The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Section 466.24(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Albert Leo Vollmer is registered as a dentist with the Florida State Board of Dentistry, license no. 1437, and practices dentistry at Satellite Beach, Florida (Testimony of Mullins). On July 19, 1973, Allen M. Dingman made application to the Veterans Administration for medical benefits consisting of dental treatment (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Authorization was given by the Veterans Administration for the requested treatment and Mr. Dingman sought the services of the Respondent. Respondent submitted a treatment plan to the Veterans Administration which was approved. Respondent thereafter provided dental services to Mr. Dingman and, in October, 1973, billed the Veterans Administration for the completed treatment. On October 18, 1973, payment in the amount of $503.00 was approved and paid to the Respondent by the Veterans Administration. This included payment for providing a 3/4 crown on tooth 20 in the amount of $115.00, a full gold crown on tooth 19 for $110.00, and a gold pontic on tooth number 18 for $90.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). In April, 1974, Mr. Dingman visited Dr. Robert B. Downey, D.D.S., concerning a bridge which Respondent had provided him to replace the second molar (tooth number 18), which bridge Dingman had subsequently lost. He asked Dr. Downey what the cost would be to remedy his problem and informed him that the Veterans Administration had paid for the other work. Dr. Downey thereupon contacted the Veterans Administration concerning the prior treatment (Testimony of Dingman, Downey). Approximately a year later, Mr. Dingman was examined by Dr. Fred C. Nichols, D.D.S., of the Veterans Administration, who found that Dingman did not have gold crowns on teeth number 19 and 20, nor a gold pontic to replace tooth number 18. Mr. Dingman showed Dr. Nichols a cast metal frame work which had once been intended as a unilateral mandibular partial denture to replace tooth number 18 (Testimony of Nichols; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5). The Veterans Administration, by letter of May 19, 1975, advised the Respondent that he would be billed for $315.00 representing the work which had not been performed. Respondent advised the VA that Mr. Dingman had objected to crown preparations and that he had therefore prepared a cantilever bridge which had been too bulky and thereafter another bridge was made at his expense which was apparently acceptable. The Veterans Administration reasserted its claim for $315.00 and Respondent, by letter of July 14, 1975, sought a credit for the work which he had performed, and by a further letter of August 12, 1975 advised that, although all of his records concerning Mr. Dingman could not be found, he estimated the cost of his actual work to be $207.90, and sought credit therefor (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6). Respondent testified that although his original plan was to provide fixed bridge work for Mr. Dingman, upon reflection and after noting that the patient was a hypersensitive person who objected to having the necessary preparatory work that would be required for crowns, he decided to attempt to preserve the natural teeth if possible and not to "abort" them. He further testified that although he had requested his office assistant to prepare an amended VA form for the patient to reflect his decision to do a different type of work, he did not follow-up to see if it was sent in to the Veterans Administration. He further maintained that his office assistant had done poor work, that he did not pay much attention to the paper work in the office and, although he usually reviewed applications for treatment such as Exhibit 4 by "implicit faith", he would usually "skip-read" these forms and sign them without completely checking the details thereon. He stated that his accounts were in a mess during this period and that this was the reason the dental laboratory records concerning Mr. Dingman were unavailable and why he had since hired accountants to do his bookkeeping work. His present assistant supported the fact that when she was first employed about a year and a half ago, Respondent's records were sloppy and that it was her custom to prepare various forms for the Respondent's signature. Mr. Dingman denied that he had ever told the Respondent that he was afraid to have his teeth cut into, or that he was hypersensitive in nature (Testimony of Vollmer, Mander, Person, Dingman) Dr. Daniel Beirne, a physician of Indian Harbor Beach, testified that he had common patients with the Respondent, and that the Respondent had an excellent reputation for truth and veracity in the community. Dr. Downey testified to the Respondent's bad reputation as a dentist, as did Dr. Carroll D. House, a member of the Brevard Dental Society Grievance Committee (Testimony of Burre, Downey, House). Respondent's license to practice dentistry was suspended in 1958 for a period of three months for an advertising violation with the proviso that the suspension was suspended for a period of one year upon certain conditions. His license was again suspended for a period of six months in 1960 for advertising violations (Petitioner's Exhibits 7 & 8)
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Harold I. Odle, held dental license number DN 0004379 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Dentistry. Respondent is engaged in the practice of dentistry at 3900 South Broadway, Fort Myers, Florida. On or about August 13, 1980, Wilfred H. Bauer went to Respondent's dental office where Respondent extracted Bauer's tooth number 17. On or about August 21, 1980, Bauer returned to Odle's office for removal of sutures placed in his mouth in connection with the extraction performed on August 13. The removal procedure was performed by Julia Hover, an employee in Respondent's office. It was not disclosed whether Hover was licensed as a dentist or dental hygienist in the State of Florida. The complainant in this case (Bauer) died in August, 1982 and accordingly did not appear and testify at the final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the motion for directed verdict be GRANTED and the administrative complaint against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1982.
The Issue Whether or not on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent, James P. Haas, was offering to practice dentistry, and indeed practicing dentistry at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center, in violation of Sections 466.24(3)(n) and 466.36, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent, James P. Haas, maintained a telephone listing whereby he offered to practice dentistry as D.A.D. Denture Center at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, and whether or not he continues to maintain said listing, in violation of Sections 466.24(3)(g) and 466.27(5), Florida Statutes. Whether or not since January 1, 1978, or prior to that date, one Bernie Morlock has been employed by the Respondent, James P. Haas, to perform dental services at a time when the said Bernie Morlock was not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene in the State of Florida. Further, whether or not Bernie Morlock, while employed by the Respondent, practiced dentistry as defined in Section 466.04, Florida Statutes, to the extent of: Taking impressions of the human teeth and jaws. Placing dentures and dental appliances in patients' mouths and adjusting or attempting to adjust same. Diagnosing or professing to diagnose the physical condition of the teeth and jaws of patients. Finally, whether or not the Respondent knowingly allowed the practice of dentistry by Bernie Morlock in violation of Section 466.02, Florida Statutes, and in further violation of Section 466.24(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes. Whether or not since January 1, 1978, or prior to that date, the Respondent, James P. Haas, has employed unlicensed personnel to perform dental services for patients, to-wit: orthodontic treatment, which services constitute the practice of dentistry under Section 466.04, Florida Statutes. Further, whether or not if these services were performed by unlicensed persons, were they performed with the full knowledge and consent of the Respondent, thereby constituting a violation on the part of the Respondent of Sections 466.24(3)(d) and (e), Florida Statutes. (The Amended Accusation which charges the Respondent contained a certain Count III; however, no testimony was offered in support of that allegation and at the conclusion of the formal hearing, the Petitioner, through its counsel, voluntarily withdrew that count from consideration. This voluntary dismissal was unopposed by the Respondent.)
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, Division of Professions, Board of Dentistry, is an agency of the state created for the purposes of protecting the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the State of Florida, to the extent that practice of dentistry in the state and dental hygiene are subject to the regulation and control of the Petitioner in the public interest. The authority for such regulation is set forth in Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and those rules of the Florida Administrative Code related thereto. The Respondent, James P. Haas, is licensed by the Florida State Board of Dentistry to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. The Petitioner, by an Amended Accusation, has charged the Respondent, James P. Haas, with various violations of provisions of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and the Respondent has requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, which request has been granted and a hearing held on February 15 and 16, 1979. The first of the allegations states that on or before January 7, 1978, the Respondent was offering to practice dentistry and indeed practicing dentistry at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center. The facts reveal that Dr. Haas made an arrangement with an organization known as Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., of Harredsberg, Kentucky, wherein he agreed to coordinate the placement of advertisements for the benefit of that corporation and in turn the corporation agreed to refer patients to Dr. Haas for his treatment. The advertising spoken of consisted of an ad in the Winter Park, Florida, telephone directory yellow pages and certain newspaper advertising through the Orlando Sentinel of Orlando, Florida. The advertising in the telephone directory was placed in the fall of 1977 and a copy of that yellow page advertising may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence contains a copy of the format for the telephone yellow page advertising, as contemplated by Dr. Haas through his agreement with Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., of Harredsberg, Kentucky. The listing of the telephone number was of the number in Harredsberg, Kentucky, and those individuals at that number in turn made the referrals to Dr. Haas's office located at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida. An example of the newspaper advertising may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence at page 161-I, a copy of the Sentinal Star Progress Edition of December 18, 1977. In that advertising the same number is given as indicated in the aforementioned telephone telephone ad, with the difference being that Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc., is given as the trade name as opposed to D.A.D. Denture Center, which was found in the telephone advertisement. Dr. Haas maintained a separate checking account for D.A.D. Denture Center, the name of his affiliation with Delivering Affordable Dentistry, Inc. The payments for services made by those patients referred through the D.A.D. Denture Center process, were placed into the D.A.D. Denture Center operating account of Dr. Haas. Those persons authorized to make withdrawals from that account were Dr. Haas and his employee, Bernie Morlock, and checks were drawn from that account under the authority of Dr. Haas. The overall income and expanses of D.A.D. Denture Center, operated by Dr. Haas, and of his general practice in the name of James P. Haas-sole proprietor, were combined and were under the control and authority of Dr. Haas. The dental office located in Longwood, Florida, was identified as the office of James P. Haas, D.D.S., and also by a placard indicating the office to be a D.A.D. Denture Center. Finally, those patients who called for service under D.A.D. Denture Center were charged by different fee structure and were listed in a separate appointment book, than that appointment hook for the Respondent through his general practice, James P. Haas, D.D.S. The Respondent was knowledgeable of the arrangement to treat patients under the assumed name of D.A.D. Denture Center at the address in Longwood, Florida, and in fact practiced dentistry under that assumed name and at that location as alleged in Count I of the Amended Accusation. This constituted a violation of Section 466.36, Florida Statutes, which states: "Practicing dentistry under assumed name; penalties.-- On and after the passage of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to practice or offer to practice dentistry under any name except his or her own proper name, which shall be the name used in his or her license certificate granted to him or her as a dentist as provided in this chapter, and unlawful to use the name of any company, association, corporation, clinic, trade name, or business name in connection with the practice of dentistry as defined in this chapter, provided, nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent two or more licensed dentists from associating to- gether for the practice of dentistry, each in his or her own proper name. The violation of any of the provisions of this section by any dentist shall subject such dentist to suspen- sion or revocation of his or her license." The advertisement placed in the Winter Park, Florida, telephone directory, which is sham as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence, was placed with the knowledge of the Respondent and with the intention by the Respondent that the advertisement be made. This advertisement pertained to the 1978 telephone directory for Winter Park, Florida. Under these facts, the Petitioner has charged the Respondent with a violation of Section 466.27(5), Florida Statutes. That provision reads: "466.27(5) Telephone listings shall be con- fined to the local telephone directories. Such listings shall be limited to the den- tist's name, dental degree, 'D.D.S.' or 'D.M.D.,' using the abbreviation only, the word 'dentist,' 'dentistry,' or 'general dentistry,' any specialty as approved by the board to which the dentist confines his practice exclusively, office location, resi- dence and office telephone numbers, and residence address and may include his member- ship in a local dental society if in accord with local customs." A review of the language of this section, in view of the fact that the advertising in the telephone directory inured to the benefit of the Respondent by the process of the referral system spoken of above, demonstrates that the telephone listing was for the benefit of Dr. Haas and was not in keeping with the requirements of this subsection. This constituted advertising professional services and the practice of dentistry in a manner not expressly authorized by Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and was therefore in violation of Section 466.24(3)(g), Florida Statutes. One of the employees of the Respondent who worked in the office at 101 Palm Springs Drive, Longwood, Florida, was Bernie Morlock. Morlock was not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene in the State of Florida at any time relevant to the allegations in the Amended Accusation. Nonetheless, Morlock practiced dentistry as defined by Section 466.04, Florida Statutes, and did so in the office of the Respondent in Longwood, Florida, with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent. The arrangement which was condoned by the Respondent allowed for Morlock to have patients scheduled for him for the purpose of the preparation of dentures through the referral system, D.A.D. Denture Center, which was part of Dr. Haas's Longwood, Florida, office. (An example of the written schedules may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence.) Dr. Haas had instructed that these patients be scheduled to be seen by Bernie Morlock. Some of these patients were being seen by Dr. Haas's office for the first time and were attended by Bernie Morlock from this initial visit to the conclusion of the case, at which time the patients were given their dentures. Morlock's involvement with patients included diagnosis of the physical condition of the teeth and jaws of the patients; taking impressions of patients' teeth, both algenate and working model impressions; the placement of dentures and other dental appliances in the patients' mouths and the adjustment to those dentures and dental appliances, and the discussion of the case with the patient. Most of the work that Morlock did was done at a time when Dr. Haas was not in attendance in the aforementioned office and was done without supervision from any licensed dentist. This process undertaxen by Bernie Morlock happened on numerous occasions. The patients were considered to be Morlock's patients and the patients only saw licensed dentists for the purpose of extracting teeth or other dental procedures unconnected with the fabrication and try-in and adjustment to the dentures. These actions on the part of Bernie Morlock took place during the time period alleged in Count IV of the Amended Accusation. By allowing Bernie Morlock to attend patients in the fashion that Morlock did, the Respondent was willfully negligent in the practice of dentistry within the moaning of Section 466.24(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and in addition was guilty of a violation of Section 466.24(e), Florida Statutes, which states: "Employing or permitting any unlicensed per- son or persons to perform any work in his office which would constitute the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene, except a dental auxiliary pursuant to the provisions of this chapter." During the period of time alleged in Count V of the Amended Accusation, the Respondent employed dental hygienists Vic Simmons and Mary Simmons at his office in Longwood, Florida. Although they wore dental hygienists, these individuals were not licensed to practice dentistry or dental hygiene within the State of Florida. Notwithstanding this absence of a license, the Simmonses practiced dentistry in the Longwood office within the meaning of Section 466.04, Florida Statutes. This included having certain schedules set for them as indicated by Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. This is an example of the schedule for the Simmonses under the title, "Ortho". This scheduling was with the knowledge of Dr. Haas, who had arranged for the Simmonses to come and treat orthodontic patients in his office. The Simmonses came to the location of the Respondent's office two days a month, of which Dr. Haas was in the Longwood office one of those days. These orthodontic patients would be seen initially by Dr. Haas and then treated for their condition by the Simmonses. Some of the patients first seen by the Simmonses arrived at the office without any form of braces in the mouth of the patient. The procedures that the Simmonses then performed were done without supervision by a licensed dentist. By that it is meant that the Simmonses were performing the dental services without the licensed dentist being in the room. The Simmonses, in the pursuit of orthodontic dental practice, placed bands and changed beads, cemented hands and placed arch wires; all with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent. Under the circumstances involved in the employment of the Simmonses, it has been demonstrated that the Respondent is guilty of willful negligence in the practice of dentistry as prescribed in Section 466.24(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is also guilty of a violation of Section 466.24(3)(e), Florida Statutes, in that he employed and permitted unlicensed persons to perform work in his office which would constitute the practice of dentistry. The proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation offered by the parties have been revied prior to the rendition of this Recommended Order. To the extent that the proposals conform to the findings herein, they have been utilized in developing the Recommended Order. To the extent that the proposals are inconsistent with the findings herein, they are rejected.
The Issue The issue is whether the score that Respondent assigned to the Patient Amalgam Preparation and Periodontal sections of the clinical part of Petitioner's June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination taken was arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination. A passing score for the clinical part of the examination is 3.0. Petitioner received a score of 2.94, so he failed the clinical part of the examination. Petitioner has challenged the grades of 2.0 that he received on the Patient Amalgam Preparation and Periodontal sections of the clinical part of the examination. In both sections, the score of 2.0 is derived from averaging the 3s that Petitioner received from two evaluators and the 0 that he received from one evaluator. For both procedures, Petitioner challenges only the scores of 0, and he needs two additional points to pass the clinical part of the examination. The administration of the clinical part of the dental examination requires Respondent to recruit and train numerous examiners and monitors, all of whom are experienced, licensed dentists. The training process includes standardization exercises designed to ensure that all examiners are applying the same scoring criteria. The evaluation of specific procedures are double-blind, with scoring sheets that identify candidates by test numbers, so examiners do not know the identity of the candidate whose procedures they are scoring. The two sections that are the subject of this case require the candidate to demonstrate certain skills on a live patient. While working with the patient, the candidate is supervised by a monitor. When the candidate has completed the required dental work to his satisfaction, he so advises the monitor, who sends the patient to the dental examiners. For each section that is the subject of this case, three dental examiners examine the patient and score the procedure. These examiners do not communicate with each other, and each performs his or her examinations and scores the procedure in isolation from the other examiners. Communication between examiners and candidates is exclusively through monitor notes. For each section that is the subject of this case, the maximum possible score that a candidate may receive is a 5. Passing grades are 3, 4, or 5. Nonpassing grades are 0, 1, or A score of 3 indicates minimal competence. The Periodontal section of the clinical part of the dental examination required Petitioner to debride five teeth. Removing calculus from teeth, especially below the gums, is an important procedure because the build-up of tartar and plaque may cause pockets to form between the tooth and gum. Eventually, the gum tissue may deteriorate, ultimately resulting in the loss of the tooth. Prior to the examination, written materials explain to the candidates and examiners that the debridement is to remove all supragingival and subgingival foreign deposits. For the Periodontal procedure, Examiners 207 and 296 each gave Petitioner a 3, and Examiner 394 gave him a 0. The scoring sheets provide a space for preprinted notes relevant to the procedure. All three examiners noted root roughness. However, Examiner 394 detected "heavy" subgingival calculus on four teeth and documented his findings, as required to do when scoring a 0. Petitioner contends that two examiners and he correctly detected no calculus, and Examiner 394 incorrectly detected calculus. As an explanation, Petitioner showed that Examiner 394 knows Petitioner in an employment setting, and their relationship may have been tense at times. However, Petitioner never proved that Examiner 394 associated Petitioner's candidate number with Petitioner. Thus, personal bias does not explain Examiner 394's score. On the other hand, Examiners 296 and 207 are extremely experienced dental examiners. Examiner 296 has served nine years in this capacity, and Examiner 207 has served ten years, conducting 15-20 dental examinations during this period of time. By contrast, Examiner 394 has been licensed in Florida only since 1995 and has been serving as a dental examiner for only three years. However, the most likely explanation for this scoring discrepancy is that Examiner 394 explored more deeply the subgingival area than did Examiners 207 and 296 or Petitioner. Examiner 394 testified with certainty that he found the calculus at 5-6 mm beneath the gums. This is likely deeper than the others penetrated, but not unreasonably deep. For the Periodontal procedure, an examiner who found calculus on four teeth would be entitled to award the candidate 0 points. Examiners may deduct two points per tooth that has been incompletely cleaned, although the lowest score is 0. Examiner 394's score of 0 is therefore legitimate and at least as reliable as the other scores of 3. The Amalgam Preparation section of the clinical part of the examination required Petitioner to remove caries from one tooth and prepare the tooth for restoration. These procedures are of obvious importance to dental health. Poor preparation of the tooth surface will probably result in the premature failure of the restoration. A restoration following incomplete removal of caries will probably result in ongoing disease, possibly resulting in the loss of the tooth. Written materials, as well as Respondent's rules, which are discussed below, require a 0 if caries remain, after the candidate has presented the patient as ready for restoration. Other criteria apply to the Amalgam Preparation procedure, but this criterion is the only one of importance in this case. Examiners 207 and 417 each assigned Petitioner a 3 for this procedure, but Examiner 420 assigned him a 0. Examiners 207 and 417 noted some problems with the preparation of the tooth, but neither detected any caries. Examiner 420 detected caries and documented his finding, as required to do when scoring a 0. As noted above, Examiner 207 is a highly experienced evaluator, but the other two evaluators are experienced dentists. Examiner 417 graduated from dental school in 1979, and Examiner 420 has been licensed in Florida since 1981. The instructions to examiners emphasize that they are to detect caries "exclusively" tactilely, not visually. Tactile detection of the stickiness characteristic of caries is more reliable than visual detection. For example, caries assumes the color of dentin as the decay approaches the dentin. Examiner 420 testified definitively that he detected caries tactilely, not visually, in Petitioner's patient. This testimony is credited. It is difficult to reconcile Examiner 420's finding of caries with the contrary finding by the highly experienced Examiner 207. It does not seem especially likely that an experienced dentist would miss decay, especially in the artificial setting of a dental examination, in which everyone's attention is focused on one tooth. Examiner 207's finding of no caries is corroborated by the same finding of Examiner 417. However, Examiner 417's finding is given little weight. She readily suggested that she must have missed the caries. What at first appeared to be no more than a gracious gesture by a witness willing to aid Respondent's case took on different meaning when Examiner 417 testified, in DOAH Case No. 03-3955, first that she had detected visually and then retreated to testifying that she did not know if she had detected caries visually or tactilely--a significant concession because examiners were instructed explicitly not to rely on visual findings of caries. Returning, then, to the conflict between the findings of Examiner 420 and Examiner 207, substantially unaided by the corroborating findings of Examiner 417, either an experienced, credible dentist has found caries where none exists, or an experienced credible dentist has missed caries. The specificity of Examiner 420's testimony makes it more likely, as logic would suggest, that he did not imagine the existence of caries, and Examiner 207 somehow missed the caries. It is thus slightly more likely than not that Petitioner failed to remove the caries prior to presenting the patient. More importantly, though, for reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law, Examiner 420, in finding caries, adhered strictly to Respondent's rules and policies for evaluating candidates' work, and his finding was not arbitrary or capricious.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the scoring of the clinical part of the June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 James Randolph Quick Driftwood Plaza 2151 South U.S. Highway One Jupiter, Florida 33477 Cassandra Pasley Senior Attorney Department of Health Office of the General Counsel 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Respondent, John W. Delk, held a license to practice dentistry, number DN 0005106, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation's Board of Dentistry. James Whisman was a patient at the Delk Dental Center from July 14, 1981 until May 22, 1984. Dr. John W. Delk was the dentist of record for James Whisman. On July 14, 1981, Dr. John W. Delk prepared teeth #6, 7, and 8 for crown and bridgework which included the placement of a post in tooth #8. On July 29, 1981, James Whisman returned to the Delk Dental Center to have the crowns on #6, 7, and 8 seated. On July 29, 1981, Don Berman seated permanent crowns on teeth #6, 7, and 8 for James Whisman using a permanent cement. Don Berman was a technician (dental assistant) for the Delk Dental Center and was not a licensed dentist or dental hygienist. He did not have an expanded duties certificate. On August 11, 1981, Respondent diagnosed a need, and had Berman prepare a treatment plan, for future dental work for James Whisman. During the establishment of Mr. Whisman's August 11, 1981 treatment plan, there was no documentation or oral advisement that an abnormality, such as a retained root tip or abscess, existed at tooth #10. Later, the bridge work on teeth #6, 7, 8 became loose, and Whisman called for an appointment with the Delk Dental Center. On September 21, 1981, the crowns on teeth #6, 7, and 8 were re-cemented with a permanent cement, zinc phosphate, by technician Don Berman. Dr. John W. Delk did not supervise Don Berman when he used the permanent cement to seat the crowns on teeth #6, 7, and 8 for a second time. From February 8, 1982 through February 25, 1982, Dr. James Costello provided dental services to James Whisman, specifically preparing teeth #9-15 and teeth #1-5 for crowns and bridgework and seating the crowns and bridgework. Dr. Costello did not advise James Whisman that an abnormality, specifically a retained root tip or abscess, was present at tooth #10. The patient chart for James Whisman failed to document that tooth #10 had a retained root tip and abscess present. The failure to chart a retained root tip and abscess at tooth #10 is critical to diagnosis and treatment. Fourteen months later, James Whisman returned to the Delk Dental Center for continued dental work. Respondent on March 6, 1984, diagnosed the need, and had Berman prepare a treatment plan, for fixed bridge-splints on teeth #19-22 and #27- 30. On March 7, 1984, Dr. John W. Delk prepared teeth #19- 22 and #27-30 for crown and bridgework. On March 9, 1984, Don Berman cemented temporary crowns on teeth #27-30 without supervision from Dr. John W. Delk. On March 12, 1984, Don Berman re-cemented temporary crowns on teeth #27-30, using a permanent cement called Durelon, without supervision from Dr. John W. Delk. On April 19, 1984, Don Berman used a permanent cement, Durelon, to seat the crown and bridgework on teeth #19-22 and #27-30 without supervision from Dr. John W. Delk. On May 15, 1984, James Whisman returned to the Delk Dental Center complaining of loose teeth in the area of #7 and 8. On May 22, 1984, James Whisman returned to the Delk Dental Center continuing in his complaint that teeth #7 and 8 were loose. On May 22, 1984, Don Berman did an oral inspection of teeth #7 and 8 and with the aid of a dental instrument removed said teeth. Teeth #7 and 8 fractured off inside the crowns. On May 22, 1984, based on what Don Berman had reported to him, Respondent diagnosed the need, and had Berman prepare a treatment plan, for Mr. Whisman which encompassed an estimate for two crowns, one root canal filling and two pin and core build-ups for a total fee of $708.00. On May 22, 1984, Dr. John W. Delk did not examine Mr. Whisman nor did Dr. Delk supervise the actions of Don Berman. Don Berman re-cemented the crowns for teeth #7 and 8 using a permanent cement, Durelon, with no supervision from Dr. John W. Delk. James Whisman suffered from areas of sensitivity around the bridgework, poor dental work and an unnoticed abscess and retained root tip. James Whisman discontinued the dental work with the Delk Dental Center and sought a second opinion from Dr. Albert P. Hodges on June 7, 1984. After the services performed by Dr. Delk and/or his employees, an examination of James Whisman's teeth revealed dental work that fell below the standard of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. The standard of care for crown and bridgework recognized by the prevailing dental peer community is as follows: No open or shy margins around the crowns; no active decay present; proper retention in multiple-unit splints; proper dowel lengths in crowns that are needed to support multiple unit bridges; proper occlusal contact and recognition; and treatment of any pathological condition prior to crown and bridge placement. Specifically, tooth #7 had margins that were open and shy, active decay was present and there was a distinct lack of retention to support the two-unit splint. The dental treatment provided on tooth #7 fell below the minimum acceptable standards of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. Specifically, tooth #8 had margins that were open, active decay was present and the dowel length was totally inadequate for useful retentive support. The dental treatment provided on tooth #8 fell below the minimum acceptable standards of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. Specifically with tooth #10, Dr. Delk failed to diagnose and treat a retained root tip and a pathological condition which was visible and discoverable. The retained root tip and abscess were clearly visible radiographically as early as the July 14, 1981 visit to Dr. Delk's facility. James Whisman was not advised during the course of his treatment that a retained root tip existed and that the pathological condition should be treated prior to the placement of a crown over tooth #10. James Whisman's records, made at Dr. Delk's facility, failed to reflect the existence of the retained root tip and abscess at tooth #10. Failing to chart or notify the patient of the existence of a retained root tip and the accompanying cyst falls below the standard of care as recognized in the prevailing dental community. The dental treatment provided on tooth #10 fell below the minimum acceptable standards of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. Specifically, tooth #20 had margins that were open and shy, it was sensitive to probing, and it was out of occlusion because it had no contact with the opposing tooth when the mouth was in the closed position. The dental treatment provided on tooth #20 fell below the minimum acceptable standards of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. Specifically, tooth #21 had margins that were open and shy. The dental treatment provided on tooth #21 fell below the minimum acceptable standards of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. Specifically, tooth #22 had margins that were shy. The dental treatment provided on tooth #22 fell below the minimum, acceptable standards of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. Specifically, tooth #27 had margins that were shy and the crown was over-contoured causing potential gum irritation and food impaction. The dental treatment provided on tooth #27 fell below the minimum acceptable standards of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. Specifically, tooth #29 had margins that were open and shy. The dental treatment provided on tooth #29 fell below the minimum acceptable standards of care as recognized by the prevailing peer community. Cementing crowns with permanent cement is an irremediable procedure. Cementing temporary crowns with permanent cement is justified on a short-term basis but only if the procedure is done by a licensed dentist. To be within acceptable dental standards, a dentist must do a physical oral examination of a patient before developing a treatment plan. Failure to do a physical oral examination in the development of a treatment plan falls below the minimum standards as recognized in the prevailing peer community. An assistant with an expanded duties certificate may use temporary cement only to seat temporary crowns provided a licensed dentist provides direct supervision.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Board of Dentistry enter a final order: (1) holding the Respondent guilty on both counts of the Administrative Complaint; (2) fining Respondent $1000 for each count, said amount to be paid within 30 days from the signing of the final order or Respondent's license automatically to be suspended until the fine is paid; (3) suspending Respondent's license to practice dentistry for 6 months for each count of the Administrative Complaint, to run consecutively; (4) placing Respondent on probation for 12 months subsequent to the expiration of the suspension period; and (5) conditioning reinstatement of Respondent's license to practice dentistry on successful completion of 100 hours of university credit course work in crown and bridge restorations by the end of the probation period and on an appearance by Respondent before the Board to provide evidence of compliance with the final order. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of March, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy M. Snurkowski, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, F1 32399-0750 Michael T. Hand, Esq. 230 East Marks Street Orlando, F1 32803 John W. Delk, D.D.S. 2918 North Pine Hills Drive Orlando, F1 32808 Pat Guilford Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, F1 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, F1 32399-0750 Wings T. Benton, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, F1 32399-0750 APPENDIX To comply with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985), the following rulings are made on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact (Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact): 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated. 4. Accepted but unnecessary. 5.-8. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but unnecessary. Rejected as not proved. The evidence suggested that Respondent examined the patient and instructed Berman how to prepare the plan. 11.-15. Accepted and incorporated. 16. Rejected as not proved. Dr. Costello testified he seated the crowns and bridgework, and the office notes do not reflect that Berman was involved at all. Whisman's memory probably was in error on this point. 17.-20. Accepted and incorporated. 21. Rejected. See 10 above. 22.-29. Accepted and incorporated except the correct date in 24 is March 12, 1984, and the correct teeth in 25 are #19-22, not #19-20. 30. Rejected. See 10 above. 31.-56. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but cumulative. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as conclusion of law. 60.-61. Accepted but unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but cumulative. 64.-65. Accepted and incorporated.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the grounds that the Respondent has violated several statutory provisions by repairing dentures in a licensed dental lab without having obtained the required work order from a licensed dentist.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, the following facts are found: At all times relevant and material to this case, the Respondent, Magnolia Iole, held license number DL 0002153 issued by the Department of Professional Regulation, which licensed her to operate as a dental laboratory in the State of Florida. At all times relevant and material to this case, the Respondent's dental laboratory was operated at 201 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, under the business name of All Emergency Denture Service. On April 11, 1990, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation took a broken denture to the Respondent's dental laboratory and asked to have it repaired. The broken denture was a woman's denture that had been obtained by one of the other Department investigators from a local dentist's office. The investigator who presented the broken denture for repair had not seen any dentist regarding the broken denture, nor did the investigator have any work order from a dentist for the repair. On April 11, 1990, an employee of the Respondent's dental laboratory agreed to repair the broken denture that was brought in by the Department investigator. The employee said that the repair would cost $50.00, and that the denture would be ready later than same day. Later that same day two Department investigators returned to the Respondent's dental laboratory, where they met the same employee who had agreed to repair the broken denture. The employee told the investigator who had brought the denture that it would be ready in a few minutes. A few minutes later the employee of Respondent's dental laboratory handed the repaired denture to the investigator who had brought it in earlier the same day. At that time the previously broken denture was completely repaired. Although the Respondent, Magnolia Iole, was not observed on the dental laboratory premises during the events of April 11, 1990, described above, she was aware that such events were taking place, because during a telephone conversation on April 12, 1990, Magnolia Iole admitted to a Department investigator that she had been taking repair work without work orders because she needed the money. A work order for denture repair is an order from a licensed dentist to a dental laboratory directing that certain repair services be performed. The work order is, essentially, a prescription for the performance of specific services. A dental laboratory is not permitted to perform a repair of an intra- oral dental appliance without a work order signed by a licensed dentist. A dental laboratory that repairs a denture without a work order issued by a licensed dentist is engaged in the unauthorized practice of dentistry. Denture repair under such circumstances also constitutes the acceptance and performance of professional responsibilities which the dental laboratory licensee is not competent to perform. Denture repair without a work order issued by a licensed dentist, even when the repairs are excellently accomplished, can prevent the discovery of emerging dental problems and cause them to go untreated to the harm of the patient.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent has violated Sections 466.028(1)(z) and 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes, and imposing an administrative penalty consisting of a six month suspension of the Respondent's license, to be followed by a one year period of probation during which the Respondent shall be required to advise the Board quarterly of all work performed by the Respondent's dental laboratory and shall comply with all statutory and rule provisions governing the activities of dental laboratories. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon Coun~y, Florida, this 21st day of May, 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Ms. Magnolia T. Iole 531 Northwest 39th Street Oakland Park, Florida 33309 Mr. William Buckhalt, Executive Director Florida Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact William N. Abood, D.D.S., is subject to the jurisdiction of the Florida State Board of Dentistry. William N. Abood, D.D.S., is a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, license number 1253, last renewal certificate issued September 3, 1975, practicing at 2324 Post Street, Jacksonville, Florida. That, during the period of time between approximately August, 1974, and November, 1975, Cynthia Roundtree was an employee of William N. Abood, D.D.S. While an employee of Dr. William N. Abood, and acting under his control and supervision, Cynthia Roundtree was permitted to perform adjustments to partials and dentures, cemented and adjusted the occlusion of temporary crowns, and cemented and replaced crowns which had fallen out. Cynthia Roundtree is not licensed by the Florida State Board of Dentistry to practice dentistry or dental hygiene. While an employee of Dr. Abood, and acting under his control and supervision, Shirley Barrie was permitted to perform the adjustment of partials and dentures, cemented and adjusted the occlusion of temporary crowns, and placed materials in the dentures for temporary reliner and and adjusted the occlusion. Shirley Barrie is not licensed by the Florida State Board of Dentistry to practice dentistry or dental hygiene. That both assistants when making adjustments to partials or dentures with or without Dr. Abood's inspection or instruction, would examine the appliance and mouth, make a diagnosis as to the problem, then Proceed to correct the problem by grinding on the appliance and adjusting the occlusion. Dr. Abood permitted both assistants to cement temporary crowns which they had prepared from preformed aluminum crowns, then cut and trim the crown, adjust the occlusion by using articulating paper and cement it to the tooth. Cynthia Roundtree would on occasion, re-cement permanent crowns which had fallen out by grinding the cement out, drying the Patient's tooth, cementing once again the permanent crown and finally placing it on the tooth. Shirley Barrie would on occasion, place temporary reliners in dentures or partials by mixing vista gel which was used for the reliner and placed in the appliance, then the appliance would be placed in the mouth and the occlusion adjusted if necessary. Dr. Abood testified that he believed the procedures he authorized his assistants to perform in his office was a common practice among the dental profession; that he was not affirmatively aware that it was contrary to the laws and rules administered by the Dental Board and that he no longer permits his staff to do the same.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to certain facts as follows: Dr. Emory T. Cain is currently licensed as a dentist in Florida holding License No. 4260. Dr. Cain is subject to the juris- diction of the Florida State Board of Dentistry under Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Dr. Cain was served a copy of the Accusation filed by the Florida State Board of Dentistry and the Explanation of Rights and Election of Rights form in accordance with Chapters 120 and 466, Florida Statutes. Dr. Cain answered the allegations contained in the Accusation by indicating on the Election of Rights form that the alle- gations contained disputed issues of material fact and that he elected to have a formal hearing before a hearing officer appointed by the Division of Administrative Hearings. Dr. Cain does not wish to contest the allegations set forth in the Accusation and for the purposes of this hearing, said allegations shall be deemed as true. Additionally, there are further facts which are relevant to this proceeding. On or about October, 1975, Dr. Cain had in his employ, Ms. Charlotte Reavis, whose duties were to serve the normal function of a dental hygienist in the office. Ms. Reavis was not a dental hygienist and Dr. Cain was aware of this fact, having utilized Ms. Reavis as a dental assistant for some time prior to October, 1975. Ms. Reavis, in the performance of her duties, frequently scaled patients' teeth although she performed no deep scaling. The scaling included the re- moval of calculus deposits, accretions and stains from the exposed surfaces of the teeth and the gingival sulcus of patients. This practice continued from approximately October, 1975, until the date of receipt of the Accusation by Dr. Cain, except as noted below. This work was performed under the supervision and control of Dr. Cain who had knowledge of same and allowed sane to be per- formed in violation of Sections 466.02 and 466.24, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21G-9, Rules of the Florida State Board of Dentistry. On or about November, 1975, Dr. Cain was notified by Harold Ritter, D.D.S. of Tallahassee, that there was some concern re- garding Dr. Cain's use of unauthorized per- sonnel to scale teeth in his office. Dr. Cain discussed this telephone conversation with his associate, Tom Delopez, D.D.S. and for approximately a month the manner in which Ms. Reavis performed her duties was altered. Also, Dr. Cain initiated efforts to locate a dental hygienist during this time. However, Ms. Reavis thereafter began scaling patients' teeth again. In January, 1976, Dr. Delopez initiated a discussion with Dr. Cain regarding the con- tinued use of Ms. Reavis to scale teeth. Dr. Delopez informed Dr. Cain that this practice was prohibited by law and expressed his opinion that it should be discontinued. Dr. Cain informed Dr. Delopez that Dr. Delopez could scale the teeth of the patients he treated but that Ms. Reavis would continue to clean and scale the teeth of other patients. After approximately one month, Ms. Reavis resumed scaling the teeth of patients treated by Dr. Delopez. Dr. Delopez's association with Dr. Cain terminated during September, 1976. On or about September, 1976, Carl Daffin, D.D.S. became employed by Dr. Cain as an associate. Dr. Cain did not disclose to Dr. Daffin that Ms. Reavis was not a dental hygienist and Ms. Reavis continued to perform the same duties, including the scaling of the teeth of patients, until Dr. Cain's receipt of the Accusation filed in this cause. The facts set forth above do show a vio- lation of Sections 466.02(4) and 466.24(e), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21G-9, Rules of the Florida State Board of Dentistry. The Hearing Officer further finds: The Respondent Dr. Emory Cain enjoys a good reputation among his colleagues and among the medical community in Tallahassee. The consensus of the numerous witnesses produced by the Respondent is that Dr. Cain enjoys a high professional reputation. Dr. Cain also enjoys a reputation as an unselfish contributor to the civic well being of the community. There has been no complaint from the patients of the Respondent that the work done by Charlotte Reavis, a dental assistant employed by the Respondent, that Charlotte Reavis caused injury to a patient. The work done by a dental assistant and the training received by a dental assistant does not equal the work licensed to be done by a dental hygienist and does not equal the amount of training required of a dental hygienist. A deposition of Louis Pesce, D.D.S., taken on behalf of the Florida State Board of Dentistry was received and considered by the Hearing Officer subsequent to the hearing and depositions of Shelley Register, Jo Ann Barnes, and Elizabeth Barber taken at the incident of the Respondent Dr. Emory T. Cain were received subsequent to the hearing. The Respondent Dr. Cain made a minimum effort to find a dental hygienist to work in his office but was satisfied with the work done by the dental assistant, Charlotte Reavis, and continued to use her to perform a procedure lawfully relegated to a dental hygienist, that is the scaling of teeth. The proposed orders of the Petitioner and of the Respondent have been examined and considered in this Recommended Order.
Recommendation Suspend the license of Respondent Cain for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J. Michael Huey, Esquire Post Office Box 1794 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas F. Woods, Esquire Felix A. Johnston, Jr., Esquire 1030 East Lafayette Street, Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent, Ralph Toombs, committed violations of Chapter 466, F.S., with regard to two dental patients, as alleged in two Administrative Complaints. If the violations are found, some disciplinary action must be recommended.
Findings Of Fact Ralph E. Toombs, D.D.S., is and at all relevant times has been licensed as a dentist in the State of Florida having been issued license number DN 0007026. At all times relevant to the allegations of the two complaints, Dr. Toombs practiced general dentistry in West Palm Beach, Florida, under the group which he owned, the Florida Dental Group. He has since left the West Palm Beach area, and resides in St. Cloud, Osceola County, Florida. In March 1984, patient A.K. was referred to Dr. Toombs for a problem with the joint in her jaw, the temporal mandibular joint (TMJ). She was given a mouth brace, but lost it. She also obtained general dentistry services. After she lost the mouth brace, she moved into orthodontic treatment by an orthodontist, Edward Sheinis, D.D.S., who was employed by the Florida Dental Group. This treatment, including the fitting and adjustment of braces, lasted about a year, until May 1985. At that time Dr. Sheinis left the group and opened his own office in Coral Springs, Florida. When he left, Dr. Sheinis informed his orthodontic patients where he was going. Under his contract with the Florida Dental Group, the patients and their records belonged to the group. His contract expired on May 31, 1985, but Dr. Toombs asked him to leave the day before his final day for treating patients. Dr. Sheinis felt that Dr. Toombs had the idea that he was trying to take patients away. After Dr. Sheinis left, no orthodontist replacement joined the group. Dr. Toombs' office continued making appointments for A.K. and she was treated by him in June, July and August. A. K.'s insurance company had paid for her orthodontic treatment plan in advance. She did not ask for return of the money, but neither was it offered. She did not want to travel to Dr. Sheinis' new office and she also felt that she had already paid the group for the services. She anticipated that a new orthodontist would be hired. Dr. Toombs claimed that the orthodontic patients were given the choice of going with Dr. Sheinis, being referred to another orthodontist, or staying with the group until another orthodontist was found. He claims that in some cases, money was refunded to patients who sought treatment elsewhere. He does not make those claims specifically with regard to A. K. and her testimony that the options and possibility of refund were never discussed with her is credible, consistent, and convincing. The orthodontic treatment rendered by Dr. Toombs to A. K. in June, July and August 1985, was primarily for maintenance, rather than to advance her treatment plan. Ligatures were replaced or re-tied and some parts of the appliances were repaired. A new scheme of elastics was developed in the August appointment, which could have advanced her treatment, but was also only intended for maintenance, according to Dr. Toombs. A September appointment was made, but was cancelled by Dr. Toombs' office and another appointment for October was made. That appointment was also cancelled by Dr. Toombs' office. By September or October the Florida Dental Group was in bankruptcy; the office was closed down and the patient files were in the hands of a trustee. Some records are still inaccessible. A. K. attempted to contact the office, but there was no answer. She heard from a friend that Dr. Toombs had left. She called the American Dental Association and was told they did not know his whereabouts. She then returned for treatment to the dentist who had originally referred her for the TMJ treatment, David Feuer, D.D.S., an orthodontist. A primary purpose of orthodontic treatment is tooth movement. If a patient's treatment is simply maintained, but not advanced for two months, there may not be harm, but minimum acceptable standards of dental practice require that the patient be referred promptly when the treating dentist cannot continue the appropriate treatment plan. The evidence does not clearly establish Dr. Toombs's lack of competence to appropriately continue A. K.'s orthodontic treatment. Therefore, when Dr. Sheinis left, he had the choice of making a referral and transferring the payment, or pursuing the treatment himself. He did neither. By his own admission, in a response to DPR investigator, Charlene Willoughby (Petitioner's Exhibit #7-AK) Dr. Toombs did nothing more than maintain A. K. orthodontically, by changing ligature ties. His attempt at hearing to explain that course as necessary to undo substandard work by Dr. Shienis is unsupported by any competent evidence. Patient S.C. Between approximately February 1984, and October 1985, Ralph Toombs provided dental services to patient, S.C. Those services included, among others not pertinent to this proceeding, the fabrication, fitting, and delivery of a maxillary bridge and lower partial denture. In lay terms, this involved basic full mouth reconstruction. At the time that S.C. began seeing Dr. Toombs he had already had bridge work beginning in 1970. He first saw Dr. Toombs on an emergency basis when he had fractured part of that work. When reconstruction is done, it is necessary to provide a structure to support the bridge, where the existing teeth are incapable of that support on their own. Two methods of support are a post and core, and pins. Pins are used when there is more existing structure; they are screwed into a tooth. The post and core is used generally when teeth have been endodontically treated (root canal therapy). The post is inserted through the central canal area into the tooth. The post provides more stability. A tooth that has been treated endodontically is devitalized, dry and fragile. The use of pins in such teeth is likely to cause crazing (small multiple cracks) or fractures; the support is weakened, and either it fails or causes failure in another site in the structure. In S.C.'s reconstruction, Dr. Toombs extensively used pins in devitalized teeth, in some instances as many as four or five pins in a single tooth. Dr. Toombs installed a bridge, but it cracked, and he replaced it. Later, shortly after Dr. Toombs closed his office in September or October 1985, S.C. returned to his prior dentist, Steven E. Kiltau, DDS, with a complaint that the porcelain had fractured and that his lower bridge work kept falling out. Dr. Kiltau found the bridge work loose and fractured. There were also bulky margins and open margins, or spaces between the original tooth and the crown, allowing the accumulation of food debris. Dr. Kiltau also suspected that some of the pins had perforated the sides of the teeth. Dr. Kiltau and other dentists who treated S.C., both before and after Dr. Toombs, as well as experts retained by Petitioner, attributed the failure of the structure provided by Dr. Toombs to his inappropriate use of pins. The testimony of these witnesses established uneqivocally that this aspect of the treatment violated minimum standards of performance. Petitioner did not, however, establish that the bulky and open margins were caused by Dr. Toombs' negligence. Some evidence of decay was apparent in S.C.'s teeth and the witnesses were reluctant to conclude that this was the result, and not the cause of the margins.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it s hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Dentistry enter a final order, finding Respondent guilty of violations of Sections 466.028(1)(u) and (y), F.S., assessing an administrative fine of $3,000.00, and placing Respondent on probation for two years, with the requirement that he also attend such continuing education courses as the Board finds appropriate. Although this recommended penalty is less than that suggested by counsel for Petitioner, it is still within the guidelines of the Board in Rule 21G-13.005, F.A.C. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner, as to A. K. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 3. and 4. Adopted in Paragraph 6. Adopted in Paragraphs 6 and 7. 7 through 10. Rejected as statements of testimony, rather than findings of fact. 11. Adopted in Paragraph 6. 13. through 15. Rejected as statements of testimony rather than findings of fact. Respondent, as to A. K. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 3. and 4. Rejected as inconsistent with the weight of the evidence. Her continuation was not entirely voluntary; she had paid for the treatment and was not given an alternative. Rejected as unsupported by credible evidence. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in Paragraph 5. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. through 15. Rejected as immaterial. Petitioner, as to S. C. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 1. Adopted in Paragraph 10, except that, according to the record, S.C.'s and treatment by Dr. Toombs began in 1984. Adopted in Paragraph 13. through 11. Rejected as statement of testimony, rather than findings of fact. Rejected as immaterial. Other competent evidence established the existence of decay. and 14. Rejected as statements of testimony. Adopted in Paragraph 13. Rejected as a statement of testimony. through 22. Rejected as unnecessary or a statement of testimony. The margins were proven; their cause was not proven. Respondent, as to S. C. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Paragraph 1. and 4. Adopted in Paragraph 10, except the record establishes that treatment commenced in 1984. 5. through 8. Rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. Rejected to the extent that the finding implies that failure was not due to Respondent's negligence. Adopted in Paragraph 14. through 19. Rejected as unnecessary. 20. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: John Namey, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1520 East Livington Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Ronald M. Hand, Esquire 241 East Ruby Avenue Waterfront Square, Suite A Kissimmee, Florida 32741 William Buckhalt Executive Director Dept. of Professional Regulation Board of Dentistry 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
