The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 466.028(1)(j), (l), (m), (n), (u), and (y), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 466, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Michael Freedman (Dr. Freedman), is and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed dentist in the state of Florida, having been issued license number DN0010221. From June, 1988 through February, 1989, Dr. Freedman billed Medicare and received compensation for dental treatment of three elderly patients, L.S., E.K., and K.K., who resided in a nursing home, Meadowbrook Manor of Boca Cove (Meadowbrook). Patient L.S. At all material times to this proceeding, L.S. was a 93- year-old female who suffered from Alzheimer's disease. At the time of Dr. Freedman's treatment of L.S., Ms. Aurelia DaPra acted as L.S.'s legal guardian. She was also L.S.'s close personal friend and visited L.S. on a daily basis. During these visits Ms. DaPra would attend to L.S.'s personal needs. On or about July 7, 1988, patient L.S. was presented to Dr. Freedman for a consultation at the nursing home where L.S. resided. Dr. Freedman's examination revealed edentulism and/or prosthetic related problems. His recommendations included further diagnostic investigations, surgical procedures, and rehabilitative measures. Dr. Freedman billed $173.00 and was subsequently paid $107.84 by Medicare for services rendered. The "Next Patient Appointment/Service Record" contained in Dr. Freedman's records indicate that dental X-rays were taken of L.S. on July 25, 1988. On July 25, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for office services for L.S. On August 8, 1988, Dr. Freedman gave telephone orders to the staff at Meadowbrook to premedicate L.S. prior to Dr. Freedman's visit on the next day. On August 9, 1988, Dr. Freedman visited L.S. Other than rendering an X-ray report, the records do not indicate any other service performed by Dr. Freedman on that date. On August 9, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $225.00 and was subsequently paid $108.80 by Medicare for X-rays and supplies for L.S. The Medicare category under which supplies are billed is entitled "supplies/prosthesis." Dr. Freedman's customary practice was to make the X-rays at the nursing home using a mobile X-ray machine and to develop the films in his office the next day. He rendered an X-ray report on the dental X-rays of L.S. on August 9, 1988. On August 17, 1988, Dr. Freedman visited L.S. and did a behavior adjustment evaluation. Premedication was given to L.S. on site. On August 17, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for office services for L.S. On August 26, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for office services for L.S. The dental records of L.S. do not indicate that any service was provided to L.S. on August 26, 1988. Based on the unrebutted evidence presented at the final hearing, no services were provided to L.S. by Dr. Freedman on August 26, 1988. Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 for office services on September 2, 1988, and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for such services. The records of Dr. Freedman include a draft letter to Dr. Janotta, L.S.'s physician, stating that L.S. needed to have intrabony lesions removed and would require premedication to facilitate the procedure. Notes in his records indicate that by September 18, 1988, Dr. Freedman had not heard from Dr. Janotta. Dr. Freedman billed $72.70 for supplies for L.S. on November 1, 1988, and was subsequently paid $43.88 by Medicare. On November 1, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $374.00 and was subsequently paid $160.00 by Medicare for surgery on L.S. On November 1, 1988, Dr. Freedman performed a debridement procedure on L.S., which was surgical in nature and was not a routine cleaning of the teeth. Another behavior management evaluation was done on L.S. on November 1, 1988. On January 13, 1989, Dr. Freedman billed $133.00 and was subsequently paid $69.60 by Medicare for X-rays and supplies for L.S. Dr. Freedman's records did not indicate that any services were provided to L.S. on that date. Based on the unrebutted evidence presented at the final hearing, no services were provided to L.S. by Dr. Freedman on January 13, 1989. Dr. Janotta's progress notes concerning L.S. indicate that he was contacted by Dr. Freedman on February 5, 1989. On the same date, Dr. Janotta ordered that L.S.'s legal guardian be contacted to get L.S.'s private dentist to look at L.S.'s dental problems. After Ms. DaPra was informed that Dr. Janotta had left orders that L.S. should see a dentist, she told the nurse that she did not want Dr. Freedman to be used as the dentist. On January 26, 1989, Dr. Freedman's office called Dr. Janotta's office and stated that Dr. Freedman intended to do some minor dental work on L.S. and inquired whether the dental work should be done and whether L.S. should be premedicated. On February 10, 1989, Dr. Freedman billed $52.00 and was subsequently paid $22.72 by Medicare for office services for L.S. Dr. Freedman's records do not indicate that any services were performed for L.S. on that date. Based on the unrebutted evidence presented at the final hearing, no services were performed for L.S. by Dr. Freedman on February 10, 1989. On February 13, 1989, Dr. Hagquist, a dentist, did an oral exam of L.S. and concluded that several of her teeth needed to be extracted. On February 28, 1989, Dr. Hagquist extracted six of L.S.'s teeth. On December 13, 1990, L.S. was examined by Dr. Robert W. Williams, Petitioner's dental expert. Dr. Williams' examination revealed a completely mutilated dentition with serious carious breakdown and several teeth in poor repair. He further discovered gross calcus and debris present with chronic gingival irritation, inflammation, and periodontal breakdown. No evidence was presented as to what dental care L.S. received from February 14, 1989 to December 13, 1990. Patient E.K. At all times material to this proceeding, E.K. was an 84-year-old female who suffered from Alzheimer's disease. On June 6, 1988, patient E.K. was presented to Dr. Freedman for consultation at the nursing home where she resided. Dr. Freedman billed $173.00 and was subsequently paid $107.84 by Medicare for services rendered on June 6, 1988. On July 12, 1988, Dr. Freedman made dental X-rays of E.K. The dental records do not contain either the x-rays or a report on the findings of the x-rays. On July 12, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $238.00 and was subsequently paid $134.08 by Medicare for X-rays and supplies for patient E.K. Dr. Freedman's records indicate that on August 9, 1988, Dr. Freedman gave some medication as part of a procedure performed on E.K. in the maxilla area. The records do not indicate exactly what the procedure was; however based on the testimony of Dr. Bayloff, Respondent's expert witness, the procedure was not a routine cleaning. On August 9, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $33.75 and was subsequently paid $10.72 by Medicare for supplies for patient E.K. According to Dr. Freedman's "Tissue Repair/Debridement/ Treatment Report", on November 1, 1988, Dr. Freedman performed the following on E.K. in the mandible area: "brush", "dentifrice," and "dentition." No evidence was presented to establish whether this procedure would not qualify as surgery for purposes of payment from Medicare. On November 1, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $33.75 and was subsequently paid $14.00 by Medicare for supplies for patient E.K. The procedure performed on November 1 did require the use of some supplies. On November 1, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $200.00 and was subsequently paid $80.00 by Medicare for surgery on patient E.K. Patient K.K. K.K. is an 85-year-old male who has been described as mentally alert, physically impaired as to sight, and well aware of his surroundings. On June 13, 1988, patient K.K. was presented to Dr. Freedman for a consultation at the nursing home where K.K. resided. Dr. Freedman made a preliminary evaluation. Dr. Freedman billed $173.00 and was subsequently paid $107.84 by Medicare for consultation services rendered to K.K. on August 13, 1988. It appears that the date which appeared on the Medicare payment report was a scrivener's error and should have read June 13, 1988. On June 20, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for office services for K.K. This billing was for a trip by one of Dr. Freedman's staff to Meadowbrook to copy parts of K.K.'s records. On July 12, 1988, Dr. Freedman made dental X-rays of K.K. and rendered an X-ray report. On July 12, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $283.00 and was subsequently paid $134.08 by Medicare for X-rays and supplies for patient K.K. On July 29, 1988, Dr. Freedman billed $70.00 and was subsequently paid $34.88 by Medicare for office services for patient K.K. Dr. Freedman's records indicate that his staff called Dr. McKay to inquire whether K.K. needed to have premedication prior to minor oral surgery and if so, what medication would be needed. MITIGATION Dr. Freedman had practiced dentistry at other nursing homes in the area and had not received any complaints concerning the services that he provided. Between 1985 and 1989, Dr. Freedman developed and maintained a practice exclusively limited to patients requiring special care. The majority of his patients resided in nursing homes or ACLF's and were frail and elderly. He was the Dental Director for 23 long-term care facilities and served 50 other facilities on a more limited basis. At any given time he was serving between 1000 to 2000 patients in a 150 mile area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Dr. Freedman did not violate Sections 466.028(1)(j)(l) and (u), Florida Statutes as alleged in Count I, finding that Dr. Freedman did violate Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), in Count I as it related to the X-rays, dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint, dismissing the portions of Counts I and III alleging a violation of Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), finding that Dr. Freedman did not violate Sections 466.028(1)(m) and (y), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), as alleged in Count III, finding that Dr. Freedman violated Section 466.028(1)(j) and (l), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), as alleged in Count III, imposing a $750 administrative fine and placing Dr. Freedman on probation for one year under the terms and conditions to be set forth by the Board of Dentistry. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 28th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-3391 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Accepted except as to a prosthesis. The evidence showed that the Medicare category was supplies/prosthesis. Dr. Freedman was billing for supplies not for a prosthesis. Paragraph 12: Accepted. Paragraph 13: Rejected as to the amount billed. The evidence showed that Dr. Freedman billed $70.00. The remainder is accepted. Paragraph 14: Rejected that he billed for supplies and prosthesis. The records indicate that he billed for office services. Paragraph 15: Rejected that Dr. Freedman billed for a prosthesis. The remainder is accepted. Paragraph 16: Accepted. Paragraphs 17-18: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 19: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. There was no evidence presented to link the blank X-ray with the X-rays that were taken on July 25, 1988. Paragraphs 20-21: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 22: Rejected as to billing for a prosthesis. The remaining is accepted. Paragraph 23: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 24: Accepted. Paragraphs 25-26: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 27: Accepted. Paragraphs 28-30: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 31-32: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 33: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 34: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 35: Rejected. The evidence does not support such an opinion. Paragraphs 36-38: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 39: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 40-41: Accepted. Paragraphs 42-43: Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 44: Accepted. Paragraph 45: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 46-47: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 48-50: Rejected as to the prosthesis. The remainder is accepted. Paragraph 51: Accepted. Paragraph 52: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 53: Rejected. His conclusion is not supported by the evidence presented. Paragraph 54: Rejected as unnecessary and repetitious. Paragraph 55: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 56-57: Rejected as based on hearsay. Paragraph 58: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 59-61: Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraphs 62-66: Accepted. Paragraph 67: Rejected as to prosthesis. The remaining is accepted. Paragraph 68: Accepted. Paragraph 69: Rejected. The evidence established that K.K. was actually seen twice by Dr. Freedman. Paragraph 70: Rejected as not established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: The third sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remaining sentences are rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 2: The first sentence is accepted. The remaining sentences are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 3-10: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 11: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remaining is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 12-13: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 14: The first two sentences are rejected as constituting argument. The remaining is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 15: The third sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. There was no paragraph 16. Paragraph 17: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 18: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 19: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 20-22: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 23: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The last sentence is rejected as immaterial. Paragraph 24: The first two sentences and the last sentence are rejected as constituting argument. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 25: The first and last sentences are rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 26: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 27: The first two sentences are rejected as unnecessary. The third sentence is accepted in substance. Sentences 4-13 and 42 are rejected as immaterial to the issues. Sentences 14, 29, 31, 38, and 40 are rejected as constituting argument. Sentence 15 is accepted in substance. Sentence 16 is rejected as not supported by the evidence presented. Sentences 17-28, 30, 32-37, 39, and 41 are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 28: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 29(1): The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The second sentence is accepted. Sentences 3-8 are rejected as subordinate to the facts found that Dr. Williams was an expert. Sentence 9 is rejected as constituting argument. Sentences 10-13 and 15-18, are accepted in substance. Sentence 14 is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. The remaining sentences are rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 29(2): Rejected as mere recitation of testimony. Paragraph 29(3): Sentences 1-11 are rejected as mere recitation of testimony. The remaining is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 30: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found and as constituting argument. Paragraph 31: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 32: The last two sentences are rejected as constituting argument. The remainder is rejected as mere recitation of testimony and subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 33: The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 34: Rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 35: Sentences 1, 2 6, 7, 12, 13, 56 are rejected as unnecessary. Sentences 3-5, 10, 23, 24, 32, 35, 36, 37, 52, 55, 58 and 59 are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Sentences 8, 9, 11, 28, 30, 51, 71, 72 are rejected as constituting argument. Sentences 14-22, 25-27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 39-50, 53, 54, 60-63 are accepted in substance. Sentence 38 is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Sentence 57 is not a complete sentence. Sentences 64-70 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 29 (Keene pg. 15 of PRO): The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. Sentence 2(1) is accepted in substance. Sentence 2(2) is rejected as based on hearsay. Sentence 2(3) is accepted in substance. Sentence 2(4) is rejected to the extent that the opinion was not supported by the evidence. Sentence 3 is rejected to the extent the opinion is not supported by the record. Paragraph 30 (pg. 15 PRO): Sentences 1-3, 5, and 6 are rejected as based on hearsay. Sentences 4 and 27 are rejected as constituting argument. Sentences 7-10, 15, 23, and 24,are accepted in substance. Sentences 11-13 and 16 are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Sentences 14, 17, 41, 42, are rejected as unnecessary. Sentences 18-22, 28-40, and 43 are accepted in substance to the extent that X-rays were made. Sentences 25 and 26 are rejected as not credible given that Dr. Freedman was able to produce the records of the patients at issue. The testimony at the hearing dealt with his inablity to produce copies of the Medicare forms that he received from Medicare. Paragraph 31 (pg. 16 PRO): The first two sentences are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. The remaining is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 32 (pg. 17 PRO): Sentences 1-10 and 17-19 are rejected as irrelevant. The remaining is accepted in substance. Paragraph 33 (pg. 17 PRO): Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 34 (pg. 18 PRO): Sentences 1-10 are accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 35 (pg. 18 PRO): The last three sentences are rejected as irrelevant. The remainder is accepted in substance to the extent that Dr. Bayloff was qualified as an expert witness. Paragraphs 36 (pg. 19 PRO): Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 37 (pg. 19 PRO): Sentences 1-2 are rejected as unnecessary. Sentences 3-7 are rejected as irrelevant. Sentences 8-10 are accepted in substance to the extent that L.S.'s file did contain adequate records. Sentences 11-14 are accepted to the extent that they apply to the records of L.S. and K.K. but not as to the records of E.K. as it relates to the X- rays. There were no X-rays or X-ray report in E.K.'s file. Paragraph 38 (pg. 19 PRO): Sentences 1-2 are accepted in substance as it pertains to L.S. Sentences 3-4 are rejected as irrelevant. Sentences 5-6 are accepted to the extent that the expert reviewed records which were present. There were no records for treatment of L.S. on August 26, 1988, January 13, 1989, and February 10, 1989. Dr. Bayloff did not render an opinion on whether services were provided on those dates. The remaining is rejected as constituting argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Natalie Duguid, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Michael Freedman 421 Lakeview Drive, Suite 201 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33326 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Agency For Health Care Administration Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency For Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
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 the allegations set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Health, Board of Dentistry (Petitioner), against Miranda Smith, D.D.S. (Respondent), are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, the Respondent was a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, holding license no. DN 15873, with an address-of-record at 17020 County Line Road, Spring Hill, Florida 34610, and operating a dental practice identified as "Smiles and Giggles Dentistry." On August 23, 2011, the Respondent performed a dental examination of S.W., a three-year-old female. This was S.W.'s first visit to the Respondent's office. Routine procedures at the Respondent's office included taking radiographs (x-rays) of every new patient. After checking in with the receptionist and waiting for a brief time, S.W. and her mother were called from the reception area by a dental assistant, who accompanied them to a type of x-ray machine called a "Panorex." Patients can remain in a standing position while x-rays are taken with a Panorex, and the images can be produced without requiring the insertion of x-ray film into a patient's mouth. Despite encouragement from her mother and the offer of various enticements by the dental assistant, S.W. refused to stand in the Panorex, and no x-rays were taken. After the attempt to use the Panorex failed, S.W. and her mother were taken into an examination room ("operatory"). Each operatory at the Respondent's practice contained a standard x-ray machine that required the insertion of film into a patient's mouth to produce images. The evidence fails to establish that there was any attempt to obtain images from S.W. using the x-ray machine in the operatory. After S.W. was taken into the operatory and seated, the dental assistant performed a routine cleaning ("prophylaxis") and then left the room. S.W. was cooperative during the prophylaxis. After the prophylaxis was completed, the Respondent entered the room with a different dental assistant and proceeded to perform a comprehensive oral evaluation using routine dental tools. S.W. was cooperative during the examination. The Respondent examined the condition of S.W.'s teeth and verbalized her observations to the dental assistant, who recorded the information by hand into the patient chart. According to the patient chart, the Respondent observed decay in the teeth designated as A, B, I, J, K, L, S and T. After the evaluation was completed, S.W.'s mother was advised that the Respondent had observed "eight cavities" in S.W.'s teeth. The evidence failed to establish whether the mother received the information from the Respondent or from the dental assistant. Thereafter, the dental assistant escorted S.W. and her mother to the "check out" desk, where the mother was advised to schedule a follow-up appointment for dental work related to the Respondent's observations of decay. The follow-up appointment was scheduled for November 17, 2011, and the mother was advised that sedation would be administered at that time. S.W. and her mother then left the Respondent's office. According to the patient chart, the Respondent proposed to treat the observed decay by performing resin-based composite restorations on the teeth. S.W. did not return to the Respondent's office for the follow-up appointment. The Respondent provided no further dental care to S.W. Concerned about the Respondent's evaluation of her child's teeth, S.W.'s mother spoke with a friend who had been employed as a dental assistant, and then decided to seek another opinion regarding the condition of S.W.'s teeth. On or about September 6, 2011, S.W. and her mother went to see Dr. Eva Ackley, a dentist practicing at the Ackley Dental Group, for an evaluation of the child's teeth. Dr. Ackley was aware that S.W.'s mother was seeking a second opinion of the child's dental health. S.W. was cooperative throughout her appointment with Dr. Ackley. S.W. submitted to being x-rayed at Dr. Ackley's office. Dr. Ackley examined the child's teeth and reviewed the x-ray images and observed that, although S.W. had one tooth that required follow-up observation for potential decay, there were no actual cavities requiring treatment. According to S.W.'s mother, the child has been evaluated by two other dentists since 2011, one of whom observed three cavities and the other of whom observed none. According to the mother, neither of the subsequent dentists took x-rays of S.W.'s teeth. At the hearing, the Respondent presented an "expanded functions dental assistant" employed by the Respondent, who testified as to office procedures routinely followed at the Respondent's practice. The witness was not personally involved with S.W. on August 23, 2011. The witness testified that it was sometimes difficult to obtain x-rays from younger patients and that, in such cases, x-ray images would be obtained during a follow-up visit. If required, sedation was administered to calm the patient and obtain the images. The witness testified that during the course of her employment with the Respondent, no restorative treatment had been performed on a patient without x-ray images having been obtained prior to treatment. Her testimony was credible and convincing, and it has been accepted. The witness also testified that, in cases where no x-rays were taken at an initial evaluation, the routine procedure at the Respondent's office was to document the need to obtain x-rays at a follow-up appointment in the patient's file. Although the patient records of S.W.'s evaluation by the Respondent on August 23, 2011, state that the patient "would not do any x-rays," the records do not specify that they were to be taken at the follow-up appointment. The witness testified that the failure to document the need to obtain the x-ray images in the patient records was contrary to routine office procedures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 3rd day of October, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health Bin C-08 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3258 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A-02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Christopher Claude Torres, Esquire Casey and Torres, LLC Suite 200 1240 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-8707 Adrienne C. Rodgers, Esquire Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265
The Issue Whether Petitioner's licensure examination challenge should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a dentist who seeks licensure to practice dentistry in the State of Florida and who was a candidate for the dental examination administered by Respondent in December 1990. Each candidate for licensure is given three opportunities to present a patient who presents certain minimal periodontal problems upon whom the candidate can demonstrate his or her proficiency in periodontics. Rule 21G- 2.013, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (2)(b) ... It is the applicant's responsibil- ity to provide a patient who is at least 18 years of age and whose medical history permits dental treatment. In order that the examination may be conducted in an efficient and orderly manner, an applicant will be allowed no more than three attempts to qualify a patient during the specified check-in period for each procedure requiring a patient. The candidate is required to select five teeth that meet certain criteria from the candidate's first patient. Rule 21G-2.013, Florida Administrative Code, provides those criteria, in pertinent part, as follows: (4) The grading of the clinical portion of the dental examination shall be based on the following criteria: * * * (b) Periodontal exercise on a patient with a minimum of 5 teeth, none of which shall have a full crown restoration, all of which shall have pockets at least 4 mm. in depth with obvious sub-gingival calculus detectable by visual or tactile means and radiographic evidence of osseous destruction; at least one tooth shall be a multi-rooted molar which shall be in proximal contact with at least one other tooth; none of the 5 teeth shall be primary teeth. All calculus appearing on radiographs must be detectable by visual or tactile means. The patient is thereafter examined by two examiners who are dentists to determine whether each selected tooth meets the criteria. If the examiners determine that one or more of the teeth selected do not meet the criteria, the candidate has a second opportunity and may select additional teeth from patient one, or the candidate may present patient two and select five teeth from the new patient. If the examiners determine that one or more of the teeth selected on his second opportunity do not meet the criteria, the candidate has a third opportunity and may select additional teeth from patient two, or the candidate may present patient three and select five teeth from that third patient. If the examiners determine that one or more of the teeth selected on his third opportunity do not meet the criteria, the candidate receives, pursuant to Rule 21G-2.013(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, a score of zero on the periodontics portion of the examination. For her first opportunity, Petitioner presented Patient #1 and selected teeth 13, 14, 19, 20, and 21. Examiners 187 and 054 examined the five teeth selected by Petitioner and rejected teeth 13, 20, and 21. Neither of these examiners testified and the reasons for the rejection of these three teeth were not given. Patient #1 had been used by Petitioner during the June 1990 administration of the examination. The five teeth selected from Patient #1 in the June 1990 examination had been accepted, but the teeth that had been accepted did not include teeth 13, 20, or 21. For her second opportunity, Petitioner presented Patient #2 and selected teeth 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23. Examiners 176 and 080 examined these five teeth and rejected teeth 19, 20, and 23. Neither of these examiners testified and the reasons for the rejection of these three teeth were not given. For her third opportunity, Petitioner again used Patient #2, but substituted teeth 3, 29, and 30 for the teeth that had been rejected in opportunity two, so that the selected teeth were 3, 21, 22, 29, and 30. Examiners 162 and 195 rejected teeth 3, 29, and 30. Neither of these examiners testified and the reasons for the rejection of these three teeth were not given. Petitioner thereafter received a zero on the periodontal portion of the examination, which greatly contributed to her failing the examination. Petitioner received a final grade of 2.51 on the examination. She needed a score of 3.00 to pass the examination. Each of the examiners who are used by Respondent in the administration of the dental examinations is a dentist who has been licensed in the State of Florida for a minimum of five years. Prior to the examination, the examiners undergo a day long standardization session during which the criteria to be applied and the proper method of application are taught. These dentists who serve as examiners examine the patient and the selected teeth from that patient independently of one another. Neither examiner knows the results of the examination performed by the other examiner and neither examiner knows the candidate who brought that patient to the examination. The purpose of the preliminary examination is to determine whether the teeth selected by the candidate meet the criteria established by Rule 21G- 2.013(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The form used by the examiners does not require that the reason for the rejection of a tooth to be stated. If both examiners reject a particular tooth, that tooth cannot be used by the candidate. Petitioner failed to present evidence upon which it can be concluded that the teeth she presented from the two patients she brought to the examination met the criteria for examination found in Rule 21G-2.013(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which denies Petitioner's challenge to the dental examination. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of August, 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 26th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3086 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in the first numbered paragraph of Mr. Irigonegaray's letter dated August 8, 1991, are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the second numbered paragraph of Mr. Irigonegaray's letter dated August 8, 1991, are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The greater weight of the evidence was that the statistics cited by this paragraph were not designed to measure the professional qualifications of an examiner or how he or she grades a particular criteria. Therefore, these statistics do not support Petitioner's contention that the teeth she selected were arbitrarily or capriciously rejected. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. 1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-5 are adopted in material part by the Recommended. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Beatriz Jacobo 175 Fort Wilkinson Road Milledgeville, Georgia 31061
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Respondent violated section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2011), and if so, what penalty should be imposed for the violation.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 15873. Respondent’s address of record is 17020 County Line Road, Spring Hill, Florida 34610. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent operated a dental practice known as “Smiles and Giggles Dentistry” in Spring Hill, Florida. This case involves Respondent’s diagnosis and treatment of a minor male, M.P., on or about April 26, 2010. In order to understand the care and treatment given to M.P., some definitions relative to the practice of dentistry are in order. Dentists use different terms than laypersons to describe the sides and top of a tooth when recording issues on a patient’s chart (charting) regarding the patient’s teeth. For example, the occlusal surface of the tooth is the biting surface, and its abbreviation is “O.” The lingual surface is the side of the tooth closest to the tongue, and is charted with an “L.” The facial side of the tooth is the side next to the cheek, and is charted as “F,” or as “B,” for buccal. The distal part of the tooth is the part of the tooth facing the back of the mouth and is abbreviated “D,” and the mesial side is the front side of the tooth, and is abbreviated “M.” This case involves the diagnosis of caries, or what are referred to by laymen as cavities. A caries is an area of the tooth that has mineral loss from the production of bacteria. The term “caries” can refer to a single cavity or multiple cavities. An incipient caries is another term for an early lesion, usually confined to the outer layer of the tooth, or the enamel. Depending on the surface of the tooth, an incipient caries can be seen upon visual inspection. If it is on the distal or mesial surface, however, it is not always possible to see incipient caries because the decay is usually blocked by other structures. Gross caries are large cavities that have taken away a large amount of tooth structure, and can also usually be seen on visual inspection. A “pit and fissure” caries is usually confined to the occlusal, facial, or lingual sides of the tooth, and consists of a groove, or pit, in the tooth. Interproximal caries are cavities between the teeth where the teeth touch. They are the most difficult to see upon visual inspection, but are relatively easy to detect on X ray. Diagnosing caries is a multi-step process. First, a dentist conducts a visual examination of the patient, which may include a tactile examination of the teeth. The visual examination is then compared to X rays of the teeth. Experts for both Petitioner and Respondent agree with the American Dental Association (ADA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statement that an individualized radiographic examination should consist of posterior bitewings with panoramic examination, or posterior bitewings and selected periapical images, and that a full mouth intraoral examination is preferred when the patient has clinical evidence of generalized oral disease or a history of dental treatment. Both agreed that this statement represents the minimum standard of care when diagnosing and treating interproximal cavities. Bitewing X rays are X rays taken in the posterior of the mouth, and can be molar bite-wings or pre-molar bitewings. The film or sensor is placed inside the mouth, and the X ray machine is placed next to the head, on the cheek next to the teeth where the film was placed. These X rays would be considered intraoral X rays. Some panoramic machines are also equipped to take bitewing X rays. Panoramic X rays are considered to be extra- oral images because nothing is placed in the mouth. Here, the patient steps into the machine, bites on something in order to hold his or her head in position, and then the X ray beam and the sensor rotate around the patient’s head in a complete 360-degree circle to obtain an image. Because intraoral X rays are placed right next to the teeth inside the patient’s mouth, the image only passes through the cheek, gums, and bone. With a panoramic X ray, the receptor is outside the mouth, and the X ray emitter has to go completely through the opposite side of the skull and then come through to the outside of the mouth to receive the image. As a result, the panoramic X ray can have a lot of superimposition of structures in the mouth. According to Respondent’s patient records for M.P., when she examined him on April 26, 2010, she performed a comprehensive oral evaluation and took a panoramic X ray, two extraoral films, and four bitewing X rays. Respondent diagnosed M.P. with caries on the distal and occlusal surfaces of tooth number 20; caries on the distal and occlusal surfaces of tooth number 28; caries on the mesial, occlusal, and distal surfaces of tooth number 29; caries on the occlusal and lingual surfaces of tooth number 14; and caries on the occlusal and lingual surfaces of tooth number 15. Teeth numbers 20, 28, and 29 were diagnosed with interproximal decay. Dr. Smith’s records did not indicate what diagnostic methods she used to diagnose the caries. The account history reflects that comprehensive oral evaluation was conducted but no note history was provided. Respondent’s proposed treatment plan for M.P. listed amalgam restorations for two surfaces for teeth 20 and 28; amalgam restoration of three surfaces for tooth 29; resin-based composite restoration for teeth 14 and 15; sealant for teeth 2, 3, 18, 19, 30, and 31; and resin-based restoration of one surface for tooth 9. G.P., M.P.’s guardian,1/ was apparently displeased with the amount of restorative work Respondent proposed. He did not return to Respondent’s office for his next scheduled appointment. Instead, G.P. took M.P. back to W. Scott Wagner, D.D.S., in Jacksonville Beach, who had treated M.P. for approximately eight years before he saw Respondent. Dr. Wagner examined M.P. on May 17, 2010. He took X rays of M.P.’s teeth, which included four bitewing X rays, and performed a clinical examination. In his view, there was one suspicious area on the distal of tooth number 20, but it was not all the way through the dentin. Dr. Wagner decided that, in light of M.P.’s history, he recommended monitoring the tooth and having M.P. engage in better flossing and brushing with the goal of remineralizing the tooth. He did not see any evidence of interproximal caries other than tooth 20, and did not believe that the area on the distal of tooth 20 was worth treating. Dr. Wagner also recommended and applied preventative resin restorations for several teeth, using a flowable composite. Use of a flowable composite is considered a filling because only a dentist, as opposed to a dental assistant, can perform the procedure, but is in the nature of a sealant. Dr. Wagner prefers a flowable composite over a traditional sealant because he believes that the material in a sealant is not strong enough. M.P. did not return to Dr. Wagner’s office after May 17, 2010. The Department presented the expert testimony of Edward R. Zapert, D.M.D., to give his opinion as to whether Respondent deviated from the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment of M.P. Dr. Zapert is a dentist licensed in Florida since 1983, having been issued license number DN 9761. He is employed by the Department of Health in Leon County and his practice focuses primarily on Medicaid-eligible children. He treats all types of dental problems, from children with near- perfect teeth to those with complex and advanced problems. Dr. Zapert is a faculty member for the University of Florida and is a member of the Florida Dental Association, the American Dental Association, and the Leon County Dental Association. He received his dental education at the University of Connecticut. Dr. Zapert reviewed Dr. Smith’s dental records as well as the X rays obtained by her. He also reviewed the X rays and the deposition of the subsequent treating dentist, Dr. Wagner. The records reviewed are the type of records upon which he would customarily rely for forming an opinion regarding the standard of care and were sufficient for him to form such an opinion. Dr. Zapert did not believe that the X rays of teeth numbers 20, 28, and 29 indicated any interproximal decay, and Respondent’s records did not have any written notations on the X rays. While the number of X rays taken was adequate, the X rays were, in Dr. Zapert’s view, not of high quality. Dr. Zapert opined that Dr. Smith’s diagnosis and recommended treatment of interproximal caries was below minimum standards because the X rays did not indicate the existence of interproximal decay for these three teeth. Dr. Zapert recognized that Dr. Smith did not actually fill the teeth identified in the treatment plan because M.P. never returned for his follow-up appointment. He also acknowledged that in theory, it was possible that Dr. Smith could change her treatment plan before executing it. However, these factors did not change his view that a dentist should be absolutely certain that there is decay before filling a tooth, and that the X rays for teeth 20, 28, and 29 showed no evidence of interproximal decay. Dr. Zapert also reviewed the X rays taken by Dr. Wagner, and concluded that they also showed no evidence of interproximal decay. Respondent presented the testimony of Frank Grimaldi, D.D.S. Dr. Grimaldi is a dentist licensed in the state of California who has practiced dentistry since 1981. He graduated first in his class from the dental school at University of California, San Francisco, where he served on the faculty since 1983. Dr. Grimaldi was the director of the general practice residency program, was a full clinical professor in addition to having a private dental practice, and retired after 31 years at the university last year. He continues to practice dentistry in private practice, and still teaches at the university on a limited basis. Dr. Grimaldi reviewed the complete patient records of M.P. from both Dr. Smith and Dr. Wagner, and has formed an opinion as to whether Dr. Smith deviated from the standard of care. In Dr. Grimaldi’s opinion, she did not. Dr. Grimaldi opined that Dr. Smith met the standard of care in the methods she used in her evaluation, in that it was appropriate to collect a patient history, take bitewing X rays, make a clinical examination, and form a treatment plan. Dr. Grimaldi believes that an X ray exam alone does not provide a full picture of what is going on in a patient’s mouth. He charts everything that is suspicious that he sees when examining a patient, and ultimately does not always treat everything that is observed or charted. Accordingly, to Dr. Grimaldi, a treatment plan may be modified right up to the point of time the dentist executes the treatment. Based upon his review of the X rays of both Dr. Smith and Dr. Wagner, which he believed to be of “adequate” quality, Dr. Grimaldi testified that there was incipient interproximal decay on teeth 20, 28, and 29, and believes a diagnosis of interproximal decay for all three teeth would have been appropriate and within the standard of care. With respect to the individual teeth, Dr. Grimaldi stated that he saw “clear darkness in the area toward what we call the distal of number 29,” with respect to tooth 20, “at the distal of number 20 . . . it shows clearly darkness, although not as clear as 29, on its distal surface,” and with respect to tooth 28, “it has a hint of some darkness at the distal surface but not as much as the other two.” (Transcript at 120-122). Dr. Grimaldi was consistent in his characterization of the condition of the three teeth, although he referred at least once to the X rays as showing a “strong hint of demineralization on the distal of 29, and the distal of 20, less so on the distal of 28.” He acknowledged the difference in his opinion and Dr. Zapert’s saying there is going to be variability among practitioners caused by factors such as training and experience, access at the time, lighting, the fatigue level of the practitioner, and communication with staff while charting. He emphasized that the X rays are only part of the diagnostic process, and clinical examination of the patient is also important. In short, the patient in this case was seen by two dentists and his X rays reviewed by four. With respect to tooth 20, Dr. Zapert found no evidence of interproximal decay, Dr. Wagner saw one suspicious area on the distal surface of tooth 20 that should be monitored but not treated; Dr. Grimaldi saw a “strong hint” of demineralization where tooth 20 touches tooth 19, and Dr. Smith diagnosed interproximal decay and recommended an amalgam filling. With respect to tooth 28, Drs. Zapert and Wagner saw no evidence of interproximal decay, Dr. Grimaldi felt that there was a suggestion of interproximal decay, although not as clear as the other teeth at issue, and Dr. Smith diagnosed interproximal decay and recommended amalgam fillings. With respect to tooth 29, Drs. Zapert and Wagner saw no evidence of interproximal decay, Dr. Grimaldi felt that was clear evidence of interproximal decay (it being, in his opinion, the worst of the three), and Dr. Smith diagnosed interproximal decay and recommended amalgam fillings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 21st day of October, 2013.
