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 Whether Respondent violated Subsections 466.028(1)(m) and 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2001), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456, 466, and 120, Florida Statutes (2003). At all material times to this proceeding, Dr. Nguyen was a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN0014768. On April 17, 2002, Patient J.N. presented to Dr. Nguyen complaining with pain from a broken tooth. She brought a full set of x-rays taken by another dentist approximately a year before her visit to Dr. Nguyen. J.N. filled out a form entitled "Health Questions." J.N. indicated on the form that her teeth were sensitive to cold. He examined J.N.'s teeth and saw that tooth 30 was fractured to the gum line. J.N. complained that the broken area of the tooth was sharp and was rubbing against her tongue causing irritation. His examination further revealed that she had some slight gum disease in the upper right side. J.N. was not experiencing a throbbing pain from tooth 30, and tooth 31 was not giving her any discomfort. Her discomfort was due to the inflammation of her gums and her tongue. Dr. Nguyen did a percussion test, i.e. tapping on the tooth, and probed in her mouth, measuring the tooth. Dr. Nguyen did not do any vitality testing and did not perform any periodontal charting of the teeth. J.N. did not want Dr. Nguyen to take any additional x-rays since she had brought a full set of x-rays with her. Dr. Nguyen felt that the set of x-rays that J.N. provided was sufficient for him to be able to treat J.N. for her fractured tooth. The x-rays did not show the fracture, but fractures may not necessarily show up on an x-ray. Dr. Nguyen told J.N. that she may or may not need a root canal. Dr. Nguyen discussed treatment options with J.N., and she decided to have a three-quarter crown on one tooth and an overlay on the other tooth. He removed all of the fracture of tooth 30 and made impressions for the three-quarter crown and inlay, which were sent to the laboratory for the fabrication of the crown and inlay. She left the office with temporary teeth on teeth 30 and 31. Dr. Nguyen made the following progress note concerning his treatment of J.N. on April 17, 2002: pt came in w/ fmx from another DDS. Dr. Richardt in Bonita. Both 30 & 31 have very large old fractured decay amalgam. Both lingual cusps #30 fractured to gingival line. Complaint of "uncomfortable." #30 prep for crown / 3/4 crown. #31 prep for MOB onlay. Composite provisional. A few days later, J.N. called Dr. Nguyen's office complaining of a lot of pain. J.N. was given a prescription for penicillin and Tylenol No. 3. On April 26, 2002, J.N. returned to Dr. Nguyen's office complaining of pain. She had taken the prescribed pain medication prior to her visit so that it was difficult for Dr. Nguyen to assess the pain. Dr. Nguyen made an adjustment to her bite and told her that if the pain continued that he would refer her to an endodontist. Dr. Nguyen asked J.N. to stop taking the pain medication and return to his office after 5 p.m. that day so that he could accurately assess her pain without having the pain medication masking the pain. She did not return to his office. On May 1, 2002, J.N. went to see another dentist, who referred J.N. to Juan Pablo Rodriguez, D.D.S. (Dr. Rodriquez), who specializes in root canals. J.N. complained to Dr. Rodriguez that she was having pain in tooth 30 and it was waking her up at night. Tooth 31 did not respond to cold. Dr. Rodriguez diagnosed J.N. with irreversible pulpitis for tooth 30, which means that the nerve of the tooth had inflammation, and that the nerve would not get better, but would die. He determined that tooth 31 was non- vital or necrotic. On May 8, 2002, J.N. called Dr. Nguyen's office and stated that she wanted to have her tooth extracted rather than have to pay for a root canal. She indicated she wanted her money back. The next day, J.N. came to Dr. Nguyen's office demanding her money back and wanting her x-rays. Dr. Nguyen kept the original x-rays and provided J.N. a copy of the x-rays which she had furnished him on her initial visit. J.N. had paid Dr. Nguyen a portion of his fees by credit card, and a portion of his fees had been paid by J.N.'s dental insurance plan. Dr. Nguyen refunded all fees paid to him. Melvin A. Platt, D.D.S., testified as an expert witness for the Department. It is Dr. Platt's opinion that Dr. Nguyen, in relation to his treatment of J.N., did not practice dentistry within the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. His opinion is based on Dr. Nguyen's failure to determine the need for a root canal prior to preparing the teeth for restoration. According to Dr. Platt, Dr. Nguyen should haven taken an x-ray of teeth 30 and 31, performed vitality testing, and done periodontal charting. Dr. Platt was also of the opinion that the dental records maintained by Dr. Nguyen regarding his care of J.N. failed to justify his course of treatment. According to Dr. Platt there was nothing in the progress notes to justify going ahead with the restorations without any prior testing of any kind. Dr. Nguyen's license has previously been disciplined by the Department for failing to include in an advertisement the statement required by Section 456.062, Florida Statutes (1999). Department of Health v. Luyen Nguyen, D.D.S., Case No. 2000- 01848 (Dept. of Health 2002).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Luyen Nguyen, D.D.S., did not violate Subsection 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, but did violate Subsection 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes; imposing a $1,000 administrative fine; and issuing a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2004.
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)
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, a candidate for licensure as a dentist, was administered the state Dental Examination in June 1988. A part of the exam, the clinical portion, requires that each candidate perform specified procedures on a human patient. The exam procedures are performed in a clinical setting. A floor monitor is present during the examination. After each procedure is performed, the monitor escorts the patient to a grading room. In the grading room, three examiners separately and independently review each candidate's performance. The examiners generally do not discuss or otherwise communicate their opinions or the grades awarded other than to note such on the grading sheet completed by each examiner. The examiners are Florida-licensed practicing dentists. Prior to the examination, the examiners participate in a training session designed to provide a standardized, uniform reference for grading the results of a candidate's performance on the clinical exam. Each examiner awards a numerical grade between 0 and 5 for each procedure. The grade for each procedure reflects an evaluation of the whole of a candidate's performance. Comments are made by each examiner on the grading sheet, either through marking in a computer-scored portion on the sheet, or by written notes outside the computer-scored area. The criteria for each possible grade is as follows: 0--complete failure 1--unacceptable dental procedure 2--below minimal acceptable dental procedure 3--minimal acceptable dental procedure 4--better than minimal acceptable dental procedure 5--outstanding dental procedure The three scores awarded by the examiners are averaged to provide the grade for each procedure. Each candidate is identified on the grading sheet by number so as to prevent an examiner from knowing the identity of the individual candidate being reviewed. Each examiner is also identified by number. Examiners are assigned to grade a candidate through a random selection process. The test monitor is responsible for collecting the grading sheets after each examiner has completed the review. After the grading process is complete, the patient is returned to the clinic for performance of the next procedure. The grading process is repeated for each step. The Petitioner challenges the scores awarded to two of the ten procedures performed as part of the clinical exam. Procedure number two on the exam, the amalgam cavity prep, provides for the preparation of a decayed tooth for filling. Procedure number three, the final amalgam restoration, provides for the filling of the prepared cavity. The two procedures account for 20% of the total points on the clinical examination, divided between procedure two (two-thirds) and procedure three (one-third). On procedure number two, the Petitioner received a grade of 3 from examiner 133, a grade of 4 from examiner 194, and a grade of 0 from examiner 192. Examiner 192 noted that caries remained present in the prepared tooth cavity. Neither examiner 133 nor examiner 194 noted remaining caries, although both identified other areas of concern regarding the candidate's performance. According to the examination rules of the Department, a grade of 0 is mandatory if caries remain after completion of the procedure. There was no evidence to indicate that the review and scoring by examiner 192 was erroneous, beyond the fact that other examiners did not note remaining caries. It is possible, according to expert testimony, for one examiner to identify remaining caries which other examiners fail to discover. The remaining decay can be dislodged by one examiner in reviewing the procedure and therefore not visible to subsequent examiners, or the decay, loosened by the procedure, can be otherwise displaced within the patient's mouth between examinations. On procedure number three, the candidate received a grade of 3 from examiner 101, a grade of 4 from examiner 052, and a 0 from examiner 192. Examiner 192 noted that the functional anatomy, proximal contour, and margin of the amalgam restoration were deficient, further noting that a cervical shoulder existed and that the prepared area was not filled. The evidence did not indicate that the grade awarded by examiner 192 for procedure number three was erroneous or mistaken. According to the evidence, including expert testimony based upon a review of x-rays taken subsequent to completion of the procedure, the grade awarded by examiner 192 was appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of dentistry enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grading of the two clinical procedures on the June 1988 dental examination. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 7th day of July, APPENDIX CASE NO. 89-0588 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected. The evidence did not establish that procedure number two is weighted more than all other procedures, but did indicate that procedures performed within the oral cavity are more heavily weighted that procedures performed outside the cavity. Procedures two and three are both performed within the oral cavity. Procedure two is, and, totaled, constitute 20% of the clinical examination. Procedure two provides two-thirds of the 20%, with procedure three providing one-third of the 20%. Rejected, restatement of testimony. The appropriate criteria for the 0-5 grade scale is as stated in Rule 21G-2.013 Florida Administrative Code. Rejected, not supported by weight of evidence. Both examiners noted comments on the grading sheet, either through marking within computer-scored area or by writing additional comments on the grading sheet. Rejected. The evidence did not indicate that it was "customary" for examiners to pass notes through monitors to the candidate. The witness testified that, on occasion, he had passed notes to monitors when he gave a score below three on the referenced procedures. However, there is apparently no requirement that examiners inform candidates, through monitors, of problems which are found during the grading of the candidate's work. Rejected, irrelevant. There is no requirement that the candidate should have been informed of the acceptability of his work or of his scores during the procedure. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. The fact that one examiner identifies specific problem areas which are not identified by other examiners does not indicate that the scores are erroneous or that the standardization process undergone by the examiners was deficient. Rejected, conclusion of law. 14-15. Rejected, goes to weight accorded testimony of referenced witnesses. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: 4. Rejected, irrelevant. 9. Rejected, as to characterization of Petitioner's testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: James Sweeting, III, Esquire 2111 East Michigan Street, Suite 210 Orlando, Florida 32806 E. Harper Field, Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should receive a passing score on the December 2001 dental license examination.
Findings Of Fact In December 2001, Petitioner took the dental licensure examination and failed to pass the clinical portion of the exam. The examination is a three-day process involving two days of clinical examination. Those two days of clinical examination consist of nine procedures. Four of the nine procedures were challenged by Petitioner. The clinical portion is where the candidate is required to perform certain patient procedures. The work product of the student, or candidate, is evaluated following the performance of those procedures by three examiners. Each examiner grades the candidate independently of whatever score the other examiners may award on a particular procedure. Then the average grade for each procedure is weighted in accordance with requirements of Rule 64B5-2.013, Florida Administrative Code. This produces the overall score for the entire clinical exam. The Department uses three examiners' scores because this provides a more reliable indication of the candidate's competency and true score. Further, each examiner must be a licensed dentist for a minimum of five years and have no complaints or disciplinary actions against their license. Examiners have no contact with the candidate taking the examination and, accordingly, have no idea of who they are grading. To further ensure fairness, each examiner must attend and successfully complete a standardization session. The purpose of these sessions is to ensure that each examiner is trained to use the same internal grading criteria. In standardization, each examiner is thoroughly taught specific grading criteria with the result that examiners are instructed on how to evaluate the work of the candidates. The examiners who graded Petitioner’s examination had successfully completed the foregoing standardization session. Also, the Department’s post-exam check found these examiners’ grading to be reliable. Petitioner contested the score he received on Procedure 4, the Endodontic procedure, a root canal. The Endodontic procedure required removal of infected nerve tissue and blood vessels pulp from the tooth. Petitioner was required to access the canal and pulp tissue from the outside. Then, Petitioner was required to remove the bad nerve and cleanse the canal. Finally, Petitioner was required to seal the canal to prevent recurring bacteria. Petitioner failed to observe a fracture in the tooth. He claimed that a fracture to the root of the tooth was caused by the Department after he reviewed his examination and that no one advised him the root was fractured. Petitioner requested a score of 3.00 for this procedure. However, the Department's witness, Dr. William F. Robinson, a licensed dentist for 32 years who examined the tooth and X-ray prepared by Petitioner, testified that the fracture to the root was noticed in both the X-ray and on the tooth when he examined the same. Additionally, two of the three re-graders also noted the fracture of the root. With regard to Petitioner's preparation of the X-ray at the conclusion of the examination, Dr. Robinson opined that Petitioner caused the fracture to the root during the examination and not the Department, as alleged by Petitioner. Dr. Robinson further opined that even without a fracture to the root of the tooth, Petitioner failed the procedure and the failing grade he received was fair. Dr. Robinson would not recommend that Petitioner receive a passing score of 3.00 on the procedure. The examiners' comments and grades and the testimony of Dr. William F. Robinson establish that Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure. The grade Petitioner received was fair. Petitioner challenged the grade he received on Procedure 5, the Class IV Composite Restoration of the front tooth, but did not offer any testimony at the hearing as to why the score was not correct for the procedure. Petitioner requested that the score of 1.00 given by one of the examiners be thrown out, thus giving him a passing grade on this procedure. Procedure 5 of the dental licensure examination is a procedure that involves the candidate’s ability to replace the edge of the front tooth with a composite resin material, which is a tooth-colored filling. As established by the examiners’ comments and grades and the testimony of Dr. William F. Robinson, Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure and the grade Petitioner received was fair. Specifically, the examiners found that the tooth was abraded and the re-grader noted, as did the examiners, the excessive “flash” on the tooth. Dr. Robinson also noted both deficiencies in the procedure. Petitioner contested the score he received on Procedure 6, the Class II Composite Restoration procedure in his original petition, but offered no testimony at the hearing concerning this procedure. Dr. Robinson reviewed the examiners' grades and the tooth prepared by Petitioner and opined that Petitioner’s grade of 2.66 for this procedure is fair. Based on the examiners’ comments and grades and the testimony of Dr. Robinson, Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure and the grade Petitioner received was fair. Petitioner contested the score he received on Procedure 7, the preparation for a 3-unit Fixed Partial Denture, claiming that on the re-grade one of the examiners reviewed the wrong procedure. The Preparation for a 3-unit Fixed Partial Denture procedure of the dental licensure examination is a procedure that involves the candidate’s ability to provide preparations of two (2) teeth in order to replace a missing tooth with a fixed bridge. Dr. Robinson established that Petitioner’s work on this procedure resulted in one tooth, No. 29, being grossly over reduced and tooth No. 31 was insufficiently reduced. The result of such work is that it is impossible to place a bridge on such an improper preparation. As established by testimony of Dr. Robinson, Petitioner's problem with this procedure resulted from Petitioner’s undercut. This undercut indicated that Petitioner’s preparations were not properly aligned to accept a bridge. Based on the examiners’ comments and grades, and the testimony of Dr. Robinson, Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure and the grade Petitioner received was fair. The Department's “re-grade” process was utilized in this case. Used to give all candidates who timely request a hearing another chance at passing, the re-grade process allows the Department to go back and determine whether any grades rendered were inconsistent. The Department selects the top three examiners who had the highest reliability from that examination to participate in the re-grade process. The Department maintains post-standardization statistics of the examiners’ performance. In this case, those statistics indicated that Petitioner’s examiners graded reliably. In addition, the Department calculates post- examination statistics for the examiners, which are as follows for the examiners who graded Petitioner’s challenged procedures: Examiner Accuracy Index & Rating #206 95.8-Excellent #375 98.8-Excellent #380 92.1-Good #334 97.8-Excellent #298 95.9-Excellent #375 98.8-Excellent-was an original and a re-grader. All of Petitioner's examiners exhibited a reliability significantly above the minimum acceptable accuracy index of 85.0.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the grade assigned him for the December 2001 dental licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Jason S. Baker, D.M.D. Westchester Medical Center 95 Grasslands Road, Box 572 Valhalla, New York 10595 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue is whether the score that Respondent assigned to the Patient Amalgam Preparation section of the clinical part of Petitioner's June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination was arbitrary or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination. A passing score for the clinical part of the examination is 3.0. Petitioner received a score of 2.9, so he failed the clinical part of the examination. Petitioner has challenged the grade of 2.0 that he received on the Patient Amalgam Preparation of the clinical part of the examination. The score of 2.0 is derived from averaging the 3s that Petitioner received from two evaluators and the 0 that he received from one evaluator. Petitioner challenges only the score of 0, and he needs two additional points to pass the clinical part of the examination. The administration of the clinical part of the dental examination requires Respondent to recruit and train numerous examiners and monitors, all of whom are experienced, licensed dentists. The training process includes standardization exercises designed to ensure that all examiners are applying the same scoring criteria. The evaluation of specific procedures are double-blind, with scoring sheets that identify candidates by test numbers, so examiners do not know the identity of the candidate whose procedures they are scoring. The section that is the subject of this case requires the candidate to demonstrate certain skills on a live patient. While working with the patient, the candidate is supervised by a monitor. When the candidate has completed the required dental work to his satisfaction, he so advises the monitor, who sends the patient to the dental examiners. For the section that is the subject of this case, three dental examiners examine the patient and score the procedure. These examiners do not communicate with each other, and each performs his or her examinations and scores the procedure in isolation from the other examiners. Communications between examiners and candidates are exclusively through monitor notes. For the section that is the subject of this case, the maximum possible score that a candidate may receive is a 5. Passing grades are 3, 4, or 5. Nonpassing grades are 0, 1, or A score of 3 indicates minimal competence. The Patient Amalgam Preparation section of the clinical part of the examination required Petitioner to remove caries from one tooth and prepare the tooth for restoration. These procedures are of obvious importance to dental health. Poor preparation of the tooth surface will probably result in the premature failure of the restoration. A restoration following incomplete removal of caries will probably result in ongoing disease, possibly resulting in the loss of the tooth. Written materials, as well as Respondent's rules, which are discussed below, require a 0 if caries remain, after the candidate has presented the patient as ready for restoration. Other criteria apply to the Patient Amalgam Preparation procedure, but this criterion is the only one of importance in this case. Examiners 207 and 394 each assigned Petitioner a 3 for this procedure, but Examiner 417 assigned him a 0. Examiners 207 and 394 noted some problems with the preparation of the tooth, but neither detected any caries. Examiner 417 detected caries and documented her finding, as required to do when scoring a 0. Examiner 207 has served as an examiner for 10 years and has conducted 15-20 evaluation examinations during this time. Examiner 417 graduated from dental school in 1979. Examiner 394 has been licensed in Florida since 1995 and has served as an examiner only three years. The instructions to examiners emphasize that they are to detect caries "exclusively" tactilely, not visually. Tactile detection of the stickiness characteristic of caries is more reliable than visual detection. For example, caries assumes the color of dentin as the decay approaches the dentin. Despite the requirement to detect caries by touch, not sight, Examiner 417 initially testified that she detected the caries by sight. Later in her testimony, she backtracked and stated that she was not sure if she felt it or saw it. Her earlier, more definitive testimony is credited; Examiner 417 never found caries by touch, only by sight. In DOAH Case No. 03-3998, Examiner 417 readily conceded that she must have missed the caries that another examiner had detected, inspiring little confidence in her caries-detection ability. In that case, her value as one of two dentists in the majority was insignificant, even though the majority finding prevailed. In this case, Examiner 417's role as the lone dentist who found caries is too great an evidentiary burden for her to bear. The vagueness of her testimony and her reliance upon visual caries-detection preclude a finding of caries in this patient. Three other additional factors undermine Examiner 417's finding of caries. First, Examiners 207 and 394 found no caries. Examiner 207 has considerable experience. Examiner 394 has less experience, but he was the lone evaluator in DOAH Case No. 03-3998 to detect calculus deep below the gums, proving that he is both meticulous and a demanding grader. Together, then, the findings of Examiners 207 and 394 of no caries carry much greater weight than the contrary finding of Examiner 417. Nor was it likely that Examiner 417 accidentally dislodged the caries. No evidence suggest that she was the first examiner to examine the patient, and her means of detecting caries was visual, not tactile. Second, the location of the caries in this case was directly in the center of the tooth. So located, it was difficult for Petitioner and Examiners 207 and 394 to miss. Third, by two monitors' notes, Petitioner twice obtained the evaluators' permission to expand the drilled area, due to the extensiveness of the caries, suggesting that Petitioner was devoting careful attention to the removal of all caries, even if it meant an atypical site preparation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order granting Petitioner an additional two points on the clinical part of the June 2003 Florida Dental License Examination and determining that he has passed this part of the dental examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, BIN A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C06 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 James Randolph Quick Driftwood Plaza 2151 South U.S. Highway One Jupiter, Florida 33477 Cassandra Pasley Senior Attorney Department of Health Office of the General Counsel 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
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
