealed some deficiencies, but to a much lesser degree. His findings indicated that the flange on the lower denture was too short and the front section of the upper denture was too far forward. The testimony taken as a whole established was too far forward. The testimony taken as a whole established that the dentures Respondent prepared for Ms. Andrews failed to meet the minimum standards of quality required of a licensed dentist. On November 1, 1978, Grace McMichael visited Dr. London to have an upper denture made. A primary impression was taken of Ms. McMichael's upper jaw on November 1, and the upper denture was delivered to her on November 13, 1978. On November 17, Ms. McMichael returned to Dr. London's office complaining that the upper denture would not stay in her mouth, and the denture pressed into her nose when she bit down. Dr. London adjusted the denture. Mr. McMichael returned to Dr. London's office on December 13, as she was not satisfied with her denture. Dr. London advised her that he could not do anything further for three months when her gums would be more stable. He recommended that she purpose adhesive to hold her denture in. Dr. London made an appointment for Ms. McMichael on February 2, 1979, but she cancelled and never returned. Dr. Christian's examination of Ms. McMichael and the denture delivered by Dr. London revealed that the borders on the denture were underextended, that there was no postdam area and that the phonetics were poor. The underextended borders and the lack of extension into the postdam area affected the stability and retention of the denture. The phonetics problems observed by Dr. Christian resulted in Ms. McMichael lisping. It should be noted that any changes that might have occurred in Ms. McMichael's mouth between December 13, 1978, and February 2, 1979, would have had no affect on the underextension of the denture or the phonetics and could not have been corrected by adjustment. The examination by Dr. Venable revealed that the posterior border of the denture (throat area) and the planges (cheek area) were overextended. Although Dr. Venable did not consider these to be major deficiencies, the testimony as a whole established that the denture failed to meet the minimum standards of quality required of a licensed dentist.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of incompetence in the practice of dentistry. It is further
The Issue At issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, the "Florida Equal Access to Justice Act," as well as an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)5, Florida Statutes (1995), now codified at Section 120.569(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1997), as alleged in the amended petition for attorney's fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact Findings related to the underlying disciplinary action The Department of Health, Division of Medical Quality Assurance, Board of Dentistry (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility for regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 455 and 466, Florida Statutes (1997). At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Robert J. Fish, D.D.S. (Dr. Fish) was licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 000 5694. On or about August 22, 1989, D. E. (the "Patient") filed a written complaint with the Department regarding the care and treatment that she had received from Dr. Fish. The complaint provided: On June 27, 1989 I came to see Dr. Garrison complaining about my lower partial made by Dr. Fish in 1988. Dr. Garrison examined [my] Lower Right #27, 28, 29 and found Buccal margins to be opened. Also, the Lower Partial is the kind his office uses as a temporary. Considering the amount of money paid, Dr. Garrison recommended that I consult with the Broward County Dental Assoc. They in turn told me that . . . they do not handle this type of problem and advised me to get in touch with the Fl Dept of Professional Regulation. As per my conversation with Mr. Hunter of your dept I filled these forms out and am enclosing zerox copies of my cancelled checks relating to payment and statements and other papers with pictures of my teeth. Should I have overlooked anything that I should have sent you kindly let me know. To the lay eye, the Patient's complaint would seem to relate to one matter, that being a lower partial, whose construction was more consistent with a temporary or transient appliance, as opposed to one intended for permanent use, and whereon the Buccal margins of teeth number 27, 28, and 29 were found to be open. In fact, as the investigatory record discloses, there are actually two separate items in the Patient's complaint. First is the complaint associated with open margins noted on teeth 27, 28, and 29. Those teeth are part of a fixed bridge installed by Dr. Fish, and distinguishable from the Patient's lower partial (denture), which was a removable appliance.3 Following receipt of the complaint, the Department began its investigation in accordance with Section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes. The matter was assigned DPR Case No. 89-09812. By letter of October 9, 1989, the Department advised Dr. Fish of the Patient's complaint, as follows: THE PATIENT STATES that you provided lower partial for teeth #27, #28 and #29 in 1988. Complainant alleges subsequent dentist advised her that buccal margins are open. She further has been advised that the partial denture that you indicated was a permanent- denture is the type that is normally used as a temporary denture. Apparently, at this stage, the Department did not appreciate the nature of the Patient's complaint or, as observed in Endnote 3, the significance of the language it used to convey the Patient's complaint to Dr. Fish. In response to the Department's letter, Dr. Fish forwarded to the Department copies of the Patient's records, including x-rays. Additionally, Dr. Fish provided the following written response regarding the lower partial (denture): This patient is high strung and often incoherent, she often appears to be suffering from memory loss, i.e. Alzheimer's disease. The lower partial was made as a provisional partial due (sic) the extraction of several teeth. The patient was informed that upon sufficient stabilization of the boney ridge she could obtain a cast frame & acrylic partial. She refused to have any relining procedures which are necessary as bone resorbtion takes place. This option is still available to her. Dr. Fish's response did not address the open Buccal margins noted on teeth 27, 28, and 29; however, as heretofore noted, that question was unrelated to any complaint the Patient might have voiced regarding the lower partial. Pertinent to an understanding of the Patient's complaint, the Patient's records reveal the following two treatments. First, in October and November 1987, Dr. Fish undertook preventive and reconstructive work on the lower (mandibular) right side of the Patient's mouth. That work consisted of the replacement of the existent crowns on teeth 27, 28, and 29, with a ceramic three unit lower right bridge (also referred to as a three unit lower right splint), consisting of three individual crowns on teeth 27, 28, and 29, tied together (splinted) to strengthen the periodontally involved teeth. Contemporaneously, Dr. Fish replaced the lower right molar (tooth 30) with a removable wrought wire and acrylic partial (removable denture). Second, in September 1988, Dr. Fish undertook preventive and reconstructive work on the lower left side of the Patient's mouth. At that time, an existing five unit bridge (teeth 18 through 22) was severed, the bridge for teeth 18 through 20 was removed, and teeth 18 and 19 were surgically extracted. Thereafter, the lower partial which had replaced the molar on the lower right side was modified to include the replacement of teeth 18, 19, and 20 on the lower left side. This lower wrought wire and acrylic partial (removable denture), which replaced the molar on the lower right and the teeth 18, 19, and 20 on the lower left, was the lower partial the Patient complained of to the Department. As part of its investigation, the Department also contacted H. B. Garrison, D.D.S. (Dr. Garrison), who succeeded Dr. Fish as the Patient's treating dentist. Dr. Garrison provided the Department with the Patient's records, including x-rays, and by letter of November 6, 1989, advised the Department that: [D. E.] . . . came to my office on 5/8/89 for an examination and x-rays. At that time it was noted that treatment had been rendered by another dentist in 1988 and was giving the patient a great deal of discomfort.4 I examined the lower bridgework and found the buccal margins of teeth #27, 28, 29 to be inadequately sealed. I also noted that the lower partial was inadequately fabricated. In my opinion, the care rendered fell below the minimum standards expected. If I can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Given the Patient's records provided by Dr. Fish and Dr. Garrison, as well as Dr. Garrison's response, it is evident that there were two concerns raised by the Patient. First, the buccal margins observed on teeth 27, 28, and 29 of the lower right bridge, and second the adequacy of the lower partial. The Department presented its investigative report, together with the supporting documentation heretofore discussed, to the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry (the Panel) for its consideration. Contemporaneously, the Department's counsel presented a draft closing order, which proposed a finding of probable cause with regard to the inadequacy of the lower partial and closure with a letter of guidance. No mention was made of the concerns related to the lower right bridge. The proposed order read as follows: CLOSING ORDER THE COMPLAINT: The Subject's treatment failed to meet the minimum standard of care. THE FACTS: The Subject provided patient D.E. with a lower denture which was allegedly unsatisfactory and has allegedly refused to correct the problem. Patient D.E. presented to a subsequent treating dentist who stated that the denture prepared by the Subject was inadequately fabricated. When contacted, the Subject stated that the denture provided to patient D.E. was made as a provisional partial due to the extractions of several teeth. The patient was informed by the Subject that upon stabilization of the lower ridge, she could obtain a cast frame and acrylic partial. The patient refused to have any relining procedures, which are necessary as bone resorption takes place. THE LAW: Based on the foregoing, probable cause does exist to establish a violation of Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, however, this case will be closed with a letter of guidance. IT IS, therefore, ORDERED that this matter be, and the same is hereby, CLOSED. DONE and ORDERED this day of , 1990. CHAIRMAN, PROBABLE CAUSE PANEL BOARD OF DENTISTRY On April 27, 1990, the Panel met to resolve whether probable cause should be found and, if so, the appropriate disposition of the complaint. Initially, the Panel voted to find probable cause and to close the case with a letter of guidance, as recommended by the proposed closure order submitted by the Department's counsel; however, upon realizing that Dr. Fish had one prior disciplinary matter and two more cases pending on "below standard of care issues," the Panel elected to withdraw its decision to close with a letter of guidance and directed the Department to file an administrative complaint "based on a single charge of inadequate lower denture," a perceived violation of Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes. With regard to the separate matter relating to perceived deficiencies (open margins on teeth 27, 28, and 29) in the Patient's lower right bridge, the panel took no action. In May 1990, following the Panel's finding of probable cause, the Department employed Mervyn Dixon, D.D.S., as an expert to evaluate the Patient's compliant, and, by letter of May 25, 1990, the Department's counsel advised Dr. Dixon of the following matters: Thank you for consenting to review the enclosed case. . . . The Probable Cause Panel reviewed the merits of this claim on or about April 27, 1990. They determined that an expert review was necessary to properly evaluate the veracity of the complaint.5 A clinical examination of the patient may be necessary in order to make an evaluation. Please do not hesitate to accomplish a patient examination if it is deemed necessary. This particular patient does not have access to transportation. It will be necessary to coordinate with the Bureau of Investigative Services in order to provide transportation. As always, your prompt attention to this case and the receipt of your report within thirty (30) days will be greatly appreciated. . . . Dr. Dixon examined the Patient on June 16, 1990, and, by letter of June 21, 1990, reported the results of that examination to the Department, as follows: On June 16, 1990, I performed a dental clinical exam for patient D.E. in my office. Since the complaint was limited to the mandibular arch, I merely noted that the patient presented with a full maxillary denture. The following findings were observed in the mandibular arch: 1.) the patient was wearing a wrought wire and acrylic lower partial 2.) a ceramic 3 unit bridge was present on teeth #'s 27, 28, 29 3.) a gold and acrylic 2 unit bridge was present on teeth #'s 21 and 22 4.) the four mandibular incisors were natural teeth and free from marked periodontal disease. The right three unit ceramic bridge exhibited the following: 1.) #27 has an open facial margin that would admit an explorer 2.) #28 has an open margin that would admit an explorer 3.) #29 exhibited a grossly open margin both facial and distal 4.) the only occlusion (partial out) was provided by tooth #28 - see enclosed bite registration 5.) also please see enclosed x-ray The mandibular wire and acrylic partial exhibited extremely tight clasps and the lingual adaptation around the teeth and crowns was very poor. Please see enclosed study model. It is my conclusion that neither the mandibular ceramic 3 unit bridge or the mandibular wire and acrylic partial meet community standards. I have provided the x-ray, photo, bite registration and study model as evidence since it is necessary for the patient to have these items replaced.6 In the process of replacement, they will be destroyed. On September 6, 1990, the Department issued an administrative complaint against Dr. Fish (DPR Case No. 89-009812) and on October 9, 1991, an amended administrative complaint.7 The amended complaint was served on Dr. Fish on October 15, 1991, and contained the following allegations upon which the Department proposed to take disciplinary action against Dr. Fish's license to practice dentistry: On or about October 1, 1987, patient D.E. presented to the Respondent [Dr. Fish] for bridgework on teeth #27, #28, and #29. On or about September 15, 1998, D.E. presented to the Respondent for a lower partial. On or about May 8, 1989, D.E. presented to a subsequent treating dentist complaining about discomfort with his (sic) lower partial. The subsequent treating dentist examined patient D.E.'s bridgework and observed the buccal margins of teeth #27, #28, and #29, were inadequately sealed. He also noted that the lower partial was the type usually used as a temporary partial. On or about June 16, 1990, patient D.E. presented to a departmental expert for examination. The consultant observed the teeth #27, #28, and #29 contained open margins. Failure to adequately provide a lower denture that was absent any open margins is failure to practice dentistry within the minimum standard of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. Based on the foregoing, the Respondent is guilty of violating the following statutory provisions: Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of card (sic) in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. The administrative complaint filed by the Department is at material variance with the directions of the probable cause panel. Notably, while the complaint perceives the distinction between the two treatments (bridgework and lower partial) which formed the basis for the Patient's complaint, it bases the perceived violation of section 466.028(1)(y) on problems associated with the bridgework. The Panel did not find probable cause, nor direct the filing of a complaint, regarding the bridgework but, rather, the lower partial (denture). Dr. Fish filed an election of rights whereby he disputed the allegations contained in the amended administrative complaint, and requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Consequently, the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) to conduct the formal hearing Dr. Fish had requested. The case was docketed as DOAH Case No. 92-0687. A formal hearing on the administrative complaint was held on June 1, 1993, where proof was offered and received regarding perceived deficiencies in both treatments (the bridgework and lower partial) provided by Dr. Fish. Subsequently, on January 24, 1994, a Recommended Order was rendered which concluded, inter alia, that the Department had failed to establish, by the requisite degree of proof, that, with regard to either the bridgework or the lower partial denture, Dr. Fish had failed to meet the minimum standard of care in diagnosis and treatment, and recommended that a final order be entered dismissing the amended administrative complaint. On April 16, 1994, the Board of Dentistry (Board) met to consider the Recommended Order. At the time, no exceptions had been filed by any party, and the Department recommended that the Board adopt the findings and recommended dismissal contained in that order. Notwithstanding, following discussion, the Board resolved to remand the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Order of Remand was issued May 13, 1994. Following consideration of the parties' responses to the Order of Remand, the presiding officer entered an order (Order on Remand) on December 7, 1994, declining remand. That order, while amplifying upon the basis for certain factual findings and conclusions reached related to credibility, concluded that the Board had not presented any compelling reason to reconsider the findings of fact, conclusions of law, or recommended disposition contained in the Recommended Order. On January 6, 1995, the Board met to consider the Recommended Order and Order on Remand, and on February 25, 1995, entered a Final Order. The Final Order, with nominal modification, adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order, as well as the recommended disposition, and dismissed the amended administrative complaint filed against Dr. Fish. Findings related to the claim for attorney's fees and costs Pertinent to the claim for attorney's fees and costs, it is observed that the Department has, by its response to the application, conceded that the underlying action was initiated by the Department, or its predecessor, that Dr. Fish prevailed in the underlying case, and that the claim for attorney's fees and costs was timely filed. Accordingly, an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs is appropriate provided Dr. Fish can establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was a "small business party," as defined by Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and the Department fails to establish that its actions were substantially justified or special circumstances exist which would make an award unjust. Addressing first Dr. Fish's status, the proof demonstrates that at the time the underlying proceeding was initiated Dr. Fish was a "small business party," as that term is defined by Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Supportive of such conclusion is the proof of record which demonstrated that, at all times material: (1) Dr. Fish was the sole owner of, and operated his dental practice as, an unincorporated business; (2) that the principal place of business for his dental practice was Broward County, Florida; (3) that Dr. Fish resided in Broward County, Florida, and had been domiciled in the State of Florida since 1973; and, (4) that Dr. Fish's business did not employ more than 25 full time employees and his net worth, including both personal and business investments, was less than two million dollars. Next, it must be concluded that the Department failed to demonstrate that its actions were substantially justified or that special circumstances existed which would make an award unjust. Dispositive of this issue is the proof which demonstrated that the Panel did not find probable cause to conclude that the bridge work provided by Dr. Fish fell below community standards and did not direct the Department to file an administrative complaint on such issue. Therefore, the Department was without any factual or legal basis to file a complaint challenging the adequacy of the bridgework installed by Dr. Fish.8 Consequently, Dr. Fish is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.9 Here, Petitioner's counsel claims $25,511.50 (based on 184.5 hours) as attorney's fees, and $1,699.06 as costs, reasonably and necessarily incurred in the underlying proceeding. The Department, as heretofore noted, did not oppose the request for attorney's fees and costs by affidavit, but responded that it "[could] not agree that the attorney's fees and costs sought by the Petitioner are reasonable or necessary without further review [following discovery]." Thereafter, the Department never filed an affidavit, as required by law, opposing the request for fees and costs, did not question or oppose any portion of the request during hearing, and has not objected to any of the requests post- hearing. Section 57.111(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q- 2.035(4), Florida Administrative Code. Indeed, the only proof of record regarding the reasonableness and necessity of the attorney's fees and costs sought was offered by Dr. Fish. With regard to attorney's fees, that proof suggested that the hours dedicated to the case (184.5) were reasonably and necessarily incurred, and that the hourly rate sought (an average of slightly over $138.00 per hour) was reasonable and less than the community standard of $175.00 per hour. Consequently, the attorney's fees sought in the sum of $25,511.50 were reasonable. With regard to costs, the proof observed that the $1,699.06 claimed was "reasonable." (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Given the provisions of section 57.111(4), and the record, Petitioner's claim of attorney's fees in the sum of $25,511.50, and costs in the sum of $1,699.06 are, without further discussion, found reasonable.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed to practice dentistry under the laws of the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 0004795. At all times material hereto, Respondent maintained two offices for the practice of dentistry, one where he practices privately in Bay Harbor Islands and one in North Miami Beach which is also known as R & E Dental Offices or as North Dade Dental Office. Case Number 83-3976 Beatrice Gershenson On April 19, 1980, Beatrice Gershenson, in response to a newspaper advertisement, came to R & E Dental Offices complaining that her lower denture made years earlier was uncomfortable and in need of replacement. Respondent examined Gershenson on that visit and advised her that she would need to have both her upper and lower dentures replaced. During that consultation, Respondent and Gershenson agreed upon a fee of $410 for a full set of dentures. Respondent did not provide any treatment to Gershenson during her first visit. Gershenson returned to R & E Dental Offices several times during April and May 1980, during which visits she received a full set of dentures and several subsequent adjustments to those dentures. Although Gershenson's checks were made payable to Respondent, Respondent provided no treatment to her; rather, all dental services were provided to Gershenson by other employees of R & E Dental Offices. Gershenson did not see Respondent following the initial consultation until her last visit to R & E Dental Offices. At that time, Gershenson complained to him about her dentures. She advised Respondent that her dentures were flopping and that she was biting the back of her jaw. Respondent did not examine her at that time. Based upon her complaints, however, he suggested that she be provided a reline and that she use a denture cream. Gershenson refused to have a reline, became upset about having to use a denture cream, and left. On July 16, 1981, Gershenson and her dentures were examined by Dr. Leonard M. Sakrais, a dental expert retained by Petitioner. Between her last visit to R & E Dental Offices and her examination by Dr. Sakrais, Gershenson's dentures were not altered. The three deficiencies in Gershenson's dentures noted by Sakrais became the specific allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. Sakrais noted that the dentures exhibited open occlusion on the right side, the lower anterior teeth were set forward of the ridge making the lower denture unstable, and the upper denture was short in the tuberosity region and therefore had no retention. However, Sakrais recognized that lower dentures are typically unstable, that Gershenson's small knife-edged lower ridge made her a difficult patient to fit, and that the dentures could have very easily been made serviceable. One of the ways in which the defects could be remedied, accordingly to Sakrais, was for the denture to be relined. If a patient refuses to have a denture relined, however, there is nothing a dentist can do further. Gershenson continued to wear the dentures obtained at R & E Dental Offices without adjustment after the examination by Sakrais until she commenced treatment in June 1983 with Dr. Alan B. Friedel. She made no complaints to Friedel regarding the upper denture and only complained about the looseness of the lower denture. Friedel adjusted her lower denture and recommended that it be relined and that she use a denture cream. Friedel noted no problems with the upper denture and attributed the problems with Gershenson's lower denture to the shape and deterioration of her lower ridge. When Dr. Neil Scott Meyers examined Gershenson on August 3, 1984, after Friedel's treatment had been completed, Gershenson complained to him that her upper denture fit so well that she had trouble removing it. Meyers found no defects in Gershenson's dentures, as modified by Dr. Friedel, and also noted the difficulty in fitting a lower denture for a patient with a small sharp lower ridge like Gershenson's. Gershenson voluntarily terminated treatment with R & E Dental Offices without requesting a refund and without requesting that the dental work be redone. Rather, she refused Respondent's offer to reline her dentures. Case Number 84-0349 Barbara Schmidt On November 4, 1980, Barbara Schmidt came to R & E Dental Offices in response to an advertisement. Schmidt complained that an improper bite was causing loss of her natural teeth and advised Respondent that her previous dentists had recommended that she have her teeth capped and bite opened. Schmidt brought with her to that consultation X rays and study models, a lot of advice from previous dentists who had treated her, and her attorney-husband who drilled Respondent on his plan for treatment of Schmidt. During Respondent's examination of Schmidt, he noted that she suffered from an extreme loss of vertical dimension. Her teeth were very worn, and there was little enamel left on her anterior teeth. The agreed upon treatment plan for Schmidt involved a full mouth reconstruction, consisting of 15 lower crowns and 8 upper crowns. On November 4 and 11, 1980, Respondent prepared Schmidt's lower right side and lower left side and provided her with temporaries. Respondent made no attempt to increase her vertical dimension with the first set of temporaries. On November 25, 1980, Respondent took a second bite impression and made a second set of temporaries which increased Schmidt's bite by 2 millimeters. He noted that he was having trouble getting Schmidt's jaws into centric position for taking a second impression because her jaw muscles were too tense. During Schmidt's appointments on December 16 and 23, 1980, Respondent tried-in the lower metal framework, checked the margins, looked for blanching of the tissue, determined that the lower frame was acceptable and ready to be finished, and took a third bite impression due to the difficulty in getting the same registration each time that Schmidt's bite was registered. During Schmidt's January 13, 1981, appointment, Respondent began work on her upper teeth. Schmidt was placed in temporaries. When the upper metal work was tried-in on February 3, 1981, Respondent determined that the fit was correct. On February 10, 1981, Respondent inserted Schmidt's upper crowns using temporary bond and made a notation in Schmidt's records that her bridges should be removed every six months. On February 17, 1981, Respondent removed one of Schmidt's bridges, made new temporaries, and returned Schmidt's crowns and bridgework to the laboratory for rearticulation in order that the bite, with which Respondent was not satisfied, could be corrected. On this date Schmidt was in her third set of temporaries and was clearly in an unfinished stage. On February 18 and 24, 1981, Schmidt was seen by Dr. Wayne Dubin, another dentist in the same office. Schmidt's dental records indicate that on the former date Dubin re-cemented Schmidt's temporary crowns, and on the latter date he cemented with temporary bond the permanent crowns that Respondent had returned to the laboratory on February 17. On March 3, 1981, Respondent repaired Schmidt's lower right bridge, and on March 10 he cemented that bridge back into Schmidt's mouth with temporary bond. On March 17, 1981, Respondent removed one of Schmidt's bridges and returned it to the laboratory so that porcelain could be added. This was the last occasion on which he rendered treatment to Schmidt. On March 24, Schmidt was seen by Dr. Dubin at the request of Respondent. In the presence of Schmidt, Respondent requested Dubin to take over the case because Respondent was still unable to correct Schmidt's bite. Respondent told Dubin to do whatever he thought was necessary. On March 24, 1981, Dubin removed Schmidt's crowns and bridges and took a bite impression without the crowns and bridges in place in order to correct the bite problem in a different way than Respondent had previously tried. On April 7, 1981, Dubin placed Schmidt's bridges in her mouth using temporary cement. He advised her that on her next visit he would take a new set of X rays, presumably to start over again if necessary. Although Dubin was at that time Schmidt's treating dentist, she sought advice from the lady employed as the office manager at R & E Dental Offices. The two women decided that rather than having Schmidt continue with Dubin, she should see Dr. Lawrence Engel the "E" of R & E Dental Offices. On the following day Engel saw Schmidt for an occlusal adjustment. During the examination, Schmidt's jaw muscles went into spasm, and she was unable to make the appropriate movements so that Engel could make the appropriate adjustments. Engel suggested to Schmidt that she go home, practice moving her jaw in front of a mirror in the privacy of her home, and then return so that he could complete her adjustment. Schmidt returned to Engel approximately one week later and brought her husband with her. While Mr. Schmidt engaged in a tirade and Dr. Engel engaged in adjusting Mrs. Schmidt's bite, there was a power failure in North Miami Beach. The Schmidts were given their choice of waiting until electrical power resumed or leaving and coming back at another time. After advising the office manager that they would return and that would also complete paying the agreed upon fee for dental services, the Schmidts left. They did not, however, return, and they did not, however, complete paying their bill. Instead, on May 18, 1981, Mrs. Schmidt picked up her records, X rays, and study models. She did not speak with Respondent about her voluntary termination of treatment, about a refund of the monies paid for treatment, or about her dental work being completed or redone. Schmidt was not released from treatment by any dentist at R & E Dental Offices. When Schmidt released herself from treatment, none of the three dentists who had treated her had indicated that her case was completed or close to completion. Rather, more temporaries were being made, her crowns and bridgework were being returned to the laboratory, new X rays were being ordered, and one dentist was in the middle of an adjustment when the electrical power failed. Moreover, the dental work made for her had been cemented with temporary bond, and no one had indicated that permanent cementing was likely at any time soon. The only discussion which had occurred regarding the use of permanent cement occurred with Respondent when he explained to her that sometimes sensitive areas are alleviated when permanent cementing takes place. That discussion took place prior to the time that Respondent referred Schmidt to Dr. Dubin with instructions to do whatever Dubin thought necessary. During the time that Respondent was treating Barbara Schmidt, she was seeing other dentists for the purpose of having them monitor Respondent's work. Since neither Schmidt nor her monitoring dentists advised Respondent that he was being monitored, the only information available to those dentists was that provided to them by Barbara Schmidt. They, therefore, did not have the benefit of Respondent's input into their opinions, and Respondent likewise was not given the benefit of their input into his decisions. In addition to seeing a Dr. Coulton and a Dr. Souviron, Schmidt consulted twice with Dr. Alvin Lawrence Philipson, a dentist having some business dealings with Mr. Schmidt. Schmidt saw Dr. Philipson for Use first time on February 11, the day after her permanent lowers were inserted with temporary cement. Six days later Respondent removed Schmidt's lower left bridge and sent it back to the lab to be remade in order to correct the bite and alleviate an area causing sensitivity. When Philipson next saw her in March of 1981 he was of the opinion that Respondent had provided treatment which failed to meet minimum standards. That opinion, however, was based upon the information given to him by the Schmidts that Respondent was finished with the case and ready to permanently cement all bridgework. At the time that he rendered his opinion, Philipson did not know that Schmidt was about to be referred by Respondent to another dentist, i.e., Dr. Dubin for that doctor to do whatever he thought was necessary in order to help Mrs. Schmidt. After Schmidt discharged herself from the care of the dentists at R & E Dental Offices, she continued to wear the crowns and bridgework in their temporized state without treatment from April 8, 1981 (the day of the power failure) until July 7, 1982 when she sought dental treatment from Dr. Donald Lintzenich. By this time she had also developed periodontal problems, most likely as a result of neglect. Schmidt began treating with Tintzenich in July of 1982, and Lintzenich also referred her to other specialists for necessary treatment such as root canals and periodontal treatment. Although many changes were made to the crowns and bridgework Schmidt received from R & E Dental Offices by Lintzenich and the other dentists to whom he referred her, during the first four months that he treated Schmidt Lintzenich left the crowns and bridgework from R & E Dental Offices in Schmidt's mouth. Although Lintzenich began treatment of Schmidt in July 1982, he was still treating her at the time of the Final Hearing in the cause and was, at that point, considering redoing work he had placed in her mouth. The numerous experts in dentistry presented by both Petitioner and Respondent agree that Barbara Schmidt's is an extremely difficult reconstruction case and that a quite extended period of time is necessary for the correction of her dental problems. Further the experts agree on nothing. Each of Petitioner's experts disagrees with almost everything stated by the remainder of Petitioner's experts. For example, Philipson recommends increasing Schmidt's bite; Glatstein believes that Schmidt's bite needs to be reduced; and Lintzenich opines that any attempt to change the vertical dimension would constitute treatment below the minimum acceptable standard. Some of Petitioner's experts believe that Schmidt's periodontal problems existed before she sought treatment by Respondent, and some of them believe that her periodontal problems commenced after she had terminated treatment with Respondent. Although most of Petitioner's experts agreed that Respondent's work fell below minimum standards, they also admit their opinions would be different if they had known that Respondent had not completed his work on Schmidt and had not discharged her but rather had referred her to another dentist with instructions to do whatever was necessary. Only Dr. Glatstein maintained that Respondent's work was substandard at any rate, an opinion he confers on Lintzenich's work, too. The Administrative Complaint filed herein charges that Respondent's treatment of Schmidt failed in the following "specifics": the work has no centric occlusion; the bite is totally unacceptable and if not corrected will cause irreversible damage to the temperomandibular joint; and the contour of the teeth and embrasure space for the soft tissues were unacceptable and ultimately will result in periodontal breakdown. All of the experts who testified agree that Barbara Schmidt's bite is/was not correct. She initially sought treatment because her bite was not correct and is still undergoing treatment because her bite is not correct. There is no consensus on any of the other charges in the Administrative Complaint; in fact, there is no consensus as to the meaning of some of the words' used. For example, some dentists believe that the term "contour of the teeth" encompasses open margins while others believe that an open margin is the space between the tooth and the crown. Few dentists, however, believe that an Administrative Complaint which states that the contour of teeth is unacceptable advises a licensee that he is charged with defective work because of open margins. Even if open margins were part of the term "contour of the teeth," the Administrative Complaint fails to notify anyone that the open margins are the part of the contour that is alleged to be defective or even which teeth are involved. There is no basis for choosing the opinion of one expert in this case over the other experts who testified herein. Further, many of the opinions are based upon information that was either erroneous or false, such as the information that Respondent had completed treatment and discharged Schmidt.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained within the Administrative Complaints filed herein and dismissing them with prejudice. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Gallagher Attorney at Law Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven I. Kern, Esquire 1143 East Jersey Street Elizabeth, New Jersey 07201 Algis Augustine, Esquire 407 South Dearborn Street Suite 1300 Chicago, Illinois 60605 Stephen I. Mechanic, Esquire Allan M. Glaser, Esquire Post Office Box 398479 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Ronald P. Glantz, Esquire 201 S.E. 14th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Steven Rindley, D.D.S. 251 NE 167th Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Steven Rindley, D.D.S. 1160 Kane Concourse Bay Harbor Islands, Florida 33154 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Varn, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301
