The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be awarded a passing grade on the clinical portion of the dental licensing examination given on December 12 through 14, 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Dentistry was responsible for the licensing of dentists in this state and the regulation of the dental profession. Petitioner is a graduate of the University of Florida School of Dentistry and was eligible to sit for the examination for licensure as a dentist in Florida. Petitioner previously has taken and passed the written portion of the dental examination. He has taken the clinical portion of the examination twice and has received a failing grade each time. He is eligible to take the clinical portion alone for a third time, but must do so within a period of 13 months of taking it the second time or must take both the written and oral portions again. Dr. Scheutz first took the examination in June 1996. He received a passing grade in each of those examination portions which dealt with Florida laws and rules and with oral diagnosis. However, he received a grade of 2.31 on the clinical examination portion of the examination, and a passing grade was 3.0. Thereafter, in December 1996 he again took the clinical portion and this time received a grade of 2.71, still below the 3.0 passing grade. Dr. Theodor Simkin is a licensed dentist and consultant to the Board of Dentistry, who has been in the private practice of dentistry since 1950 and in Florida since 1975. He has been involved in the development, administration, and grading of the dental examination in Florida since 1979 and was a supervisor for the December 1996 examination. He is familiar with the standards applied in the clinical portion of the examination and how the examination is given and graded. Petitioner has challenged the grade he received on five separate procedures he performed during the December 1996 examination. The procedures chosen for accomplishment during the examination are not unusual procedures, but are common problems seen on a routine basis by a practicing dentist. Dr. Simkin reviewed the mannequin on which Petitioner did his work and which he presented to the examiners for grading. One of the grades challenged related to a "composite restoration" (Clinical D) for which Petitioner received a grade of 0. In this procedure the candidate is presented with a tooth on a mannequin. The candidate is instructed to cut off a corner of the tooth and then restore that corner with an amalgam restoration. The examiners are not present when the procedure is accomplished, but grade the procedure after completion. Instruction on the procedure is given to the candidate by a monitor who is present in the room but who does not grade the work done. The examination process is accomplished using the candidate number, not the candidate name, so that examiners do not know whose work at which they are looking. Once the procedure is done by the candidate, the mold is packed in the candidate's presence and is then held in the custody of the Board of Dentistry until examined independently by each of three examiners. Once graded, it is then shipped to Tallahassee and kept in a vault until needed, as here, for review by Dr. Simkin and others. Ordinarily, even if dropped, a model will not break. In the instant case, Petitioner performed the procedure on an upper right central incisor. The right corner of the tooth, approximately one-third of the tooth, was cut off and the candidate was instructed to rebuild it with a composite material. When the examiners evaluated Petitioner's work, they found that the filling was not bonded to the tooth and was loose. The loose restoration would be useless to the patient, whereas a properly done restoration should last for at least several years. On a human, the stresses applied to a tooth repair are significant, and the repair must be sufficient to withstand them. Notwithstanding Petitioner's claim that the tooth used was an artificial tooth to which the filling material does not easily bond, Dr. Simkin asserts that the bonding which occurs with a plastic tooth is different from that which occurs in a real tooth but the material can bond to the plastic tooth. He knows of no other complaints by other candidates at this examination of not being able to complete the restoration because the materials would not bond. Petitioner admits that when he did the procedure during the June 1996 examination, the tooth bonded correctly. In light of all the evidence regarding this point, it is found that Petitioner's claim is without merit. Petitioner also challenges his score of 2.0 received for his work on an "amalgam cavity preparation" (Clinical B). This composite score was based on a 2.0 awarded by each of the three examiners. An amalgam preparation is what is done to the tooth to get it ready for filling. In this case, an actual patient, supplied by the examines, had a cavity which was reviewed by the examiners. Once the patient was accepted by the examiners, the candidate then cleaned out the cavity and got it ready for filling. Dr. Simkin's review of the documentation prepared in regard to this candidate's performance of this procedure, in his opinion, supports the grades given by the examiners. Here, Petitioner sent the examiners a note as to what he proposed to do with his patient. Petitioner sought to deviate from a normal preparation due to the location of the caries, and the monitor agreed, as did the examiners. Thereafter, the candidate did the procedure. All three examiners graded his work against his proposal and gave him a failing grade. The examiners determined that his work on this patient merited only a grade of 2.0 because, according to two examiners, the margin of the filling was not separated from the next tooth as required. As to the "posterior endodonture procedure" (Clinical M), Petitioner received an overall score of 1.3. In this procedure, the candidate is required to bring in an extracted tooth which is mounted in an acrylic block. The candidate is to remove the nerve and diseased tissue, clean the cavity, file it, fill the canals, and seal the tooth. This is known as a root canal. In grading a candidate's work, the examiners look to see that the canal is properly cleaned out, is filled properly and sealed with a surface that is slightly shorter than the apex (highest point) of the tooth. On the x-ray taken of Petitioner's sample, it is obvious, according to Dr. Simkin, that one canal is at or short of the apex, but the other is long, and this is considered unacceptable treatment. Even Petitioner agrees. Petitioner received grades of 3.0, 2.0 and 1.0 for an overall failing grade of 2.0 on the "prep. cast restoration" (Clinical F). In this instance, the procedure called for the candidate to install a gold onlay. Normally the surface to which the onlay is to be placed is reduced slightly below the abutting face. Here, though one side was acceptable, Petitioner reduced too much on the other side without reason. Petitioner claims, however, that only one of the three examiners indicated excessive reduction. That determination calls for a very subjective opinion. He cannot understand how the propriety of reduction can be determined without looking into the mouth of a patient. However, Petitioner has presented no evidence in support of his opinion. The fifth challenge relates to the grade Petitioner received in the "pin amalgam pre. procedure" (Clinical G). This involves a situation where one cusp has been removed, and in order to hold a restoration, Repin must be placed in the solid portion of the tooth. The examiners determined that Petitioner's occlusal was too shallow at 1 mm, when it should have gone down 1~ to 2 mm. This, the examiners considered, would not give enough strength to hold the amalgam properly without risk of fracture. Dr. Simkins is of the opinion that Petitioner was subjected to a standardized test which was graded fairly. It would so appear and Petitioner introduced no evidence to the contrary. Ms. Carnes, a psychometrician and an expert in testing and test development who trains examiners to ensure they are consistent in their evaluations, agrees with Dr. Simkins' appraisal. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation tries to insure through its standardization efforts that the approach to grading of each examiner is consistent and that all examiners are grading with the same set of criteria. This was done in preparation for the December 1996 dental examination and a check done after the examination showed it was graded this way. Petitioner cites by way of explanation, if not excuse, that during his senior year in dental school, he was badly injured in an automobile accident and required stitches and several weeks of physical therapy for, among other injuries, a herniated disc. When he recovered sufficiently, he finished his course work and sat for the dental examination in June 1996, passing two of three sections, but not the clinical portion. Dr. Scheutz took the clinical portion of the examination again in December 1996 and again failed to earn a passing score. In his opinion, his knowledge has improved over time, but his procedural skills have diminished over the months due to his injuries. He contends he has work in dentistry he can do which will make accommodations for his physical condition, but does not believe he should have to wait another six months to take the examination again, especially since he would have to again take the entire examination, including those portions he has already passed since at that time more than 13 months from his last examination would have passed. Petitioner contends the clinical testing portion of the examination is too subjective to be valid. He wants to close this chapter in his life, but does not want to deal any more with the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's challenge and sustaining the award of a failing grade on the clinical portion of the dental examination taken by the Petitioner on December 12 through 14, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Eric J. Scheutz, pro se 332 Whispering Oaks Court Sarasota, Florida 34232 Karel Baarelag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33906-0127 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner achieved a passing score on the June 1999 Florida dental licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed to practice dentistry in California and was also licensed in Georgia until he permitted his Georgia license to become inactive. He has been engaged in the active practice of dentistry for thirteen years. He has never been sued. Petitioner took the June 1999 clinical portion of the Florida dental licensure examination. He was subsequently advised that he had not achieved a passing score. Petitioner challenges the score he received on two portions of the clinical examination: his amalgam cavity preparation on the patient and his endodontic procedure on an extracted tooth. Petitioner's patient had a cavity between two teeth, although it was much lower than the contact point. The patient also had a large non-contiguous cavity in the front of the same tooth. Petitioner determined that he wished to save as much of the tooth as possible knowing that the large cavity in the front of the tooth would need to be filled. Because of the manner in which it was necessary to prepare the tooth to preserve the maximum amount of structure, he generated a monitor note explaining his approach. When he located the monitor to whom he would turn in his note, that monitor was busy viewing another patient and motioned for Petitioner to place the note at the monitor's station. Petitioner placed the note in the monitor's chair and returned to his patient. Petitioner completed the preparation procedure. While doing so, he noticed that his patient's tooth had a dead tract, a rare dental defect that would not interfere with the process. This was only the second time that Petitioner had seen a dead tract in a tooth despite his many years of practice. The first time had been while Petitioner was in dental school When his patient was graded, two of the three graders gave Petitioner a score of "0," noting that caries remained. The third grader saw no caries but noted debris remained. What the two examiners mistook for further decay was the dead tract. No debris remained. The other comments of the graders suggested that they had not seen the monitor note generated by Petitioner explaining the manner in which he was preparing the tooth and why. Despite the alleged presence of decay, Petitioner was instructed to proceed to fill the cavity. The extracted tooth on which Petitioner performed his endodontic procedure was an "easy" tooth with large canals. One grader gave Petitioner a "5," which is a perfect score. One grader gave him a "3," and the other gave him a "0." Only the grader who gave Petitioner the "0" noted that the tooth was perforated. The tooth Petitioner worked on had no perforation on the inside, and the x-rays taken during the process revealed no file or gutta percha filling off to the side of the canals. Petitioner did not perforate the tooth during his endodontic procedure. Petitioner properly performed both the amalgam cavity preparation on his patient and the endodontic procedure on the extracted tooth. He should be awarded full points on both procedures. The additional points are sufficient to give Petitioner a passing score.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner achieved a passing score on the June 1999 dental licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 26th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Buckhalt, Executive Director Department of Health Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Gregory K. Barfield 2555 Collins Road, Penthouse 114 Miami Beach, Florida 33140 Gregory K. Barfield Post Office Box 102 Rancho Sante Fe, California 92067 Adam Keith Ehrlich, Esquire Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of incompetence or negligence and failing to keep adequate dental records and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed dentist, holding license number DN 0010415. He has been licensed continuously in Florida since 1985, and he practices in Naples. On February 13, 1992, M. D. presented to Respondent at Kings Lake Dental Services. M. D. complained of a loose three-unit fixed bridge, which had replaced tooth number 4, using teeth numbers 3 and 5 as abutments. Respondent performed a focused emergency examination. He found a decaying, loose bridge that was falling apart and coming out of M. D.'s mouth; tooth number 5 was decayed and had fractured off; and tooth number three was decayed around the abutment crown and post. Respondent took an x-ray and found root canals on teeth numbers 3 and 5. Based on these findings, Respondent recommended to M. D. that he have post and cores on teeth numbers 3 and 5 and a new bridge. Respondent noted in his dental records these findings during this initial visit and the limited nature of the examination. At the time of this initial examination, Respondent determined that teeth numbers 3 and 5 could serve as abutment teeth to support the bridge for tooth number 4. His determination was correct as tooth number 5, but the record suggests that his determination was questionable as to tooth number 3. However, Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the suitability determination for tooth number 3 was incompetent or negligent. On M. D.'s next visit, which took place on February 26, 1992, Respondent prepared teeth numbers 3 and 5 for the new bridge by removing the existing post and core in tooth number 3 and preparing tooth number 5 for a post and core. Respondent installed a temporary bridge during this visit. A post and core is an appliance that is cemented into a tooth that has undergone previous endodontic treatment. A post goes into the residual root, and the core replaces the natural crown of the tooth. The post and core can then be prepared for a crown or, as in this case, a fixed bridge. The final result resembles the placement of a peg into a tooth on which additional material is built up. On M. D.'s third visit, which took place on March 4, 1992, Respondent re-cemented the temporary bridge, which had come loose. On M. D.'s fourth and final visit, which took place on March 13, 1992, Respondent installed the permanent fixed bridge. At no time did any blood collect in M. D.'s post preparations. At no time during the post-and-core work, including during the unanaestheticized installation procedure, did M. D. experience pain. As material to this case, a perforation would result from excessive drilling in the process of preparing the tooth for the post, so as to create an extra opening into the bone. The absence of blood during the post preparation is generally inconsistent with a post perforation. The absence of pain during the ensuing installation procedure also militates against a finding that Respondent inadvertently perforated the tooth. The crucial findings on the issue whether Respondent perforated the tooth are thus the absence of blood during the drilling attendant to the post-and-core procedure and the absence of pain during the ensuing installation procedure. These findings are based in part on the self-serving testimony of Respondent, but also are supported by other evidence. At the time of the incident, Respondent had practiced dentistry in Florida for over six years. It is likely that he would have known that an untreated perforation would eventually cause the restorative work to fail. Respondent had treated numerous patients, presumably including seasonal Naples residents, without this issue previously arising, even though excessive-drilling perforations themselves are not that uncommon. When M. D. later contacted Respondent and complained of the dental work, he made no mention of the pain that typically would have accompanied the installation of a core over a perforated tooth. M. D. was a winter resident of Naples. Fourteen months after his final visit to Respondent, a dentist in Massachusetts discovered a perforation of the root on tooth number 5 and an acute periodontal abscess on tooth number 3. An acute periodontal abscess occurs at the end of the root and is secondary to infection involving the dental pulp in the soft tissue part of the tooth. Periodontal abscesses occur around the supporting structures of the teeth. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent perforated M. D.'s tooth. Although excessive drilling may cause a perforation, decay, a root fracture, and rampant periodontal disease may also cause perforations. Given the considerable period of time between Respondent's treatment of M. D. and the discovery of the perforation, the likelihood of decay, a root fracture, and rampant periodontal disease increases as the cause of the perforation. Given the other factors, such as lack of blood during the post procedure or pain during the core procedure, Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's treatment of M. D. was incompetent or negligent. The record provides even less basis to find by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's work caused the periodontal abscess 14 months later. Respondent's dental records are adequate in many respects. The records adequately describe the cast post and core technique; Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the failure to distinguish between the two types of cast post and core is material in this case. Petitioner has also failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the records fail to provide an adequate basis for another dentist to infer the removal of the old post and core. The x-ray is of extremely poor quality, but it is merely a duplicate. The original is not in the record, and the record provides insufficient basis for inferring the quality of the original. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the actual x-ray was of such poor quality as to preclude reliance upon it. Respondent's records indicate that tooth number 5 is decayed and fractured off, that tooth number 3 is decayed, and that the x-rays reveal root canals on both these teeth. While adequately documenting these findings, the records do not document Respondent's evaluation of the suitability of teeth numbers 3 and 5 to serve as abutment teeth. Nor do the records document the "moderate" periodontal disease that Respondent testified that he also observed. Respondent's restorative work eventually failed. The most likely cause of failure was the perforation of tooth number 5. However, fourteen months later, tooth number 3 was no longer capable of serving as an abutment tooth. By inference, its condition at the time of Respondent's decision to use it as an abutment tooth at least warranted documentation in the dental records. Similarly, the acute periodontal abscess also evidences the need to document Respondent's finding of moderate periodontal disease. These omissions from Respondent's dental records are material due to the questionable suitability of tooth number 3 as an abutment tooth and the subsequent development of periodontal disease. On these facts, Respondent's records fail to document a thorough evaluation of M. D.'s oral structures involved in the restorative work and his overall dental condition. In these respects, Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to keep adequate dental records in that they fail to justify the course of Respondent's treatment of M. D. On March 30, 1992, S. T. presented to the Fort Myers Dental Service for an abscessed tooth at tooth number 3. One of the dentists at the office, Dr. Rubin, saw S. T. He recommended full mouth x-rays and study models and prescribed pain medication and an antibiotic. The dental records contain no indication of periodontal disease at this time. The Fort Myers Dental Service maintained a system of patient referral in which Respondent or Dr. Johnson saw patients requiring endodontic treatment and other dentists saw patients requiring periodontic treatment. Following her visit, Dr. Rubin referred S. T. to Respondent for endodontic work on April 2, 1992. The x-rays had revealed lesions on teeth numbers 3 and 4, so the referral was for an evaluation for root canals. On April 3, Respondent examined S. T.'s mouth and noted buccal swelling around teeth numbers 3 and 4 and broken- down, decayed teeth at teeth numbers 3, 4, and 5. However, his examination did not reveal any periodontal disease. Respondent recommended root canals for teeth numbers 3 and 4 followed by casts, posts, and cores for teeth 3 and 4 and a porcelain fuse metal crown for tooth number 5. Respondent commenced this dental treatment on April 10, 1992. During this visit, Respondent began a root canal on tooth number 4. On April 17, Respondent completed the root canal on tooth number 4. On April 24, Respondent began a root canal on tooth number 3. On May 22, Respondent completed the root canal on tooth number 4. On September 24, 1992, Respondent prepared teeth numbers 3, 4, and 5 for crowns. On October 8, Respondent installed crowns on these teeth and posts and cores on teeth numbers 3 and 4. Fourteen months later, on December 7, 1993, S. T. was examined by Dr. William McKenzie, a periodontist who practiced 33 years, primarily in Fort Myers, until his retirement prior to the hearing in this case. A general dentist in Fort Myers had referred S. T. to him. At the time of his examination, Dr. McKenzie found poorly fitting crowns on teeth numbers 3, 4, and 5 and open contacts between teeth numbers 2 and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5, and 5 and 6. In general, S. T.'s dental health was good, except for the area in which Respondent had worked. In this area, S. T.'s gums bled profusely upon probing by Dr. McKenzie. In part, Petitioner tried to prove that Respondent improperly proceeded with endodontic treatment despite unresolved periodontic problems. However, the record fails to sustain this allegation. To the contrary, as Dr. McKenzie testified, the poor-fitting and gapped crowns caused the periodontal condition that Dr. McKenzie encountered. The open contacts, which allowed food to pack between the teeth, led to infection, which caused the inflammatory process in the gums and bone deterioration that Dr. McKenzie also discovered in this area of S. T.'s mouth. As to the fit of the crowns, Dr. McKenzie described it as "horrible" and work of which a "freshman dental student" was capable. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance in the treatment of S. T.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order suspending Respondent's license for six months and, following the expiration of the suspension, placing the license on probation for a period of 12 months. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ 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 29th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas E. Wright Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 E. Raymond Shope, II 1404 Goodlette Road, North Naples, Florida 34102 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Bill Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Should Respondent's license as a dentist in Florida be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein?
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matter in issue herein, the Petitioner, Board, was the state agency responsible for the regulation and supervision of the dental profession and the licensing of dentists in Florida. Respondent was a licensed dentist holding license Number DN 0010500. At all times pertinent to the matters in issue herein, Respondent was actively engaged in the practice of dentistry at his office located at 1429 Kass Circle, Suite A, Spring Hill, Florida. In mid-January, 1990, Henrietta Pollio, then a 69 year old widow, had two teeth pulled by a Dr. Pikos, to whom she had been referred by her daughter, a patient. Dr. Pikos recommended she see Respondent for replacements for the pulled teeth, and on January 22, 1990, she saw Respondent in his office. At that time, Ms. Pollio told him she had had two teeth pulled and already wore a bridge. She initially wanted only her lower denture replaced, but Respondent suggested she replace both the lower and upper for a better fit. She agreed. In March, 1990, Mrs. Pollio went to the Respondent's office for impressions for the new dentures. In the interim, she continued to wear her existing dentures which she had worn for several years. When she got her first set of dentures from Respondent that same month, she didn't like how they looked or how they fit. She told him so, and he agreed to make her another set. When Respondent gave her her second set of dentures, she did not think they fit any better than the first set he had made for her. They were uncomfortable and she felt the lower denture was too loose. When she told him about this, he said that teeth were supposed to be placed on gums. She disagreed, saying she wanted them to be comfortable so she could chew. She claims he merely stated to her that this was the way they were to fit. He did, however, attempt to adjust both sets over the several times she saw him. Each time she went for an adjustment, Respondent would make some change to the dentures and allegedly said he would get them right even if it took 5 years. However, when he offered to reline the second set of dentures, as he had done to the first set, she refused because she didn't want a reline. She wanted the teeth to be made to fit properly. In all, Dr. Gibney performed 27 adjustments on Mrs. Pollio's dentures. According to Dr. Cadle, it is not routine for a dentist to provide a second set of denture for an unsatisfied patient but it is not unheard of. This fact and the numerous adjustment are, in his opinion, evidence that Respondent was trying to satisfy his patient. By December, 1990, Mrs. Pollio was still complaining to Respondent about the fit of the teeth he had made for her. Respondent claims she wanted a complete partial refund of the amount she had paid. He ultimately offered her a refund of $550.00 if she would sign a release and she decided to think about the offer. When she went back the next day, she claims the office was closed. She later again went to Respondent's office where his assistant, Ginger, handed her a letter terminating the doctor/patient relationship. It was after she received that letter that she agreed to accept the money Respondent had offered but she still refused to sign a release because of the "pain and suffering he had caused her." Dr. Donald I. Cadle, Jr., a dentist practicing in New Port Richey since 1971, former Chairman of the Board of Dentistry, and an expert in general dentistry, was retained by the Board to evaluate Respondent's performance in this case. He reviewed Respondent's records regarding his treatment of Mrs. Pollio including correspondence and x-rays, and the investigative report rendered herein. He also examined Mrs. Pollio on October 14, 1991 and on the basis of all the above had sufficient information on which to base an opinion of the Respondent's work. His review of the lab procedure authorization forms presented to him reveals a lack of finish date on many individual forms. This date is required so that the dentist will know when to arrange for the patient to come back for the dentures. He also noted than on several forms the description of the patient and her condition was minimal but probably enough to be acceptable. On one form the Respondent failed to state how he wanted the teeth set in the mold, (occlusion, spacing, etc.). On other forms, Respondent failed to specify the material used and on some, there was no direction as to contour. As to Respondent's patient records, used to keep all pertinent information regarding a patient in one area, both the statute and the rules say they should include such information as the results and findings of the doctor's initial examination of the patient; a written diagnosis; and a treatment plan. In evaluating Respondent's records relating to Mrs. Pollio, Dr. Cadle found that the treatment notes were adequate as to procedures performed, (what he did in day to day treatment) but that the examination findings and charting of existing conditions were, in his opinion, inadequate. This information would have been determined in the examination at the initial appointment. Respondent's entry is "Denture consult - advised new F/F denture because patient is unable to function with existing F/F denture." In Dr. Cadle's opinion, the Respondent's entry fails to show detailed examination findings which can be found no place else. Also, he claims, the patient history and the dental history forms are inadequate. There is no evidence shown of sores, irritants or other abnormalities and there should be some explanation in the history as to why the patient checked "yes" to questions asked regarding condition. There should also be a diagnosis which relates to the dental conditions in the patient's mouth. Problems had been identified in Dr. Pikos' records, but these are not diagnoses and Dr. Cadle is of the opinion it is lax practice to accept another dentists observations. Dr. Pikos indicated to Respondent by letter that he had discussed some problems and possible alternatives with Mrs. Pollio and this letter was a part of Respondent's records. Nonetheless, Dr. Cadle felt this was not enough. Respondent also should have discussed all alternatives with her. In rebuttal, Respondent asserts that the use of the term "consult" in the records covers his discussion of implants, adhesives and surgery even though they are not specifically noted. He also claims he discussed her pain and other problems when he read the dental history form filled out by Mrs. Pollio's daughter. While it is found that Respondent engaged in the appropriate discussions with Mrs. Pollio, his records do not reflect that and, as such, are inadequate to clearly identify his diagnosis and treatment plan. Cadle found Respondent's treatment plan acceptable as such but other options which existed should have been discussed with the patient and noted in the records. None were so noted. Based on his review of all the available records, Dr. Cadle opined that Respondent's records failed to justify his treatment of Mrs. Pollio and did not meet the required standards as to examination findings and diagnosis. Dr. Cadle examined Mrs. Pollio on October 14, 1991 to evaluate the treatment provided by Respondent and the conditions existing in her mouth. In his report prepared after that examination he noted that the comparison between her old dentures, those she was wearing, and the new ones prepared for her by Respondent, (second set), showed a difference which related to her complaint. He found the maxilary portion of those done by Respondent to be inadequate as to the portion of the anterior teeth which were set differently in the old set, and this related to one of her problems. The "F" sound portion was too heavy and the "S" sound caused a slight whistle. The complaint that the anterior teeth were too long related to the way they were set - the inclination of the teeth. This gave her the feeling they were too big. All of this was visible in her mouth. He also believed the mandibular denture was inadequate because of an over-extension of the border. The edge of the denture extended beyond where it should stop. The reason for this was that the soft tissue in the area was attached higher on the ridge than would be expected. This could have been compensated for during the patient examination and diagnosis and noted in the treatment plan. The patient should have been advised of the condition and what its consequences could be. Respondent's records failed to show this was done. Taken together, Dr. Cadle was of the opinion that the dentures Respondent prepared were inadequate. There were actions he could have taken to correct this. At the initial examination and diagnosis he could have discussed the options available with the patient. Also, after construction of the dentures he could have corrected the maxilary denture by removing and resetting the six front teeth. He also could have reduced the mandibular borders. If that simple procedure had been done, according to Dr. Cadle, it might have resolved the problem. If he had contemplated doing this procedure, however, he would be required to warn Mrs. Pollio that to do it might reduce the strength of the denture and as a result, surgery might become a possibility. Dr. Cadle could find no evidence in the records that any of this was done except for a discussion toward the end of the doctor/patient relationship, but there was no notation as to what action he could take to correct any but one small part of the problem. None of the previous records showed any discussion of the problem or alternatives discussed. Based on the above, Dr. Cadle opined that Respondent's treatment of Mrs. Pollio failed to meet the minimum standards of performance as to both the maxillary and mandibular dentures. In that regard, the mental capacity of the patient should not enter into a determination of the standard of care to be provided. Dr. Ronald E. Myers practices dentistry in Spring Hill and is considered an expert in maxillofacial prosthodontics. He, too, reviewed the Respondent's records of his treatment of Mrs. Pollio and formed an opinion of Respondent's performance quite different from that of Dr. Cadle. He agrees with Cadle that Respondent's treatment records were acceptable for the treatment given but he opined, with regard to the lab requests, that there was sufficient data contained thereon to allow the lab technician to do what was required. A lab order is generally supplemented by either oral or written communications which permit the technician to know what is required. This has to be so since there is no way the dentist can write down all exact specifications on dentures. Here, the Respondent and the lab technician had an understanding of what the Respondent expected in each case as to types of acrylic, the base for the denture, and like matters, unless otherwise indicated. According to Mr. Eidenschink, the technician, he and Respondent had established certain basics as to materials and procedures to be used in all work done for Respondent. On the lab prescription, Respondent would specify what teeth he wanted, and frequently they would speak by phone about specific cases. This is, according to Myers, an accepted procedure. As to the lack of a return date, he admits they are lacking on the copies he saw. Evidence otherwise submitted indicates, however, that the slips examined by both experts, which came from the pad in the dentist's office, were duplicates whereas the original was given to the receptionist who set up a return appointment with the patient before sending that original, with a return date based on that appointment on it, to the lab. A substantial number of original lab slips, furnished by Respondent without objection by counsel for the Board subsequent to the hearing, all clearly reflected a finish date. As to the Respondent's chart dealing with Mrs. Pollio's existing condition, Dr. Myers admits the notes thereon are somewhat skimpy, but since Dr. Pikos' letter to Respondent indicated he had discussed the potential for surgery with Mrs. Pollio, Gibney could have relied on that. In any event, the diagnosis is there and the treatment plan evident is to fabricate complete new dentures. In his opinion, this is sufficient and meets standards. Based on all the above, Dr. Myers is of the opinion that Respondent's records, taken together, are adequate to meet the legal standards. Mrs. Pollio's undercut condition in her upper jaw did not contra- indicate full dentures. This condition does not always indicate the need for surgery. Here high tissue attachment in the front lower jaw can interfere with denture placement but a denture could be fabricated around it.. Psychologically, this can be a problem for denture wearers, many of whom, like Mrs. Pollio dislike wearing dentures and yearn for the days when they didn't have them. This being so, and coupled with her testy personality and her apparent inability to clearly comprehend the situation, Mrs. Pollio appears to be a difficult dental patient. Dr. Myers examined Mrs. Pollio on February 5, 1993. She brought both sets of dentures made for her by Respondent to the examination and was wearing her old dentures. He had her insert both sets of dentures made for her by Respondent and did speech tests and measurements with both. Then he mixed uppers and lowers from the sets in different combinations and when he asked her to give him the first set Respondent made, she gave him the lowers from both sets. Obviously, she was confused and she could not tell which was which from the feel in her mouth. Dr. Myers found the dentures to be made of high quality materials and fabricated to the "pleasure curve" Mrs. Pollio had developed in the old teeth. He did not care for the fit of the first set but this may have been due to the appearance instructions Mrs. Pollio gave to Respondent at that time. He found the second set to be "fine", however - fitting even better than her old set. As to the lower, the anterior flange was overextended into the mouth. This, however, could have been corrected by a minor procedure. Generally, this type of problem can be corrected if the patient and the dentist work together. Here, Myers feels Mrs. Pollio's frustration with the situation precluded this. The teeth were in the proper place, however, and with a possible realignments, they would have fit. Had Mrs. Pollio worked more with Respondent, he could have made them fit. The fact that Mrs. Pollio would go back to her old dentures from time to time could materially effect the fit of the new dentures because such a practice inhibits tissue adaptation. The current looseness of the dentures is due to tissue damage occurring during the past two years since Mrs. Pollio last saw Respondent. Dr. Myers is of the opinion that Respondent did all he could to help Mrs. Pollio accommodate to her new dentures. Unfortunately, it appears, she manipulated him. From all the evidence he observed, Dr. Myers also concluded that Respondent treated the patient properly. He is of the opinion that Respondent met community standards in both his dental records and history and the treatment given.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Dentistry finding Respondent, James W. Gibney, D.M.D., not guilty of incompetence or negligence and not guilty of both preparing inadequate work orders and failing to list examination findings and to chart existing conditions in his records, but guilty only of failing to include an adequate written diagnosis and treatment plan in his records, in violation of Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 19th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted but dissatisfaction basis is as alleged by Mrs. Pollio. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as claimed by Mrs. Pollio. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Accepted in part and rejected in part. FOR THE RESPONDENT: No Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Louis Kwall, Esquire 133 N. Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34615 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue As to Case No. 89-5273, whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated December 28, 1989, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed. As to Case No. 89-6492, whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated October 31, 1989, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed. As to Case No. 90-5801, whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated January 18, 1990, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed. As to Case No. 90-5802, whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated March 9, 1990, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent, Michael Albert, was engaged in the general practice of dentistry in the State of Florida. Respondent is the holder of license number DN0009815, which was issued by Petitioner and which authorizes him to engage in the practice of dentistry in the State of Florida. His office, known as "9 to 9 Family Dental Centre" 1/ , was located at 7015 Beracasa Way, Boca Raton, Florida 33433. CASE NO. 89-5273 - PATIENT S.D. Patient S.D. is a female who was born November 6, 1950. S.D. went to Respondent for the first time in May 1987, for a general examination and cleaning. S.D. had her four front upper teeth (teeth 7, 8, 9, and 10) capped when she was between 12 and 14 years of age. The cap on one of those teeth had been chipped and had begun to flake, and S.D. wanted that crown replaced. Respondent recommended to S.D. that she have those four caps replaced to maintain a match- up in color and also recommended that she have three other teeth (teeth 12, 14, and 31) capped because those teeth had open margins. S.D. knew that Respondent's recommendation to have teeth 7, 8, 9, and 10 recapped was based solely on aesthetic considerations. S.D. concurred with the recommendations as to teeth 7, 8, 9, and 10, and S.D. agreed to allow Respondent to perform the work that he had recommended on those teeth as well as the recommendations he made as to teeth 12, 14, and 31. Respondent took x-rays of S.D. and ultimately capped the seven teeth he had identified. S.D. was uncertain as to the order in which Respondent performed this work. Respondent's records reflect that S.D. visited Respondent on May 13, 1987, and on May 21, 1987, and that during those visits the Respondent capped teeth 7, 8, 14, and 31. Respondent's records further reflect that S.D. visited Respondent on May 28, 1987, and on June 15, 1987, and that during those visits the Respondent capped teeth 9, 10, and 12. S.D. had no complaints about the work performed by Respondent until she began to develop pain in a tooth that Respondent had capped. She returned to Respondent who replaced the crown on that tooth. The pain that S.D. had experienced went away after the crown was replaced, but S.D. had lost confidence in Respondent. Consequently, S.D. went to another dentist when it was time for her six month checkup. S.D. visited Dr. Clare Garner on March 28, 1988. Dr. Garner was of the opinion that S.D. needed a root canal and a new crown on tooth 31, that she needed a new post and core on tooth 7, and that she needed a root canal on tooth S.D. did not return to Dr. Garner for follow-up care. S.D. visited Dr. Michael Flax for the first time on April 4, 1988. During subsequent visits in April and May of 1988, Dr. Flax performed root canal therapy on teeth 7 and 31. S.D. later experienced pain in tooth 10. Dr. Flax performed an apicalectomy on tooth 10 and determined that tooth 10 had a fracture at the apex which he believed was caused by an oversized post being placed inside of the tooth. Dr. Flax did not know who placed the post. S.D.'s last visit with Dr. Flax was on September 8, 1988. Dr. Flax recommended a general dentist to "take care of her crowns". 2/ There was no competent, substantial evidence that the initial crowns done by Respondent had any open margins. Respondent used a panorex x-ray together with bite-wing x-rays in performing his work on S.D. There are some areas that one can see on a periapical x-ray that one cannot see on a panorex x-ray. Likewise, there are areas that one can see on a panorex x-ray that one cannot see on a periapical x- ray. There was dispute among the experts as to whether Respondent should have also used a periapical x-ray in performing his work on S.D. Petitioner's experts clearly preferred to use periapical x-rays. The greater weight of the evidence, however, is that a panorex x-ray can provide sufficient detail when used with the bite-wing x-rays. There was no evidence that the original panorex x-ray upon which Respondent based his diagnosis had insufficient detail. The record failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's use of the panorex x-rays and the bite-wing x-rays fell below minimum standards of care. Dr. Flax testified that Tooth #7 should have been pulp tested for vitality before any further prosthetics were placed onto the tooth. However, he did not testify that the failure to pulp test Tooth #7 for vitality fell below minimum standards. Dr. Flax also testified that another tooth (which was not identified by number) should have been retreated with a root canal before a crown was placed on top of it. Dr. Flax did not testify that the failure to perform this root canal prior to placing the crown fell below minimum standards. Dr. Flax also testified that there was a crack in the apex of tooth #10 due to an incorrectly placed or incorrectly sized post within the tooth. He did not testify that the placing of the post fell below minimum standards and he did not know whether Respondent placed the post. Symptomatic periapical abscesses can develop at any time. The record fails to establish by clear and convincing evidence that there was a periapical abscess that existed at the time Respondent treated S.D. or that the failure to either treat or diagnosis any abscess was below acceptable standards of care. The record fails to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the root canals performed by Dr. Flax were necessary because of substandard treatment by Respondent. There was no testimony that the records maintained by Respondent were inadequate. CASE NO. 89-6492 - PATIENT E.M. E.M. is a female who 73 years of age when she first visited Respondent on April 14, 1988. The initial visit was prompted by pain from an abscess. Respondent performed root canal therapy on E.M.'s teeth 18 and 26. Between April 14, 1988, and October 5, 1988, Respondent fitted E.M. with a complete denture on her upper arch and with a bridge on her lower. The upper denture placed by Respondent did not fit correctly. On a subsequent visit, Respondent did a chair side reline of E.M.'s upper denture. There was disagreement among the expert witnesses as to whether the chair side reline was appropriate since E.M. was an edentulous patient. This conflict is resolved by finding that the chair side reline performed by Respondent did not fall below minimum standards of care. There was a substantial and significant personality disagreement between E.M. and Respondent and his staff. E.M. was unhappy with the services performed by Respondent and complained that the upper plate did not fit correctly even after the chair reline. As a result of this disagreement, E.M. refused to return to Respondent for follow-up care to adjust her dentures. Although there was testimony that Respondent should have been able to better fit E.M.'s upper denture initially, the greater weight of the evidence and the more persuasive expert testimony is that follow-up care is important for the proper fitting of dentures. Dentures have to be adjusted on the average eight times before the fit is proper and the normal break-in period for dentures is between two and six months. E.M.'s refusal to submit to follow-up treatment contributed in large part to the dissatisfaction she had with the dentures fitted by Respondent. Although E.M. complained of pain, she had not seen any dentist for over two years. At the time she was examined by Dr. Martin Staub, Petitioner's expert, on February 17, 1989, she was still able to wear the dentures that Respondent had prepared for her. Dr. Staub found that the denture adaptation was poor in the post-dam area causing the denture to slip and to have insufficient suction. Dr. Staub found that the denture finish was rough and inconsistent due to excess pieces from the reline adhering to the buccal portion of the denture and being too thick in the palatal area. Despite these findings, Dr. Staub testified that he considered Respondent's performance as a dentist had fallen below minimum standards of care only in that he should have been more patient with E.M. and that he should have been more caring and compassionate. 3/ Dr. Staub's report reflected a finding that there were open margins on teeth 19, 27, and 31. During his cross examination, he admitted that the tooth he reported as being tooth 27 could have been another tooth since Respondent's records reflect that tooth 27 had been extracted. Consequently, there would not have been a margin on tooth 27. Respondent placed the crowns on E.M.'s teeth 19 and 31 with temporary cement because Respondent anticipated that she would require periodontal treatment due to her poor oral hygiene. There was a dispute among the expert witnesses as to whether the margins that Dr. Staub observed were caused by substandard treatment by Respondent. This conflict is resolved by finding that the evidence fails to clearly and convincingly establish that these margins were the result of substandard care by Respondent. These margins could have resulted from causes that should not be attributed to Respondent. For example, there was testimony that the margins could have resulted from the temporary cement washing out or by natural changes in E.M.'s mouth. Petitioner failed to establish that the dental care and treatment rendered E.M. by Respondent fell below minimum standards of care. CASE NO. 90-5801 - PATIENT H.F. H.F. is a female who was born April 6, 1970. H.F. resided in Atlanta, Georgia, at the time of the formal hearing, but she resided in Boca Raton, Florida, with her family when Respondent examined her. H.F. was examined for the first time by Respondent on August 20, 1987. On August 2, 1988, H.F. returned to Respondent for a checkup and cleaning. Respondent diagnosed cavities in H.F.'s teeth numbers 3, 14, 15, 18, 20, 29, and 31, and presented H.F. with a treatment plan requiring all seven teeth to be filled and called for amalgam restorations. In making his diagnosis, Respondent took x-rays of her teeth, visually inspected her mouth, and probed her teeth with the use of an explorer. H.F. did not return to Respondent to have her teeth filled. On August 19, 1988, H.F. went to Dr. Anders K. Finnvold, her mother's dentist, for a second opinion. Dr. Finnvold conducted a thorough examination of H.F. Dr. Finnvold examined a copy of the x-rays that Respondent had taken of H.F., visually inspected her mouth and probed her teeth with the use of an explorer. Dr. Finnvold found no cavities. On October 12, 1989, Dr. Finnvold examined H.F. for the second time and again found no cavities. On August 2 or 3, 1990, Dr. George C. Karr, one of Petitioner's expert witnesses, examined H.F. and found clinical decay on teeth numbers 2, 3, 14, 15, and 18. Dr. Karr did not find any cavity on H.F.'s teeth numbers 20, 29, and Dr. Karr considered H.F. to have poor oral hygiene. Dr. Karr was of the opinion that Respondent had misrepresented H.F.'s condition and that his treatment plan was over-zealous and below minimum standards. A caries is a technical term for a cavity or a hole in the tooth and results from acid dissolution of the enamel and/or dentin structure of a tooth. Poor oral hygiene contributes to the development of caries. H.F. had poor oral hygiene. A caries may be diagnosed by use of an x-ray, by visually inspecting the mouth, by probing the teeth with an explorer, or by a combination of those diagnostic means. In diagnosing caries by use of an explorer, the dentist is making an educated assumption based on the resistance the dentist feels in probing a pit or fissure. In making this educated assumption, the dentist should consider the patient's oral hygiene and the patient's susceptibility to developing cavities. A catch or resistance when using an explorer indicates that either a fissure has become carious or has the probability of becoming carious. If a sharp explorer is used and it hangs on the teeth, that is indicative that there is either decay present or a situation of pre-decay. It is within acceptable standards of care to recommend filling those areas. The evidence was clear that the detection of cavities by use of an explorer is a difficult task, and that legitimate differences of opinion can occur. The disagreements between Respondent, Dr. Finnvold, and Dr. Karr illustrate that difficulty. Respondent used a sharp explorer to examine H.F.'s teeth. The explorer grabbed or stuck on teeth 3, 14, 15, 18, 20, 29, and 31, and he believed that each of those teeth should be treated in the manner he recommended. It is dentally improper to deliberately misrepresent the existence of decay and the need for treatment. However, the fact that Respondent was of the opinion that there existed cavities that Dr. Finnvold and Dr. Karr did not detect does not establish, clearly and convincingly, that Respondent deliberately misrepresented H.F.'s condition or that he failed to practice within acceptable standards of care. CASE NO. 90-5802 - PATIENT L.M. During the summer of 1987, L.M. presented to the Respondent for routine dental care. This was L.M.'s initial visit. Respondent examined L.M., took x-rays, and then advised L.M. that he suspected that she had a little problem with her gums. Respondent directed her to Dr. Rosa, 4/ a periodontist who worked in the same dental office as Respondent. Respondent advised Dr. Rosa that he felt that L.M. had a problem with her gums and asked Dr. Rosa to examine her. Dr. Rosa diagnosed periodontal breakdown and recommended an extensive treatment plan for L.M., which included root planing, dental wedge procedures, and osseous surgery. The estimate for the work to be performed was given to L.M. on a form which reflected that it was from "9 to 9 Dental Centre". Although it was established that "9 to 9 Dental Centre" was the name of the dental office in which Respondent practiced, and that L.M. associated that name with that of Respondent, there was no showing as to how or why Respondent should be held responsible for acts of Dr. Rosa. The evidence clearly establishes that Respondent was not acting below accepted standards merely in recommending that a periodontist with whom he worked examine a patient he thought may have a periodontal problem. The record does not establish that Respondent misrepresented L.M.'s condition when he asked Dr. Rosa to examine her. Petitioner's experts who later examined L.M. established that L.M. did not have periodontal problems that would justify the recommended treatment plan proposed by Dr. Rosa.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which adopts the findings of fact contained herein and which dismisses all charges brought against Respondent in Case No. 89-5273, which dismisses all charges brought against Respondent in Case No. 89-6492, which dismisses all charges brought against Respondent in Case No. 90-5801, and which dismisses all charges brought against Respondent in Case No. 90-5802. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of November, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 27th day of November, 1991.
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
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent violated the applicable standard of care in the practice of dentistry in violation of section 466.028(1), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed in each of the consolidated cases; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43, and chapters 456 and 466, Florida Statutes. Stipulated Facts Respondent is a licensed dentist in the state of Florida, having been issued license number DN14223 on or about December 1, 1995. Respondent’s address of record is 530 East Howard Street, Live Oak, Florida 32064. Respondent was licensed to practice dentistry in the state of Florida during all times relevant to the administrative complaints underlying this case. Patient T.C. was a patient of Respondent. Patient S.S. was a patient of Respondent. Patient G.H. was a patient of Respondent. Patient J.D. was a patient of Respondent. Patient J.A.D. was a patient of Respondent. Other Findings of Fact On July 23, 2004, Respondent entered into a Stipulation in Department Case No. 2002-25421 to resolve an Administrative Complaint which alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (z). The Stipulation was adopted by a Final Order, dated January 31, 2005, which constitutes a first offense in these cases as to each of the sections cited. On September 21, 2007, the Department issued a Uniform Non-disciplinary Citation for an alleged violation of section 466.028(1)(n), related to the release of patient dental records. The Department offered no evidence of its disposition and, in any event, since these cases do not involve alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(n), the citation is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B5-13.005(1). On January 19, 2017, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in Case No. 2015-10804 for alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (mm). The Department offered no evidence of its disposition of the Administrative Complaint and, as a result, the Administrative Complaint is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under rule 64B5-13.005(1). On January 19, 2017, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint in Case No. 2015-23828 for alleged violations of section 466.028(1)(m), (x), and (z). The Department offered no evidence of its disposition of the Administrative Complaint and, as a result, the Administrative Complaint is of no consequence in establishing a penalty in these cases under rule 64B5-13.005(1). Case No. 19-2898PL - The T.C. Administrative Complaint Patient T.C. was a patient of Respondent from June 14, 2011, to on or about August 12, 2013. During the period in question, Respondent owned Smile Designs, a dental practice with offices in Jacksonville, Lake City, and Live Oak, Florida. The Department, in the T.C. Administrative Complaint, recognized that “Respondent, along with an associate, [Dr. Morris], are . . . licensed dentists known to work at Respondent’s practice.” The Department’s expert witness, Dr. Brotman, was also aware that Dr. Morris practiced with Respondent. Patient T.C. suffered a stroke in 2009. During the period that she was seen by Respondent, she was in “decent health,” though she was on medication for her post-stroke symptoms, which included a slight problem with aphasia, though she was able to communicate. The stroke and the aphasia are neurological issues, not mental health issues. Patient T.C. was accompanied by her husband, L.C. during her visits to Respondent’s practice. He generally waited in the waiting area during Patient T.C.’s procedures though, as will be discussed herein, he was occasionally brought back to the treatment area. L.C. testified that he had never been advised that Patient T.C. experienced a seizure while under Respondent’s care, and had no recollection of having been told that Patient T.C. ever became unresponsive. Patient T.C. died in 2015. Count I Case No. 19-2898PL, Count I, charges Respondent with failing to immediately refer Patient T.C. to a medical professional or advise Patient T.C. to seek follow-up care for the management of what were believed to be seizures while Patient T.C. was in the dental chair. From Patient T.C.’s initial visit on June 14, 2011, through her visit on September 23, 2011, Patient T.C. was seen at Respondent’s practice on five occasions. Respondent testified that the office was aware of Patient T.C.’s history of seizures because the medical history taken at her first visit listed Diazapam, Levetiracetam, Diovan, and Lyrica as medications being taken by Patient T.C., all of which are seizure medications. Nonetheless, the dental records for the four visits prior to September 23, 2011, provide no indication that Patient T.C. suffered any seizure or period of non- responsiveness during those visits. On September 23, 2011, Patient T.C. presented at Smile Designs for final impressions for crowns on teeth 20, 21, 28, and 29. Respondent testified that she was not the treating dentist on that date. Patient T.C. was given topical anesthetics, and her pulse and blood pressure were checked. The treatment notes then provide, in pertinent part, the following: Patient had seizures on the dental chair - may be due to anxiety. Seizures last 2-3 minutes. No longer. After 30 minutes, patient was calm. Able to proceed with dental procedure . . . . During seizures pt. was responsive; she was able to respond to our commands. The medical records substantiate Respondent’s unrebutted testimony that she was not the treating dentist at the September 23, 2011, appointment. The June 14, July 19, and October 7, 2011, treatment notes made by Respondent all start with “Dr. Gerry,” and are in a notably different style and format from the September 23, 2011, treatment notes. The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Dr. Morris, and not Respondent, was the treating dentist when Patient T.C. experienced seizures on September 23, 2011. Much of Dr. Brotman’s testimony as to Respondent’s violation of a standard of care was based on his interpretation that, since the September 23, 2011, notes did not specifically identify the treating dentist (as did the other treatment notes described above), the notes must be presumed to be those of the business owner. Neither Dr. Brotman nor the Department established a statutory or regulatory basis for such a presumption and, in any event, the evidence adduced at hearing clearly rebutted any such presumption. Dr. Brotman testified that if another dentist had been identified in the records as having performed the treatment on September 23, 2011, that may have changed his opinion. The evidence established that Dr. Morris performed the treatment on September 23, 2011. Thus, Dr. Brotman’s opinion that Respondent violated the applicable standard of care was effectively countered. The T.C. Administrative Complaint charged Respondent with failing to comply with the applicable standard of care on September 23, 2011. The Department failed to establish that Respondent was the treating dentist on September 23, 2011, and, in fact, a preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that she was not. Thus, the Department failed to establish that Respondent violated the standard of care for failing to refer Patient T.C. to an appropriate medical professional for her seizures as alleged in Count I of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. Count II Case No. 19-2898PL, Count II, charges Respondent with delegating the task of intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to a person not qualified by training, experience, or licensure to perform such intraoral repair. July 17, 2012 Repair On July 17, 2012, Patient T.C. presented to Respondent because her lower partial denture was broken and the O-ring was out. The device included a female end within Patient T.C.’s jaw, and a male end with a plastic “gasket” on the denture. Respondent testified that the repair of the partial denture was performed outside of Patient T.C.’s mouth. Then, at the next scheduled visit, the treatment plan was for Respondent to “eval/repair partial denture on lower arch.” Respondent offered unrebutted testimony that “Tia of precision attachments” performed no work in Patient T.C.’s mouth. Dr. Brotman testified that, in his opinion, any repair of a precision attachment must be done by placing the attachment in the patient’s mouth to align with the teeth. However, Dr. Brotman did not know what kind of repair was done on July 17, 2012. He indicated that if a gasket or housing is missing, it can be repaired with an acrylic. Dr. Brotman testified that if acrylic was placed in the denture outside of the patient’s mouth, it would not be a violation of Florida law. The Department failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent delegated the task of adjusting or performing an intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to “Tia” or any other unlicensed person on July 17, 2012, as alleged in Count II of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. June 11, 2013 Repair On June 11, 2013, Patient T.C. presented to Respondent for an evaluation of her lower precision partial denture. Patient T.C. complained that the partial denture did not have the metal housing to connect it with the bridges to its sides. Patient T.C. was a “bruxer,” i.e. she ground her teeth, and had worn out the denture’s metal attachment. Respondent evaluated the situation, and decided to attempt a chairside repair or replacement of the denture’s male attachments. If the chairside repair was unsuccessful, a complete new partial denture would have to be prepared by a dental laboratory. Respondent attempted the chairside repair. Respondent testified that she instructed her dental assistant to add acrylic into the slot where the male attachment was to be placed in the denture. There was no evidence of any kind to suggest that the dental assistant then placed the denture into Patient T.C’s mouth. Because too much acrylic was placed in the denture, it became stuck in Patient T.C.’s mouth. Patient T.C. became understandably upset. Her husband, L.C., was brought into the room, Patient T.C. was administered local anesthesia, and the precision partial denture was removed. Respondent’s testimony regarding the incident was generally consistent with her prior written statement offered in evidence. Dr. Brotman testified that making repairs to a precision denture must be performed by a licensed dentist, except for placing acrylic into the denture outside of the patient’s mouth, which may be done by a non-dentist. The evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Respondent’s dental assistant did anything more than place acrylic into the denture outside of Patient T.C.’s mouth. The Department failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent delegated the task of adjusting or performing an intraoral repair of Patient T.C.’s partial denture to her dental assistant on June 11, 2013, as alleged in Count II of the T.C. Administrative Complaint. Case No. 19-2899PL - The S.S. Administrative Complaint Count I Case No. 19-2899PL, Count I, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(m) by: Failing to keep a written record of Patient S.S.’s medical history; and/or Failing to keep an accurate written record of any consent forms signed by Patient S.S. Count II Case No. 19-2899PL, Count II, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30; Failing to adequately diagnose the condition of the roots of tooth 30; Failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 30 during root canal treatment; Failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment; Failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following changes to the tooth’s margins; and/or Failing to adequately assess and correct the crown on tooth 31 when the fit was compromised. On May 15, 2014, Patient S.S. presented to Respondent for a root canal and crown on tooth 30. Upon examination, Respondent advised Patient S.S. that she also needed a root canal and a crown on tooth 31. Patient S.S. denied that she was required to provide her medical history at the May 15, 2014, office visit, or that she was provided with an informed consent form prior to the root canal on tooth 30. Respondent’s records do not include either a medical history or an informed consent form. However, the records, which were offered as a joint exhibit, were not accompanied by a Certificate of Completeness of Patient Records, including the number of pages provided pursuant to Respondent’s investigatory subpoena, as is routine in cases of this sort, and which was provided with the records of the subsequent dentists involved in Patient S.S.’s care. Many of the records offered in these consolidated cases, including Respondent’s licensure file, include the certification attesting to their completeness. The records for Patient S.S. do not. Petitioner elicited no testimony from Respondent establishing the completeness of the records. The records offered were, by appearance, not complete. Respondent indicated that medical history and consent forms were obtained. Entries in the records introduced in evidence indicate “[m]edical history reviewed with patient” or the like. Entries for May 16, 2014, provide that “[c]rown consent explained and signed by patient” and “root canal consent explained and signed by patient.” The record for June 4, 2014, indicates that “[r]oot canal consent form explained to and signed by patient.” Patient S.S. testified that she had no recollection of having filled out a medical history, or of having signed consent forms after having Respondent’s recommended course of treatment explained to her. However, Patient S.S.’s memory was not clear regarding various aspects of her experience with Respondent and with subsequent providers. Much of her testimony was taken from notes she brought to the hearing, and some was even based on what she read in the Administrative Complaint. Her testimony failed to clearly and convincingly establish that Respondent failed to collect her medical history or consent to treatment. Respondent testified that, at the time Patient S.S. was being seen, her office was in the midst of switching its recordkeeping software and converting records to digital format. The new company botched the transition, and by the time the issue was discovered, many of the records being converted to digital format were lost, in whole or in part. Respondent surmised that, to the extent the records were not in her files provided to the Department, that they were affected by the transition. The greater weight of the evidence suggests that medical history and signed consent forms were provided. Given the issues regarding the records as described by Respondent, and given the Department’s failure to produce a certification or other evidence that the records it was relying on to prove the violation were complete, the Department failed to meet its burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent failed to keep a written record of Patient S.S.’s medical history and signed consent forms. Respondent also testified that the office notes were supplemented with handwritten notations made when a patient returned for a subsequent appointment. Several of Patient S.S.’s printed records carried handwritten notes. Respondent testified that those notes were made at some time in 2014 after Patient S.S.’s first office visit up to the time of her last visit, and were based on further discussion with Patient S.S. However, those records, Joint Exhibit 2, pages 1 through 17, bear either a date or a “print” date of March 12, 2015. Dr. Brotman testified that he knew of no software on the market that would allow contemporaneous handwriting on electronic records. Thus, the evidence is compelling that the handwritten notes were made on or after the March 12, 2015, date on which the records were printed, well after Patient S.S.’s last office visit. A root canal involves removing a tooth’s pulp chamber and nerves from the root canals. The root canals are smoothed out and scraped with a file to help find and remove debris. The canals are widened using sequentially larger files to ensure that bacteria and debris is removed. Once the debris is removed, an inert material (such as gutta percha) is placed into the canals. A “core” is placed on top of the gutta percha, and a crown is placed on top of the core. The risk of reinfection from bacteria entering from the bottom of an underfilled tooth is significantly greater than if the tooth is filled to the apex of the root. Patient S.S. returned to Respondent’s office on May 16, 2014, for the root canal on tooth 30 and crown preparations for teeth 30 and 31, which included bite impressions. Temporary crowns were placed. Respondent’s printed clinical notes for May 16, 2014, gave no indication of any obstruction of the canals, providing only the lengths of the two mesial and two distal root canals. Respondent’s hand-written notes for May 16, 2014 (which, as previously explained, could have been made no earlier than March 12, 2015), stated that the canals were “[s]ealed to as far as the canal is open. The roots are calcification.” Dr. Brotman indicated that the x-rays taken on May 15, 2014, showed evidence of calcification of the roots. However, Dr. Brotman convincingly testified that the x-rays taken during the root canal show working-length files extending to near the apices of the roots. Thus, in his opinion, the canals were sufficiently open to allow for the use of liquid materials to soften the tooth, and larger files to create space to allow for the canals to be filled and sealed to their full lengths. His testimony in that regard is credited. Patient S.S. began having pain after the root canal on tooth 30 and communicated this to Respondent. On June 5, 2014, Patient S.S. presented to Respondent to have the crowns seated for teeth 30 and 31. Patient S.S. complained of sensitivity in tooth 31. The temporary crowns were removed, and tooth 31 was seen to have exhibited a change in color. The area was probed, which caused a reaction from Patient S.S. Respondent examined the tooth, and noted the presence of soft dentin. A root canal of tooth 31 was recommended and performed, which included removal of the decay in the tooth’s dentin at the exterior of the tooth. Respondent’s removal of decay changed the shape of tooth 31, and would have changed the fit of the crown, which was made based on the May 16, 2014, impressions. There were no new impressions for a permanent crown taken for tooth 31 after removal of the decayed dentin. Respondent testified that she could simply retrofill the affected area with a flowable composite, which she believed would be sufficient to allow for an acceptable fit without making new bite impressions and ordering a new crown. There was no persuasive evidence that such would meet the relevant standard of performance. Temporary crowns were placed on teeth 30 and 31, and placement of the permanent crowns was postponed until the next appointment. Upon completion of the tooth 31 root canal on June 5, 2014, x-rays were taken of the work completed on teeth 30 and 31. Dr. Brotman testified that the accepted standard of care for root canal therapy is to have the root canal fillings come as close to the apex of the tooth as possible without extending past the apex, generally to within one millimeter, and no more than two millimeters of the apex. His examination of the x-rays taken in conjunction with Respondent’s treatment of Patient S.S. revealed a void in the filling of the middle of the distal canal of tooth 31, an underfill of approximately five millimeters in the mesial canal of tooth 31, an underfill of approximately four millimeters in the distal canal of tooth 30, and an underfill of approximately six millimeters in the two mesial root canals of tooth 30. The x-ray images also revealed remaining decay along the mesiobuccal aspect of the temporary crown placed on tooth 31. His testimony that the x-ray images were sufficiently clear to provide support for his opinions was persuasive, and was supported by the images themselves. A day after the placement of the temporary crowns, they came off while Patient S.S. was having dinner in Gainesville. She was seen by Dr. Abolverdi, a dentist in Gainesville. Dr. Abolverdi cleaned the teeth, took an x-ray, and re-cemented the temporary crowns in place. Patient S.S. next presented to Respondent on June 10, 2014. Both of Patient S.S.’s permanent crowns were seated. The permanent crown for tooth 31 was seated without a new impression or new crown being made. Patient S.S. was subsequently referred by her dentist, Dr. James Powell, to be seen by an endodontist to address the issues she was having with her teeth. She was then seen and treated by Dr. John Sullivan on July 25, 2014, and by Dr. Thomas Currie on July 29, 2014, both of whom were endodontists practicing with St. Johns Endodontics. As to the pain being experienced by Patient S.S., Dr. Sullivan concluded that it was from her masseter muscle, which is consistent with Respondent’s testimony that Patient S.S. was a “bruxer,” meaning that she ground her teeth. Dr. Sullivan also identified an open margin with the tooth 31 crown. His clinical assessment was consistent with the testimony of Dr. Brotman. The evidence was clear and convincing that the defect in the tooth 31 permanent crown was an open margin, and not a “ledge” as stated by Respondent. The evidence was equally clear and convincing that the open margin was the result of performing a “retrofill” of the altered tooth, rather than taking new bite impressions to ensure a correct fit. As a result of the foregoing, Respondent violated the accepted standard of performance by failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following the removal of dentin on June 4, 2014, and by failing to assess and correct the open margin on the tooth 31 crown. Radiographs taken on July 25, 2014, confirmed that canals in teeth 30 and 31 were underfilled, as discussed above, and that there was a canal in tooth 31 that had been missed altogether. On July 29, 2014, Dr. Currie re-treated the root canal for tooth 31, refilled the two previously treated canals, and treated and filled the previously untreated canal in tooth 31. The evidence, though disputed, was nonetheless clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the standard of performance in the root canal procedures for Patient S.S.’s teeth 30 and 31, by failing to adequately diagnose and respond to the condition of the roots of tooth 30; failing to adequately fill the canals of tooth 30 despite being able to insert working-length files beyond the area of calcification to near the apices of the roots; and failing to adequately fill the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment. The Administrative Complaint also alleged that Respondent failed to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30. Case No. 19-2900PL - The G.H. Administrative Complaint Case No. 19-2900PL charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by failing to adequately diagnose issues with the crown on tooth 13 and provide appropriate corrective treatment. On May 15, 2014, Patient G.H. presented to Respondent with a complaint that she had been feeling discomfort on the upper left of her teeth that was increasingly noticeable. Respondent diagnosed the need for a root canal of tooth 13. Patient G.H. agreed to the treatment, and Respondent performed the root canal at this same visit. Patient G.H. also had work done on other teeth to address “minor areas of decay.” On July 7, 2014, Patient G.H.’s permanent crowns were seated onto teeth 8, 9, and 13, and onlay/inlays placed on teeth 12 and 14. On July 29, 2014, Patient G.H. presented to Respondent. Respondent’s records indicate that Patient G.H. complained that when she flossed around tooth 13, she was getting “a funny taste” in her mouth. Patient G.H.’s written complaint and her testimony indicate that she also advised Respondent that her floss was “tearing,” and that she continued to experience “pressure and discomfort” or “some pain.” Respondent denied having been advised of either of those complaints. Respondent flossed the area of concern, and smelled the floss to see if it had a bad smell. Respondent denied smelling anything more than typical mouth odor, with which Patient G.H. vigorously disagreed. Respondent took a radiograph of teeth 11 through 15, which included tooth 13 and the crown. The evidence is persuasive that the radiograph image revealed that the margin between tooth 13 and the crown was open. An open margin can act as a trap for food particles, and significantly increases the risk for recurrent decay in the tooth. Respondent adjusted the crown on tooth 9, but advised Patient G.H. that there was nothing wrong with the crown on tooth 13. She offered to prescribe a rinse for the smell, but generally told Patient G.H. that there were no complications. Patient G.H. began to cry and, when Respondent left the room, got up from the chair and left the office. Respondent indicated in her testimony that she would have performed additional investigation had Patient G.H. not left. The contemporaneous records do not substantiate that testimony. Furthermore, Respondent did not contact Patient G.H. to discuss further treatment after having had a full opportunity to review the radiograph image. On March 10, 2015, after her newly-active dental insurance allowed her to see a different in-network provider, Patient G.H. sought a second opinion from Dr. Ada Y. Parra, a dentist at Premier Dental in Gainesville, Florida. Dr. Parra identified an open distal margin at tooth 13 with an overhang. Dr. Parra recommended that Patient G.H. return to Respondent’s practice before further work by Premier Dental. Patient G.H. called Respondent’s office for an appointment, and was scheduled to see Dr. Lindsay Kulczynski, who was practicing as a dentist in Respondent’s Lake City, Florida, office. Patient G.H. was seen by Dr. Kulczynski on March 19, 2015. Upon examination, Dr. Kulczynski agreed that the crown for tooth 13 “must be redone” due to, among other defects, “[d]istal lingual over hang [and] open margin.” The open margin was consistent with Patient G.H.’s earlier complaints of discomfort, floss tearing, and bad odor coming from that tooth. The evidence was persuasive that further treatment of Patient G.H. was not authorized by Respondent after the appointment with Dr. Kulczynski. Dr. Brotman credibly testified that the standard of care in crown placement allows for a space between the tooth and the crown of between 30 and 60 microns. Dr. Brotman was able to clearly identify the open margin on the radiograph taken during Patient G.H.’s July 29, 2014, appointment, and credibly testified that the space was closer to 3,000 microns than the 30 to 60 microns range acceptable under the standard of performance. His testimony is accepted. An open margin of this size is below the minimum standard of performance. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent fell below the applicable standard of performance in her treatment of Patient G.H., by seating a crown containing an open margin and by failing to perform appropriate corrective treatment after having sufficient evidence of the deficiencies. Case No. 19-2901PL - The J.D. Amended Administrative Complaint Case No. 19-2901PL charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations; Failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing an implant in the area of tooth 14; Failing to appropriately place the implant by attempting to place it into a curved root, which could not accommodate the implant; Failing to react appropriately to the sinking implant by trying to twist off the carrier instead of following the technique outlined in the implant’s manual; and/or Paying, or having paid on her behalf, an indemnity in the amount of $75,000 as a result of negligent conduct in her treatment of Patient J.D. Patient J.D. first presented to Respondent on June 28, 2014. At the time, Respondent was practicing with Dr. Jacobs, who owned the practice. Patient J.D. had been a patient of Dr. Jacobs for some time. Respondent examined Patient J.D. and discovered problems with tooth 14. Tooth 14 and tooth 15 appeared to have slid into the space occupied by a previously extracted tooth. As a result, tooth 14 was tipped and the root curved from moving into the space. Tooth 14 had been filled by Dr. Jacobs. However, by the time Respondent examined it, the tooth was not restorable, and exhibited 60 percent bone loss and class II (two millimeters of movement) mobility. Respondent discussed the issue with Patient J.D., and recommended extraction of the two teeth and replacement with a dental implant. Patient J.D. consented to the procedure and executed consent forms supplied and maintained by Dr. Jacobs. The teeth at issue were in the upper jaw. The upper jaw consists of softer bone than the lower jaw, is more vascular, and includes the floor of the nose and sinuses. The periapical radiographs taken of Patient J.D. showed that he had a “draped sinus,” described by Respondent as being where “the tooth is basically draped around the sinuses. It’s almost like they’re kind of one.” Prior to Patient J.D., Respondent had never placed an implant in a patient with a draped sinus. The x-rays also indicated that, as a result of the previous extraction of teeth and the subsequent movement of the remaining teeth, the roots of tooth 14 were tipped and curved. The evidence was persuasive that Respondent did not fail to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, the extent of available bone support, and the configuration of the roots. Dr. Kinzler testified credibly that the pneumatized/draped sinus, the 60 percent bone loss around tooth 14, and the tipped and curved roots each constituted pre- operative red flags. Respondent extracted teeth 14 and 15. When she extracted the teeth, she observed four walls. She was also able to directly observe the floor of the sinus. She estimated the depth of the socket to be 12 millimeters. Sinus penetration is a potential complication of implant placement. Being able to see the sinus floor was an additional complicating factor for implant placement. Dr. Kinzler credibly testified that if Respondent was going to place an implant of the size she chose (see below), then the standard of care required her to first do a sinus lift before placing the implant. A sinus lift involves physically lifting the floor of a patient’s sinus. Once the sinus has been lifted, material typically consisting of granulated cortical bone is placed into the space created. Eventually, the bone forms a platform for new bone to form, into which an implant can be inserted. The evidence established that the standard of care for bone replacement materials is to place the material into the space, close the incision, and allow natural bone to form and ultimately provide a stable structure to affix an implant. The implant may then be mechanically affixed to the bone, and then biologically osseointegrate with the bone. In order to seal off Patient J.D.’s sinus, Respondent used Bond Bone, which she described as a fast-setting putty-like material that is designed to protect the floor of the sinus and provide a scaffold for bone to grow into. She did not use cortical bone, described as “silly sand,” to fill the space and provide separation from the sinus because she indicated that it can displace and get lost. Respondent’s goal was to place the implant so that it would extend just short of the Bond Bone and Patient J.D.’s sinus. She also intended to angle the implant towards the palate, where there was more available bone. Bond Bone and similar materials are relatively recent innovations. Dr. Fish was encouraged by the possibilities of the use of such materials, though he was not familiar with the Bond Bone brand. The evidence was clear and convincing that, although Bond Bone can set in a short period, and shows promise as an effective medium, it does not currently meet minimum standards of performance for bone replacement necessary for placement and immediate support of an implant. Bond Bone only decreases the depth of the socket. It does not raise the floor of the sinus. As such, the standard practice would be to use a shorter implant, or perform a sinus lift. Respondent was provided with an implant supplied by Dr. Jacobs. She had not previously used the type of implant provided. The implant was a tapered screw vent, 4.7 millimeters in diameter, tapering to 4.1 millimeters at the tip with a length of 11.5 millimeters. Respondent met with and received information from the manufacturer’s representative. She used a 3.2 millimeter drill to shape the hole, as the socket was already large enough for the implant. The 3.2 millimeter drill was not evidence that the receiving socket was 3.2 millimeters in diameter. Respondent then inserted the implant and its carrier apparatus into the hole. The implant did not follow the root, and had little bone on which to affix. The initial post-placement periapical radiograph showed “placement was not correct.” Despite Respondent’s intent, the implant was not angled, but was nearly vertical, in contrast with the angulation of the socket which was tipped at least 30 degrees. Given the amount of bone loss, and the other risk factors described herein, the risk of a sinus perforation, either by having the implant extend through the root opening or by a lateral perforation through one of the sides of the socket, was substantial. After adjusting the implant, Respondent went to remove the carrier. The carrier would not release, and the pressure exerted caused the implant to loosen and begin to sink through the Bond Bone. Dr. Kinzler testified credibly that, because of the mechanics of the implant used, had it been surrounded by bone, it would not have been possible for the implant to become loose. In his opinion, which is credited, the loosening of the implant was the result of the lack of bone to hold it in place. Respondent was so intent on removing the carrier that she was not paying attention to the implant. As a result, she screwed the implant through the Bond Bone and into Patient J.D.’s sinus. By the time she realized her error, the implant had sunk in to the point it was not readily retrievable. She was hesitant to reaffix the carrier “because [she] knew [she] had no support from the bone, that it was just a matter of air.” Nonetheless, she “stuck the carrier back in, but it would not go back in.” She then turned to get forceps or a hemostat but, by that time, the implant was irretrievably into Patient J.D.’s sinus. At the hearing, Respondent testified that she could have retrieved the implant but for Patient J.D. doing a “negative pressure sneeze” when the implant was already into the sinus. At that point, she stated that the implant disappeared into Patient J.D.’s sinus, where it can be seen in Petitioner’s Exhibit 9, page 35. There is nothing in Respondent’s dental records about Patient J.D. having sneezed. Respondent further testified that Patient J.D. “was very jovial about it,” and that everyone in the office laughed about the situation, and joked about “the sneeze implant.” That the patient would be “jovial” about an implant having been screwed into his sinus, resulting in a referral to an oral surgeon, and that there was office-wide joking about the incident is simply not credible, particularly in light of the complete absence of any contemporaneous records of such a seemingly critical element of the incident. Respondent believed that the implant must have been defective for her to have experienced the problem with removing the carrier, though her testimony in that regard was entirely speculative. There is no competent, substantial, or persuasive evidence to support a finding that the implant was defective. After determining that the implant was in Patient J.D.’s sinus, Respondent informed Patient J.D. of the issue, gave him a referral to an oral surgeon, prescribed antibiotics, and gave Patient J.D. her cell phone number. Each of those acts was appropriate. On July 29, 2014, an oral surgeon surgically removed the implant from Patient J.D.’s sinus. Patient J.D. sued Respondent for medical malpractice. The suit was settled, with the outcome including a $75,000.00 indemnity paid by Respondent’s insurer on her behalf. The Office of Insurance Regulation’s Medical Malpractice Closed Claims Report provides that the suit’s allegations were based on “improper dental care and treatment.” The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance prior to the procedure at issue by failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations prior to the procedure. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance by failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing the implant in the area of tooth 14, and by placing the implant into a curved root which could not accommodate the implant. The placement of Bond Bone was not adequate to address these issues. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent failed to meet the standard of care by failing to pay attention while trying to twist off the carrier and by failing to appropriately react to the sinking implant. The evidence was clear and convincing that Respondent paid, or had paid on her behalf, an indemnity of $75,000 for negligent conduct during treatment of Patient J.D. The perforation of Patient J.D.’s sinus was not, in itself, a violation of the standard of care. In that regard, Dr. Kinzler indicated that he had perforated a sinus while placing an implant. It was, however, the totality of the circumstances regarding the process of placing Patient J.D.’s implant that constituted a failure to meet the minimum standards of performance as described herein. Case No. 19-2902PL - The J.A.D. Amended Administrative Complaint Count I Case No. 19-2902PL, Count I, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(x) by: Failing to take adequate diagnostic imaging prior to placing an implant in the area of Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8; Failing to pick an appropriately-sized implant and placing an implant that was too large; and/or Failing to diagnose and/or respond appropriately to the oral fistula that developed in the area of Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8. Count II Case No. 19-2902PL, Count II, charges Respondent with violating section 466.028(1)(m) by: Failing to document examination results showing Patient J.A.D. had an infection; Failing to document the model or serial number of the implant she placed; and/or Failing to document the results of Respondent’s bone examination. Patient J.A.D. first presented to Respondent on March 3, 2016. His first appointment included a health history, full x-rays, and an examination. Patient J.A.D.’s complaint on March 3, 2016, involved a front tooth, tooth 8, which had broken off. He was embarrassed by its appearance, and desired immediate care and attention. Respondent performed an examination of Patient J.A.D., which included exposing a series of radiographs. Based on her examination, Respondent made the following relevant diagnoses in the clinical portion of her records: caries (decay) affecting tooth 7, gross caries affecting fractured tooth 8, and caries affecting tooth 9. Patient J.A.D. was missing quite a few of his back teeth. The consent form noted periodontal disease. The evidence is of Patient J.A.D.’s grossly deficient oral hygiene extending over a prolonged period. A consent form signed by Patient J.A.D. indicates that Patient J.A.D. had an “infection.” Respondent indicated that the term indicated both the extensive decay of Patient J.A.D.’s teeth, and a sac of pus that was discovered when tooth 8 was extracted. “Infection” is a broad term in the context of dentistry, and means any bacterial invasion of a tooth or system. The consent form was executed prior to the extraction. Therefore, the term “infection,” which may have accurately described the general condition of Patient J.A.D.’s mouth, could not have included the sac of pus, which was not discovered until the extraction. The sac of pus was not otherwise described with specificity in Respondent’s dental records. A pre-operative radiograph exposed by Respondent showed that tooth 8 had a long, tapering root. Respondent proposed extraction of tooth 8, to be replaced by an immediate implant. The two adjacent teeth were to be treated and crowned, and a temporary bridge placed across the three. Patient J.A.D. consented to this treatment plan. The treatment plan of extracting tooth 8 and preparing the adjacent teeth for crowns was appropriate. Respondent cleanly extracted tooth 8 without fracturing any surrounding bone, and without bone adhering to the tooth. When the tooth came out, it had a small unruptured sac of pus at its tip. Respondent irrigated and curretted the socket, and prescribed antibiotics. Her records indicated that she cleaned to 5 millimeters, although a radiograph made it appear to be a 7 millimeter pocket. She explained that inflammation caused the pocket to appear larger than its actual 5 millimeter size, which she characterized as a “pseudo pocket.” She recorded her activities. The response to the sac of pus was appropriate. Respondent reviewed the earlier radiographs, and performed a physical examination of the dimensions of the extracted tooth 8 to determine the size of the implant to be placed into the socket. Dr. Kinsler and Dr. Fish disagreed as to whether the radiographic images were sufficient to provide adequate information as to the implant to be used. Both relied on their professional background, both applied a reasonable minimum standard of performance, and both were credible. The evidence was not clear and convincing that Respondent failed to take adequate diagnostic imaging prior to placing an implant to replace Patient J.A.D.’s tooth 8. Respondent placed an implant into the socket left from tooth 8. The implant was in the buckle cortex, a “notoriously thin” bone feature at the anterior maxilla. The fact that it is thin does not make it pathological, and placement of an implant near a thin layer of bone is not a violation of the standard of performance as long as the implant is, in fact, in the bone. The implant used by Respondent was shorter than the length of tooth 8 and the tooth 8 socket, and did not have a full taper, being more truncated. The evidence of record, including the testimony of Dr. Kinzler, indicates that the length of the implant, though shorter than the tooth it was to replace, was not inappropriate. The evidence of record, including pre-extraction and post-implantation scaled radiographs offered as a demonstrative exhibit, was insufficient to support a finding that the implant diameter was too great for the available socket. Patient J.A.D. felt like the implant was too close to the front of his maxillary bone because it felt like a little bump on the front of his gums. That perception is insufficient to support a finding that the placement of the implant violated a standard of performance. Subsequent x-rays indicated that there was bone surrounding the implant. Clinical observations by Respondent after placement of the implant noted bone on all four walls of the implant. Her testimony is credited. The evidence that the tooth 8 implant was not placed in bone, i.e., that at the time the implant was placed, the implant penetrated the buccal plate and was not supported by bone on all four sides, was not clear and convincing. Respondent’s records document the dimensions and manufacturer of the implant. Implants are delivered with a sticker containing all of the relevant information, including model and serial number, that are routinely affixed to a patient’s dental records. It is important to document the model and serial number of implants. Every implant is different, and having that information can be vital in the case of a recall. Patient J.A.D.’s printed dental records received by the Department from Respondent have the implant size (5.1 x 13 mm) and manufacturer (Implant Direct) noted. The records introduced in evidence by the Department include a page with a sticker affixed, identified by a handwritten notation as being for a “5.1 x 13mm - Implant Direct.” (Pet. Ex. 11, pg. 43 of 83). The accompanying sticker includes information consistent with that required. Dr. Fish testified to seeing a sticker that appears to be the same sticker (“The implant label of 141, it just has the handwritten on there that it should be added.”), though it is described with a deposition exhibit number (page 141 of a CD) that is different from the hearing exhibit number. Dr. Fish indicated the sticker adequately documented the implant information. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the sticker was not in Patient J.A.D.’s records, or that Respondent failed to document the model or serial number of the implant she placed. Later in the day on March 3, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was fitted for a temporary crown, which was placed on the implant and the adjacent two teeth, and Patient J.A.D. was scheduled for a post-operative check. Patient J.A.D. appeared for his post-operative visit on March 10, 2016. He testified that he was having difficulty keeping the temporaries on, and was getting “cut up” because the two outer teeth were sharp and rubbed against his lip and tongue. Respondent noticed that Patient J.A.D. was already wearing a hole in the temporary. Since Patient J.A.D. was missing quite a few of his back teeth, much of his chewing was being done using his front teeth. His temporaries were adjusted and reseated. On March 17, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was seen by Respondent for a post-operative check of the tooth 8 extraction and implant placement. The notes indicated that Patient J.A.D. had broken his arm several days earlier, though the significance of that fact was not explained. He was charted as doing well, and using Fixodent to maintain the temporary in place. The records again noted that Patient J.A.D. had worn a hole in the back of the tooth 9 temporary crown. A follow up was scheduled for final impressions for the permanent crowns. On March 10 and March 17, 2016, Patient J.A.D. complained of a large blister or “zit” that formed over the area above the end of the implant. Patient J.A.D. had no recollection of whether Respondent told him he had an infection. He was prescribed antibiotics. The evidence was not clear and convincing that the “zit” was causally related to the placement of the implant. Patient J.A.D. also testified that the skin above tooth 9 was discolored, and he thought he could almost see metal through the skin above his front teeth. Patient J.A.D. next appeared at Respondent’s office on June 2, 2016, for final impressions. Respondent concluded that the site had not healed enough for the final impression. She made and cemented a new temporary, and set an appointment for the following month for the final impression. Patient J.A.D. did not return to Respondent. On September 28, 2016, Patient J.A.D. presented to the office of Dr. Harold R. Arthur for further treatment. The records for that date indicate that he appeared without his temporary restoration for teeth 7 through 9, stating that he had several at home, but they would not stay on. Dr. Arthur probed a “[s]mall (1.0 x 1.0 mm) red spot in facial keratinized gingiva communicating with implant.” After probing the opening in the gingiva and the “shadow” in the gingiva, he believed it was at the center of the implant body and healing screw. Dr. Arthur’s dental records for Patient J.A.D. over the course of the following year indicate that Dr. Arthur made, remade, and re-cemented temporary crowns for teeth 7, 8, and 9 on a number of occasions, noting at least once that Patient J.A.D. “broke temps” that had been prepared and seated by Dr. Arthur. On December 1, 2016, Patient J.A.D. was reevaluated by Dr. Arthur. He noted the facial soft tissue at the implant was red, with an apparent fistula. A periapical radiograph was “unremarkable.” The temporary crowns, which were loose, were removed, air abraded to remove the cement, and re-cemented in place. Patient J.A.D. was prescribed an antibiotic. He was again seen by Dr. Arthur on December 13, 2016. The temporary on tooth 9 was broken, which was then remade and re-cemented. The fistula was smaller but still present. Patient J.A.D. was seen by Dr. Arthur on February 2, 2017, with the tooth 9 temporary crown fractured again. The fistula was still present. Patient J.A.D. advised that “the bone feels like it’s caving in around where she put that implant.” That statement is accepted not for the truth of the matter asserted, but as evidence that the complaint was first voiced in February 2017. On April 4, 2017, more than a year after the placement of the implant, Patient J.A.D was seen by Dr. Arthur. Dr. Arthur determined that the implant for tooth 8 was “stable and restorable in current position.” The fistula was still present and, after anesthesia, a probe was placed in the fistula where it contacted the implant cover screw. Although Dr. Arthur replaced the implant abutment, he ultimately placed the final crown on the implant placed by Respondent, where it remained at the time of the final hearing. The fact that incidents of Patient J.A.D. breaking and loosening the temporary crowns that occurred with Respondent continued with Dr. Arthur supports a finding that the problems were, more likely than not, the result of stress and overuse of Patient J.A.D.’s front teeth. On October 24, 2016, a series of CBCT radiographs was taken of the implant and its proximity to tooth 7. Dr. Kinzler testified that, in his opinion, the implant was of an appropriate length, but was too large for the socket. Much of his testimony was based on the October 24 radiograph and his examination of the resulting October 29, 2016, report. Although the report indicated that there was minimal bone between the implant and the root of tooth 7, and that the buccal cortex appeared thinned or eroded, those observations are of limited persuasive value as to whether the standard of performance was met almost eight months prior. Patient J.A.D. obviously worked, and overworked, his dental appliances. Without more, the evidence is not clear and convincing that his subsequent and repeated problems, including “thinned or eroded” bone in the buccal cortex, were the result of a violation of the standard of performance in the sizing and placement of the tooth 8 implant by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, enter a Final Order: Dismissing the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 19-2898PL and the Amended Administrative Complaint in Case No. 19-2902PL; With regard to Case No. 19-2899PL: 1) dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint; 2) determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient S.S. by: failing to adequately diagnose the condition of the roots of tooth 30; failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 30 during root canal treatment; failing to adequately obturate the canals of tooth 31 during root canal treatment; failing to take a new crown impression of tooth 31 following changes to the tooth’s margins; and failing to adequately assess and correct the crown on tooth 31 when the fit was compromised, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; and 3) determining that Respondent did not fail to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient S.S. by failing to adequately diagnose decay in tooth 30, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; With regard to Case No. 19-2900PL, determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient G.H. by seating a crown containing an open margin on tooth 13 and failing to adequately diagnose issues with the crown on tooth 13, and by failing to perform appropriate corrective treatment after having sufficient evidence of the deficiencies, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; With regard to Case No. 19-2901PL: 1) determining that Respondent failed to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient J.D. by: failing to lift, or refer for lifting of, Patient J.D.’s sinus before placing an implant in the area of tooth 14; failing to appropriately place the implant by attempting to place it into a curved root which could not accommodate the implant; failing to react appropriately to the sinking implant by trying to twist off the carrier instead of following the technique outlined in the implant’s manual; and paying, or having paid on her behalf, an indemnity in the amount of $75,000 as a result of negligent conduct in her treatment of Patient J.D., as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and 2) determining that Respondent did not fail to comply with the applicable standard of performance in the care and treatment of Patient J.D. by failing to obtain sufficient radiographic imaging showing Patient J.D.’s sinus anatomy, extent of available bone support, and/or root locations; Suspending Respondent’s license in accordance with rule 64B5-13.005(1)(x) and rule 64B5-13.005(3)(e), to be followed by a period of probation, with appropriate terms of probation to include remedial education in addition to such other terms that the Board believes necessary to ensure Respondent’s practical ability to perform dentistry as authorized by rule 64B5- 13.005(3)(d)2.; Imposing an administrative fine of $10,000; and Requiring reimbursement of costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: George Kellen Brew, Esquire Law Office of George K. Brew Suite 1804 6817 Southpoint Parkway Jacksonville, Florida 32216 (eServed) Kelly Fox, Esquire Department of Health 2585 Merchant’s Row Tallahassee, Florida 32311 (eServed) Octavio Simoes-Ponce, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Chad Wayne Dunn, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Jennifer Wenhold, Interim Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health Bin C-08 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3258 (eServed) Louise Wilhite-St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Respondent has been charged in a Corrected Administrative Complaint with a violation of Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent, Dr. Merle N. Jacobs, has been licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. He currently holds license number DN 0005940. During the period from January 22, 1993, through March 27, 1995, T. C. was a patient of the Respondent. During that period of time, the Respondent performed various dental services for T. C., including the making and fitting of a partial denture. The Respondent prepared and kept dental records and medical history records of his care of patient T. C. The Respondent's records of such care are sufficient to comply with all relevant statutory requirements. The Respondent's records of such care do not include any notations specifically identified or captioned as a treatment plan. The records do, however, include marginal notes of the course of treatment the Respondent intended to follow in his care of patient T. C. Those marginal notes describe the treatment the Respondent planned to provide to patient T. C.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1998.
