Findings Of Fact The Parties stipulated to the fact that Dr. Moore was a dentist, licensed by the State Board, holding license number 1464, issued by the State Board. The Parties further stipulated that the facts alleged in the Board's complaint were accurate as of the date of filing. Dr. Ackel testified concerning professional practices. It is a part of the professional services of a dentist to fill out forms necessary for insurance coverage, although they may charge a fee for the time required to do so. The time required to fill out such forms, which are in the main prepared by clerical personnel in the dentist's office, varies from fifteen to forty-five minutes, to include the dentist's time taken to review the entries. The failure to prepare the forms results in nonpayment or delayed payment of insurance claims to the patient. Dr. Moore had delayed over a year the preparation and submission of the forms on the patients involved in this complaint. Dr. Ackel said this was the first such complaint that the Broward County Dental Association has had in his eight-year association with the Association's board which investigates patient complaints. Dr. Moore, having been cautioned about his rights in this case, took the stand and testified that he had had multiple personal problems beginning in 1973. These problems included within a two-year period a personal bankruptcy, a son who flunked out of medical school at the halfway point and subsequently was critically ill with ulcers, another son who suffered a mental depression which resulted in his hospitalization, a reduction in his office staff, and a separation from his wife who also worked in his office. While Dr. Moore acknowledged his ultimate responsibility for the failure to process the insurance forms involved, he did request the Board to consider the foregoing facts in mitigation. Dr. Moore's office is currently a one-man office with one receptionist who has been with the Doctor for twenty-two (22) years. There has been an increase recently in dental insurance claims; and Dr. Moore, who is an older dentist who had a good professional reputation in the community until these incidents, has apparently not adjusted his office administration to keep pace with the changes. This, together with his various personal problems, prevented him from attending to these important matters. Dr. Ackel stated that Dr. Moore had been suspended from the County Association for ninety (90) days as a result of its investigation and findings; however, that this suspension did not cause Dr. Moore to submit the forms. Dr. Moore apologized to all the parties concerned, indicated that he was acting immediately to hire additional personnel in his office, and that all the insurance forms in his office would be filled out and submitted immediately. The Hearing Officer notes, however, that the statements of Dr. Moore's patients indicate he had made similar assurances to his patients.
Recommendation The Dental Board's interest in this case is apparently twofold: To rectify the existing situation and enable Dr. Moore's patients to obtain reimbursement, and To prevent any further failures of this type by Dr. Moore. The Hearing Officer would recommend the following Board action based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: Dr. Moore's license be suspended for three to six months, said suspension or a portion thereof to be held in abeyance or suspended upon Dr. Moore's doing the following: Immediately filing the insurance forms involved here, with copies to the Board, and Permitting and reimbursing, if necessary, a representative or designee of the Dental Board with a reputation for effective office management within the profession to inspect Dr. Moore's office and make a written report to Dr. Moore and the Board suggested ways of improving his office management to prevent a recurrence of this type of failure. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of September, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Haldane Taylor, Esquire 605 Florida Theatre Building 128 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Castles W. Moore, D.D.S. 852 N. E. 20th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to change his dental benefit election in the State Group Insurance Program for the 2016 plan year.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was an employee of the Department of Management Services (DMS) and was a participant in the State Group Insurance Program.2/ Petitioner was enrolled in dental benefit coverage for the 2015 plan year. Each year during open enrollment, program participants may elect new benefits or change benefits for which they are enrolled. Open enrollment usually occurs during a two-week period in the fall of each year. Benefits, including insurance plans, are administered by a private contractor, Northgate Arinso, through an online system known as “People First.” Petitioner intended to change his dental insurance coverage during the open enrollment period for the 2016 plan year. On October 21, 2015, Petitioner logged on to the People First website and viewed the “Change My Benefits” screen. Petitioner had researched the various coverages available well in advance of enrollment, and knew he wanted to enroll in a preferred provider plan offered by Humana. Petitioner found the plan he was seeking and selected “next” from prompts on the computer screen. Petitioner remembers next selecting “confirm” from the screen prompts, and reported that the next, and last, computer screen he saw was the People First home screen. Petitioner did not review a confirmation of benefits statement confirming his intended change in dental benefits. Petitioner then viewed the page displaying his current benefits, which showed the same dental coverage he had for the 2015 plan year. Petitioner asked his co-worker, Alison Bonnell, when the system would reflect his change in dental coverage, and she replied that it would not change until January 2016. Petitioner asked his supervisor, Heather Cleary, how he could view the change he had made. Ms. Cleary, who was new to DMS, stated she did not know, but suggested Petitioner contact human resources if he needed assistance. Petitioner made no further inquiries regarding his dental benefits until January 1, 2016, when he logged in to People First and viewed the “My Benefits” page, which showed the same dental coverage in which he was enrolled for the 2015 plan year. Petitioner alleges that he effectively changed his dental coverage for the 2016 plan year, but that, due to an error in the People First system, his election was not saved. Petitioner now seeks to change his dental benefit effective for the 2016 plan year. During open enrollment for the 2016 plan year, the People First website required all eligible participants to first complete a process verifying their mailing and email addresses, then certifying their dependents. Following completion of that confirmation and verification process, the system presented participants with the home screen from which participants could choose from a number of tabs, including “Health & Insurance.” The Health & Insurance page provided the following options: General Benefits Information Go to the MyBenefits website for your insurance options. Your Benefits Review your current and past benefits. Insurance Companies See contact information. Your Dependents’ Information View and update dependents’ information. Change My Benefits Makes changes with a qualifying event. Click here for open enrollment. Benefit Premium History Review your insurance payment history. Benefits Materials View and request insurance forms and booklets. Confirmation Statement View your confirmation statement. If a participant selected “Change My Benefits,” the participant was presented with a screen to choose the event triggering enrollment--new hire or open enrollment. Selecting “open enrollment” revealed an enrollment summary screen with a chart listing the categories of “health,” “basic life,” “optional life,” “dental,” and “vision” coverage in the left- hand column. If the participant was enrolled in one of the options, the chart listed the name of the plan in which they are enrolled in the middle column, and, in a column titled “make a change,” the participant could select “cancel” to cancel that coverage. For all other options, the participant could select “add” in the “make a change” column to enroll in a plan. If a participant selected the option to “add” a plan, they were navigated to a screen which displayed all the choices for that type of coverage, in this case dental coverage. Once a coverage plan was selected, the program prompted the participant to “complete enrollment.” At the bottom of the enrollment summary screen, participants were presented with the following statement: By selecting “Complete Enrollment,” I hereby certify that the information entered is true and correct and that all dependents listed above are eligible. I understand that my elections can only be changed during Open Enrollment or as the result of a Qualifying State Change event as defined by the Internal Revenue Code and/or the Florida Administrative Code. I agree to notify People First of any QSC events within the prescribed time frame and to supply the appropriate supporting documentation upon request; otherwise, any requested changes will not be allowed. If any dependent is determined to be ineligible or I fail to notify People First of a loss of elibility or any supporting documentation is not provided upon request, I understand that I may be liable for any and all claims paid for any dependent deemed ineligible. Following this statement was a box in which the participant must enter his or her password and select “Complete Enrollment.” Upon selecting “Complete Enrollment,” participants were notified that a confirmation statement was available in the People First system for his or her review. A participant must have returned to the home screen and selected “Confirmation Statement” to view the statement to confirm any change in his or her elections. Petitioner testified that he did not enter his People First password to complete his enrollment on October 21, 2015. Rather, Petitioner reported that, because he was redirected to the People First home screen after selecting the dental plan option he was seeking, he was not prompted to complete his enrollment. Petitioner did not select the “Confirmation Statement” tab and review any statements in the system for his account. Petitioner did select the “My Benefits” tab, which confirmed the same dental coverage which he had selected for the 2015 plan year. Petitioner did not contact the People First service center for assistance. Dwayne Purifoy has served as operations manager for Northgate Arinso for 12 years. Mr. Purifoy oversees the operation of the People First program. Mr. Purifoy admitted that if the People First program “timed out” during the selection process, the participant would not receive a notification to that affect, and any changes the participant made would not be saved. The People First program records participant interactions with the system, including when a participant logs in, views benefits, and changes benefits. The system record shows that Petitioner logged in to the “Change My Benefits” page on October 21, 2015. The system does not contain a record that Petitioner changed any of his selected benefits during the open enrollment period. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Petitioner, despite his intentions to the contrary, did not complete a change to his dental benefit election under the State Group Insurance Program for the 2016 plan year. Petitioner did not experience any QSC event during the 2016 plan year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of State Group Insurance, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request to change his dental benefit coverage in the State Group Insurance Program for the 2016 plan year. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 24th day of May, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary' evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: DHRS administers the Program which is jointly funded by the state and federal government under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. The Program is voluntary and is subject to both state and federal laws, rules and regulations. The Program does not reimburse providers such as Dr. Clement for all services rendered. Only those services which are determined to be medically necessary or which the state has determined it wishes to provide are covered by the Program. The services to be rendered and the fees to be paid for those services are set forth in the policy manuals and fee schedules which are given the provider when he enrolls in the Program. Under the Program, the provider files claims in accordance with the policies set forth in the manual. Those claims are computer processed and it is assumed that the provider is submitting the claims in accordance with the policies. The computer system is not programmed to reject all erroneous claims. Therefore, the provider is automatically reimbursed based upon claims submitted. The Program operates on the honor system and must "pay and chase" providers who submit improper claims. Under the Program the state is required to protect the integrity of the Program by reviewing providers for possible fraud and abuse. The Program utilizes a Surveillance Utilization and Review System (SURS) which compares a provider's Medicaid practice with that of his peers. This system takes the provider's computer generated claims history and compares it both quantitatively and qualitatively with the average practice of his peers. When a potential problem is detected, the provider's practice is further reviewed to determine if fraud or abuse has occurred. On November 4, 1983, Dr. Clement signed a provider agreement with DHRS and operated under this provider agreement at all times material to this proceeding. In signing this provider agreement, Dr. Clement agreed to "submit requests for payment in accordance with program policies" and to, "abide by the provisions of the Florida Statutes, policies, procedures, manuals of the Florida Medicaid Program and Federal laws and regulations. In billing under the Program, Dr. Clement is expected to provide services in accordance with generally accepted practices of his profession of dentistry. Those services for which a provider may submit claims are set forth in the Children's Dental Services Manual (HRSM 230-22), a copy of which was provided to Dr. Clement when he entered the Program. In addition to the manual, Dr. Clement was provided with an EDS Billing Handbook which explained the mechanics of submitting a claim. HRSM 230-22 is merely a compilation of procedures for which the Program will reimburse the provider along with the reimbursement rate for each procedure. The manual utilizes procedures and codes utilized by the American Dental Association, is prepared with technical assistance of dental consultants, and is reviewed by various dental associations. The manual is designed for use by dental providers who are knowledgeable in the field of dentistry and are utilizing generally accepted principles of dentistry. In 1985 a SURS Level I Review report, comparing Dr. Clement with his peer group of general dentists providing services to children, indicated possible inappropriate billing of the Program. Because of the nature and extent of the billing problems, Dr. Clement's case was referred to the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (MFCU) of the State of Florida's Auditor General's Office for possible criminal prosecution. DHRS took no further action pending the criminal investigation. Criminal charges were subsequently filed against Dr. Clement as a result of the MFCU investigation and Dr. Clement's case was referred back to the Medicaid Office of Program Integrity for review of nine possible areas of program policy violations which were not part of the criminal prosecution. The Program thereupon conducted its own investigation into possible abuse by Dr. Clement. Using the preliminary investigation done by an HRS dental consultant who reviewed Dr. Clement's practice for MFCU, and the original Level I Review report, a DHRS investigator reviewed ad hoc computer reports of claims submitted by Dr. Clement for specific dental procedures. Based upon the computer analysis of claims submitted, as well as the advice of the dental consultant, the Program identified nine areas of Dr. Clement's practice of Medicaid billing which were not in compliance with Medicaid billing procedures or generally accepted standards of dental practice. On sixty-six occasions, Dr. Clement submitted claims and was paid for procedures such as examinations, prophylaxis and fluoride treatment at intervals of less than six months. HRSM 230-22 recommends that such procedures be performed no more frequently than once every six months, and this recommendation is recognized under generally accepted standards of dentistry. This recommendation is applicable to both private pay patients and Medicaid patients who are generally indigent. Although such treatment may be necessary on occasions at shorter intervals, Dr. Clement offered no evidence to justify the frequency or the necessity of providing such procedures at intervals of less than the recommended six months. On two hundred and eighty six occasions, Dr. Clement improperly filed claims and received payment for consultations. HRSM 230-22 only allows claims for consultations by a dental specialist (oral surgeon, periodontist, endodontist, or prosthodontist). Dr. Clement is not a dental specialist and should not have submitted claims for such procedures. The manual's definition and interpretation of the appropriate billing procedure for consultation services is in accordance with the generally accepted practice of dentistry. On ninety four occasions, Dr. Clement submitted claims and received payment for behavior management and nitrous oxide on the same visit. HRSM 230- 22 only allows claims for behavior management where nitrous oxide is not used. There was no evidence to show that both behavior management and nitrous oxide on the same visit was necessary. On seven occasions, Dr. Clement submitted claims and received payment for extracting more than one first tooth in a given quadrant. HRSM 230-22 provides a fee of $10.00 for the extraction of the first tooth in a given quadrant which is billed on a claim as procedure D7110 whereas each additional tooth extracted in the same quadrant at the same time is reimbursed at the rate of $7.00 and billed on a claim as procedure D7120. The fee for the removal of the first tooth in a given quadrant is higher than the fee for each succeeding tooth in the same quadrant because anesthesia for the first tooth does not have be administered for each succeeding tooth in the same quadrant. Dr. Clement received payment for 117 alveolectomies (a reshaping of the bone) performed on 52 children which is an excessive number. Alveolectomies should only be performed in extreme cases where, without an alveolectomy, the insertion of dentures or partials would be impossible. It is standard dental practice to perform an alveolectomy only where a denture is supplied. Performing an alveolectomy on a child is not a common practice. There was no evidence that Dr. Clement performed the alveolectomies in preparation of insertion of partials or dentures. Dr. Clement filed an excessive number of claims for pulp caps. A pulp cap is a protective material utilized when the pulp of the tooth is exposed (direct pulp cap) or nearly exposed (indirect pulp cap). HRSM 230-22 differentiates a pulp cap from a medicated base. A pulp cap is reimbursable as a separate claim, the medicated base is not. Dr. Clement claimed and received payment for pulp caps 68.7 percent of the time in conjunction with a tooth restoration. There was credible evidence to show that in the generally accepted practice of dentistry, pulp caps are used no more than 5 percent of the time in a tooth restoration. Dr. Clement billed for pulp caps whenever he applied a medicated base, even though the pulp was not exposed or nearly exposed. On one hundred occasions Dr. Clement improperly filed claims and received payment for palliative (emergency) treatment at the same time that he filed a claim and was paid for regular dental treatment. Palliative treatment is used to relieve pain and discomfort on an emergency basis when time and circumstances contra-indicate a more definitive treatment and additional services. In the general accepted practice of dentistry, palliative treatment is used as a temporary measure to assist the patient until such time as regular treatment can be provided. Palliative treatment and any other treatment are mutually exclusive and normally would not be given on the same day. On those occasion where Dr. Clement filed claims and received payment for both palliative treatment and regular treatment on the same day, there is insufficient evidence to show that this treatment was within the generally accepted practice of dentistry. On sixteen occasions Dr. clement improperly filed claims and was paid for prophylaxis, periodontal scaling, and gingival curettage all on the same date of service. Prophylaxis is the standard cleaning of the teeth. Periodontal scaling is a more advanced procedure of cleaning wherein larger deposits of caclculus are removed by scraping. Gingival curretage is a more drastic procedures wherein pockets which have formed between the gum and the teeth are scraped out. While all three procedures are different, they overlap somewhat and it is not a generally accepted practice of dentistry to perform more than one of these procedures at any given time. There was no evidence presented to show that performing all three procedures on the same date was necessary or was within the generally accepted practice of dentistry. Dr. Clement filed an excessive number of claims for gingival curretage. Dr. Clement claimed and received payment for gingival curretage on 14 percent of his patients under the age of 17. In the generally accepted practice of dentistry, the use of gingival curretage on children will not normally exceed 1 percent to 3 percent for ages 10 and under or 3 percent to 6 percent over the age of 10. Although Dr. Clement urged that these claims for gingival curretage had been given prior approval, the evidence showed that the prior approval had been given based on information furnished by Dr. Clement and the dental consultant giving the prior approval did so on that information on a case by case basis and did not know of the excessive use of gingival curretage by Dr. Clement. Based on the nine areas cited for inappropriate billing, there is substantial competent evidence to show that Dr. Clement was not following generally accepted standards of dental practice.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding that Dr. Clement has abused the Florida Medicaid Program and terminating Dr. Clement from participation in the Florida Medicaid Program. Respectfully submitted and entered this 7th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3023 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. 20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 as clarified. 21. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 17 but clarified. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. 9 The first sentence adopted in Finding of Fact 19. The balance is rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore E. Mack, Esquire 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Harold E. Regan, Esquire 308 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, respondent, Peter Kurachek, held a license to practice dentistry, No. DN005429, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Dentistry. In 1983, respondent employed Deborah Burr as a chairside dental assistant. Ms. Burr was not licensed by the State of Florida as a dentist or dental hygienist nor did she hold an expanded duties certificate. During the employment, respondent directed Ms. Burr to cement and remove temporary crowns, fabricate temporary crowns, fabricate temporary bridgework, make adjustments on permanent dentures, and pack retraction cord. All of the foregoing were done without respondent's direct supervision. From a period of 1983 into 1985, respondent employed Craig Marcum as a chairside dental assistant. Mr. Marcum was not licensed by the State of Florida as a dentist or dental hygienist nor did he hold an expanded duties certificate. During this employment, respondent directed Mr. Marcum to cement and remove temporary crowns, fabricate temporary crowns, make adjustments on temporary bridgework, make adjustments on permanent dentures, pack retraction cord, and take opposing impressions for dentures. All of the foregoing were done without respondent's direct supervision. Many patients confused Mr. Marcum as a dentist. But the evidence did not prove that the respondent was aware of this behavior. This behavior became a greater problem when the respondent was opening a Sarasota office between May and December, 1984, and Marcum was in the Venice office under the supervision of other dentists. When the respondent re-assigned a trusted assistant to Venice in September, 1984, she told the respondent that Marcum was referring to himself, and holding himself out, as a dentist. The respondent reprimanded Marcum and had him sign a written promise to cease that behavior. There was no evidence that Marcum continued this behavior after the reprimand. On at least one occasion, Eugena Whitehead, respondent's receptionist, observed Mr. Marcum using a low speed drill inside a patient's mouth. Ms. Whitehead immediately informed respondent of Mr. Marcum's conduct. Respondent took no immediate action but allowed Mr. Marcum to continue using the drill. While in respondent's employ, Mr. Marcum wrote dental prescriptions under respondent's name. But the evidence did not prove that the respondent did not dictate the prescription or, if he did not, that the respondent knew about forged prescriptions. In 1983, respondent employed Pam Anderson as a chairside dental assistant. Ms. Anderson was not licensed by the State of Florida as a dentist or dental hygienist nor did she hold an expanded duties certificate. During this employment, respondent directed Ms. Anderson to cement and remove temporary crowns, fabricate temporary crowns, do temporary fillings, make adjustments on permanent dentures, and pack retraction cord. All of the foregoing were done without respondent's direct supervision. In 1983, respondent employed Patricia M. Lacher as a chairside dental assistant. Ms. Lacher was not licensed by the State of Florida as a dentist or dental hygienist nor did she hold an expanded duties certificate. During this employment, respondent directed Ms. Lacher to cement and remove temporary crowns, fabricate temporary crowns, make adjustments on temporary bridgework, take opposing impressions for permanent dentures, make adjustments on permanent dentures, remove sutures, and pack retraction cord. All of the foregoing were done without respondent's direct supervision. In 1983, respondent employed Gwen Green as a chairside dental assistant. Ms. Green was not licensed by the State of Florida as a dentist or dental hygienist nor did she hold an expanded duties certificate. During this employment, respondent directed Ms. Green to cement and remove temporary crowns, fabricate temporary crowns, make adjustments on temporary bridgework, make adjustments on permanent dentures, and pack retraction cord. All of the foregoing were done without respondent's direct supervision. Through 1983 and 1984, Dr. Kurachek imposed an office policy that dental assistants, not dentists or dental hygienists, perform the duties of packing retraction cord, fabricating temporary crowns and bridges to a dentist's specifications, and adjusting permanent dentures to a dentist's specifications, all without direct supervision. Since some time in 1985, the respondent altered his practices to some extent. He no longer has dental assistants place or remove temporary restorations or cement temporary crowns and bridges or take study impressions unless the dental assistant has an expanded duties certificate and is under direct supervision. He does not allow dental assistants to place or remove or cement or recement permanent crowns or bridges, take final impressions for dentures, pack retraction cord, use a handpiece, or drill, in a patient's mouth or do temporary fillings regardless whether the dental assistant has an expanded duties certificate. He still has dental assistants, with or without the expanded duties certificate, make temporary crowns and bridges to his or another dentist's specifications outside of the mouth and adjust permanent dentures to his or another dentist's specifications, both outside the mouth either in a laboratory or in the operatory which serves as a laboratory and both under the direct supervision of the responsible dentist. The respondent understands that these procedures are legal based on his understanding of what DPR representatives have told dental assistants in his employ.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order: holding the respondent, Peter Kurachek, D.D.S.: (a) guilty as charged of five counts of violating Section 466.028(1)(g) and (aa) (1983), one for each of the dental assistants Burr, Marcum, Lacher, Anderson and Green; and (b) guilty of a sixth count, as charged, for violating Section 466.028(1)(bb) (1983); imposing a $5,000 fine payable within 30 days; suspending the respondent's license for a period of six months; and placing the respondent on probation for one year after reinstatement of his license. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1988.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of misconduct in the practice of dentistry and/or operating a dental office in such a manner that dental treatment provided is below minimum acceptable standards for the community.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Peter Kurachek, Respondent, was licensed as a dentist in Florida and was the owner of American Dental Center, a dental clinic located in Venice, Florida. Commencing in August 1987, Thomas A. Saitta D.D.S., licensed to practice dentistry in Florida, was employed at the American Dental Center as an independent contractor and was so employed at all times relevant hereto. On Friday, April 15, 1988, patient Kim Pierce a/k/a Kim Hendrick entered the American Dental Center complaining of a toothache and was seen by Dr. Saitta. Examination revealed an abscessed tooth for which Dr. Saitta believed root canal therapy was needed. The patient revealed she had no insurance and no money to pay. Nevertheless, Dr. Saitta commenced the root canal, prescribed penicillin for the inflammation, told the patient if the swelling did not subside quickly a serious medical problem would arise and she should then go to the emergency room at the Venice Hospital. The patient Kim Hendrick returned to the dental clinic Saturday, April 16, 1988 and was again seen by Dr. Saitta who gave her a prescription for Keflex for the infection, told her that if the swelling and pain did not subside by evening she should go to the hospital for medical intervention. He also gave her his professional card with his home telephone number she could call for emergency assistance. On the evening of April 16, 1988 at 11:10 p.m. Kim Pierce presented herself at the emergency room at Venice Hospital with a slight temperature, right eye swollen shot and a marked facial cellulitis. The duty emergency room dentist, Dr. John J. Yurosko, an oral and maxillofacial surgeon was called to treat the patient. Dr. Yurosko incised the gum, drained the infected area, advised the patient to continue the Keflex prescribed by Dr. Saitta and to present at his office Monday. After treating the patient Dr. Yurosko telephoned the number for the dental clinic and received no answer. He then, around midnight, from his home called the residence of Respondent whose wife was up and visiting with a neighbor and who answered the telephone. Yurosko asked to speak to Respondent and was told he was in bed asleep. Yurosko asked that Respondent be called to the telephone. When Respondent got on the line Yurosko complained about the patient (Kim) not being able to contact anyone by calling Respondent's office number, as well as Yurosko's failures to get an answer when he called that number. Following his inability to contact the Dental Center and his conversation with the Respondent, Dr. Yurosko, on April 29, 1988, submitted a complaint to the Department of Professional Regulation (Exhibit 4) in which he advised the Department of his involvement with patient Kim Pierce and his inability to contact her treating dentist. During the investigation which followed this complaint the investigator placed several long distance calls from Fort Myers to the number listed for the American Dental Center during the evening hours and received no answer from an answering service or machine. Respondent's witnesses testified that, except for the short period in April when telephone work was being done in the office clinic, the answering machine was operable. Respondent was able to offer no satisfactory explanation for the investigator's failure to receive an answer when the Dental Center's number was dialed during evening hours. During the period around April 15, 1988, work was being performed rerouting telephone lines at American Dental Center and the telephone answering machine was not working. This fact was known to Respondent and other staff members at the dental center. Respondent had directed the other dentists, including Saitta, to be sure they provided the patients treated during this period with the dentist's home telephone number in case emergency treatment was needed. Additional cards were provided the receptionist to give the telephone number of their treating dentist to the patients when they checked out of the dental center.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED: that all charges preferred against Peter Kurachek D.D.S. in the administrative complaint filed July 28, 1989 be dismissed. ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8 day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-0187 Petitioner proposed findings are accepted except the following: 15 Rejected as uncorroborated hearsay. 19-21 Dr. Yurosko was accepted as an expert in dentistry and oral surgery--not in dental office procedures or what constitutes adequate emergency services as that phrase is used in Rule 21G- 17.004 Florida Administrative Code. Accordingly, his interpretation of the rule constitutes a legal opinion rather than a dental opinion and, as much, is entitled to little weight. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Janine Bamping, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Peter Kurachek 3920 Bee Ridge Road Sarasota, FL 34233
Findings Of Fact Respondents Respondent, John A. Rowe, D.D.S., received his license to practice dentistry in the State of Florida on or about July 30, 1982 and has been so licensed continuing to the present under license #DN 009364. Since 1977, Dr. Rowe has been board-certified in oral and maxillofacial surgery and he practices in that specialty. Dr. Rowe's license to practice dentistry in the State of Tennessee was suspended on or about October 3, 1983, and was reinstated on or about September 28, 1984. He neglected to inform the State of Florida Board of Dentistry of that disciplinary action, although he did provide to the Board a copy of the civil complaint when he applied for licensure in Florida. In early 1985, Dr. Rowe moved his practice from Tennessee to central Florida and began working with Dr. Frank Murray. During the time that he treated the patients at issue in this proceeding, Dr. Rowe was a salaried employee and part owner of a clinic, Central Florida Dental Association, in Kissimmee, Florida. He now has his own practice in Kissimmee. Ralph E. Toombs, D.D.S., has at all times relevant to this proceeding been licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida under license #DN 007026. During the period in question, 1988, Dr. Toombs was an associate at Central Florida Dental Association. The Clinic and its Procedures During the relevant period, 1988-89, Central Florida Dental Association, P.A., was owned by a group of dentists who actively practiced at the clinic. Dr. Frank Murray was the majority shareholder and President. Dr. Rowe was a shareholder; Dr. Toombs owned no interest and was an associate. The dentist/owners were under employment contracts and received salaries. By all accounts, Dr. Murray made the operational decisions affecting the clinic and its patients. He admitted that shareholders' votes were based on percentage of ownership. (Tr.-p.114) Dr. Murray set the fees for billing and reviewed patients' files. The procedures for billing were computerized. Clerical staff in the insurance department filled out claim forms that were signed in blank by the dentists, or they signed the dentists' names to the forms. Around 1987 or 1988, Dr. Murray acquired computerized diagnostic equipment for the clinic. At first Dr. Toombs, who was trained and familiar with the equipment, performed the testing. Later, Dr. Murray hired Maggie Collins to operate the equipment. Maggie Collins administered the diagnostic tests to the patients at issue in this proceeding. By the time Dr. Rowe left Central Florida Dental Association in 1989, his relationship with Dr. Murray had deteriorated, giving rise to acrimonious litigation. Patient Records After Dr. Rowe left, he had no further access to, or control over the dental records for the eight patients at issue in this proceeding. These Central Florida Dental Association records were at all times maintained under the case, custody and control of Dr. Murray and his employees. When the records were subpoenaed by the Department of Professional Regulation, copies of the records were provided and the clinic employees certified that the records provided were complete. They were, in fact, not complete, as approximately 426 additional pages were included in the originals subpoenaed by counsel for Dr. Rowe, which pages had not been provided to DPR. Many of the documents not copied for DPR related to billings. In some instances Dr. Rowe's daily reports or consultations were missing from the original records and from the copies. And, in at least one case the original record contains an entirely different version of a specific radiology consultation conducted by Dr. Rowe on 5/3/89. (Compare Rowe Exhibit #2 with Pet. Exh. #5-1). No evidence was provided to conclusively explain the discrepancies, and the records themselves are an unreliable source of evidence with regard to the allegations that Dr. Toombs failed to maintain adequate records for patient J.T. Her file contains only one X-ray from Central Florida Dental Association, and no explanation of tests, diagnoses or the continuing contacts she remembers with Dr. Toombs. The patient specifically remembers more than one X-ray being done at the clinic. The Patients At various times during 1987, 1988 and 1989, Dr. Rowe was consulted by these patients: H.W., E.M., M.Z., R.P.V., H.D., R.M. and S.R. Each had been involved in an automobile accident or other traumatic injury and each complained of headaches, pain, dizziness, and other symptoms. After examination and throughout a course of testing and treatment, these various diagnoses of TMJ disorders by Dr. Rowe were commonly found in the above patients: trismus, closed lock, and mandibular atrophy. While other diagnoses were made in the individual cases, the evidence at hearing and Petitioner's proposed recommended order address only these. Patient J.T. first consulted Dr. Toombs in August 1988, after suffering headaches which she understood from her regular dentist and her physician might be caused by dental overbite. She had a friend who had some work done by Dr. Toombs, so she looked him up in the yellow pages under "orthodontics" and made an appointment. After testing and X-rays and a brief consultation with Dr. Rowe, J.T. understood that Drs. Toombs and Rowe were suggesting jaw joint replacement, removal of some teeth and braces. She was advised to get another opinion and she returned to a prior treating physician. She did not follow up with treatment from Dr. Toombs or Rowe. Testing In addition to being administered X-rays, the above patients were tested on myotronics equipment at Central Florida Dental Association by Maggie Collins, a trained diagnostic testing operator hired by Dr. Frank Murray. Myotronics is electronic equipment developed by a Seattle, Washington company over the last twenty years. The equipment is used in diagnosis and sometimes treatment of TMJ functions, and includes sonography, which records the vibration of sound; electromyography (EMG), which measures the electrical activities of the muscles of the face; and computerized mandibular scanning (CMS), which measures a range and velocity of mandibular movement, i.e., the opening and closing of the jaw. Myotronics can also include a device like a TENS unit used for pulsating. The machines produce printouts which are available for interpretation later by the appropriate professional. On each occasion of administering the myotronics tests to the patients at issue, Maggie Collins was alone, undirected by Dr. Toombs, Dr. Rowe or other clinic staff. She utilized testing procedures she had been taught and had used in her prior dental clinic experience and which she continues to use in the clinic where she now works. In some cases, Ms. Collins administered the same tests twice on a single visit. In those cases, after the first series, the patient was pulsated with a TENS before the series was administered again to measure the effectiveness of the pulsating. This is a standard practice. The full testing takes two and a half to three hours. Diagnoses The TMJ, or temporomandibular joint of the jaw, is between the temporo bone and the mandible. A disc is between the condyle (bone) and the fossa (socket). As the mouth is opened, the bone moves and the disc moves slightly at first, until the mouth is opened wider and the disc rotates around the axis of the condyle. According to Respondent Rowe's TMJ expert witness, John Biggs, D.D.S., and as evidenced by the testimony of all of the experts in this proceeding, terminology in TMJ is open to interpretation and there is not a complete union of agreement on every single thing in the field of TMJ. (tr.-p.790) "Closed lock" can legitimately mean that the disc is out of place and is not recaptured as the mouth is closed. The term, "closed lock", can also be applied to the mandible, meaning the jaw does not open normally because it meets resistance from muscle spasm or tissue impediment from the disc. An acute closed lock would impede the opening more than a chronic condition, as the mandible may, over time, stretch the ligaments. An acute closed lock could limit the mandibular opening to 21, 25 or even 27 mm; whereas a chronic closed lock might allow an opening of up to 40 mm, and sometimes more, according to Petitioner's expert, Dr. Abdel-Fattah (rebuttal deposition, 12/2/92, p.71). The patients' files in evidence reveal findings of limited mandibular openings from a variety of sources, including manual and electronic measurement. Those openings are well within the ranges described above for closed lock and most are within the "acute closed lock" range. Another term for "closed lock" is "anterior displacement of the disc without reduction". This means the disc is not recaptured on the condyle. When a sonogram reflects sounds or clicking in the joint, analysis of those sounds is helpful in diagnosing TMJ disorders. Literature appended by Petitioner to the rebuttal deposition of its expert supports Dr. Moretti's opinion that the presence of clicks can still mean that a closed lock exists. (Pet. #3 to deposition of Reba A.Abdel-Fattah, pp. 1 and 3, figure 5 Rowe Ex. #10, p.18) Trismus is more appropriately designated a symptom rather than a diagnosis. It means spasm of the muscles of mastication. The pain of the symptom often interferes with the opening of the mandible, and for that reason, trismus is sometimes used to also denote "limited opening". It is apparent from the patient records that Dr. Rowe used the term interchangeably, and for that reason, findings of trismus where a patient is able to open to 40 mm are not inconsistent. Moreover, trismus as a symptom may be more or less pronounced under a variety of circumstances on different occasions with the same patient. For example, the patient may experience severe trismus upon rising in the morning and find that it subsides later. Mandibular atrophy is indicated by bone loss. Reviewing the same X- rays for patient E.M., Petitioner's and Respondent Rowe's experts came to opposite conclusive opinions as to whether Dr. Rowe's diagnosis of this condition in E.M. was proper. Mandibular atrophy was also diagnosed in patient S.R., but Dr. Fattah did not find a problem with that diagnosis. Treatment Dr. Rowe's treatment of the patients in issue included closed manipulation and the insertion of orthodic splints. Both are noninvasive, conservative procedures. Petitioner alleges that closed manipulation was unnecessary in the absence of closed lock, and that the method of insertion of the splints by Dr. Rowe was improper. Closed manipulation of the mandible, sometimes called "closed reduction", is manual manipulation to attempt to recapture the disc. The procedure can be done several ways, one of which is to approach the patient from the back, place the hands on the mandible and relax the mandible to where it can be opened, moving the disc into place. The patient is in a supine, or reclined, position in the dental chair. Once the disc is manually repositioned, it is important to keep the patient from closing back on his posterior teeth and losing the disc again. To avoid this, an orthodic splint is inserted and fitted in the patient's mouth. Even when manipulation does not unlock the mandible, the practitioner might want to place the splint for support. The splint can be placed with the patient sitting erect or reclined. Dr. Rowe generally places the splint while the patient is reclined in the dental chair. Adjustments may be made after the splint is initially placed and the patient is sometimes seen twice on the same day or on a weekly basis. Because it is important for the patient to be relaxed, the supine or reclining position is preferred. Insurance Claims Insurance claims at Central Florida Dental Association were handled by clerical staff in a separate department. Claim forms were commonly signed by those staff for the treating dentist, but there is no evidence that the signatures were authorized for any specific claim. Another wholly inappropriate practice at the clinic was to have the dentists sign blank forms to be filled out later. Dr. Rowe testified that Dr. Murray required that they do this, and that he did sign blank forms. Those forms include this printed statement over the signature line: NOTICE: Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing, that the facts alleged are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that the treatment and services rendered were reasonable and necessary with respect to the bodily injury sustained. (Pet. Ex. 12) There is no evidence that Dr. Rowe or Dr. Toombs filled out the claim forms in issue, or were involved in the ultimate decisions as to how much and when to bill an insurance company. In several instances, the forms reflect that tests were billed twice on the same day. As found above, tests were commonly administered twice in one day, for valid reasons. Whether the billing for such was proper was simply not addressed by any competent testimony in this proceeding. Patients' insurance companies were also billed for TENS units. H.W. was given this equipment at the clinic and he testified that he still has it. There is no evidence that any billing for TENS units was fraudulent or improper. Advertising In 1988, the Osceola County telephone directory Yellow Pages listed Dr. Toombs under "Dentists-Orthodontics". There is no evidence that anyone other than Dr. Murray was involved with the placement of that listing. Dr. Toombs is a general dentist who practices orthodontics. He is a member of various orthodontic societies. Petitioner's expert witness, Dr. Lilly, confirmed that a general practitioner of dentistry may practice some orthodontics. There is no evidence that Dr. Toombs has held himself out or limited his practice to being an orthodontist. Weighing the Evidence and Summary of Findings Competent reasonable experts testified on behalf of both Petitioner and Respondent Rowe. It is clear that, as Dr. Biggs observed, terminology in the field of TMJ is not as precise and uniform as Dr. Fattah would suggest. Some of the differences in opinion are attributed to that imprecision, and perhaps to quirks in Dr. Rowe's narratives which portray a surgical setting for a nonsurgical procedure, for example, "draping the patient" or "surgical splint". Dr. Rowe, as an oral surgeon, nonetheless, proceeded reasonably in his sequence of diagnosis and treatment; that is, he attempted conservative, noninvasive modalities before going to more invasive procedures such as arthoscopy and surgery. Other differences in opinion and in the way the computerized test results are interpreted are more difficult to resolve. Dr. Rowe contends that Dr. Fattah misread the printed data, confusing vertical with horizontal readings. Dr. Fattah uses myotronic equipment, but not the older model that was used for the tests at issue. The greater weight of evidence supports Respondent Rowe's diagnoses of the patients at issue. Since the allegations of inappropriate and unnecessary treatment are based on allegations of misdiagnosis, Petitioner's proof fails here as well. The further testing, the closed manipulation and insertion of the splints were appropriate follow up for the findings of TMJ disorders by Dr. Rowe. With one exception, it was the insurance companies and not the patients who complained. The records from Central Florida Dental Association reflect substantial billings and insurance form submittals for Dr. Rowe's and Dr. Toombs' patients, but no evidence of these Respondents' responsibility or involvement in the process. The clinic functions were performed in discrete departments under the overall management and control of Dr. Murray. There was no evidence that either Dr. Rowe or Dr. Toombs exercised influence over any patient so as to exploit the patient for personal financial gain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent Rowe be found guilty of violating Section 466.028(1)(b), (1983), and a fine of $250.00 be imposed; and that the remaining charges as to Respondents Rowe and Toombs be dismissed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 2nd day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 91-3213, 91-6022 AND 91-5362 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Adopted in paragraph 1. 2.-3. Adopted in paragraph 2. 4. Rejected as unnecessary. The statute is addressed in the Conclusions of Law. 5.-6. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 9.-13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 14.-15. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 18.-23. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 24.-25. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. 26. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 27.-30. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 31. Adopted in paragraph 27. The referenced exhibit #33 is Dr. Lilly's resume and does not support the proposed finding. 32.-34. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 35.-36. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. 37. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 38.-42. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 43.-44. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. 45. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 46.-49. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 50.-51. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 54.-58. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The reference to exhibit #33 is incorrect. 59.-60. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in summary in paragraphs 16 and 26. 63.-67. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 68. Adopted in paragraph 4. 69.-70. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in part in paragraph 34, otherwise rejected as to Respondent's involvement in the advertisement. Adopted in paragraph 35. 73.-74. Rejected as unnecessary. 75.-77. Rejected as unnecessary or unsupported by competent evidence as the absence of these records does not support the finding of a violation under the circumstances. Findings Proposed by Respondent Rowe Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. 3.-4. Adopted in paragraph 9. 5.-7. Adopted in paragraph 10. 8.-9. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 10. Rejected. The testimony of J.T. is inconclusive in this regard. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as overbroad. The records received were reliable for a limited purpose. 15.-16. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as immaterial. Respondent admitted the violation. Adopted in part in paragraph 2, otherwise rejected as immaterial (see paragraph 17, above) Adopted in paragraph 32, in substance. Adopted in substance in paragraph 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected in part as unsubstantiated by the record (as to whether Rowe received any benefit other than salary), otherwise adopted in paragraph 6. 23.-24. Adopted in paragraph 6. 25. Adopted in paragraph 41. 26.-27. Adopted in paragraph 37. Adopted in paragraph 41. Adopted in paragraph 29. Adopted in substance in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 23. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 24. 34.-37. Rejected as unsupported by conclusive evidence. The witness was at times confused in his haste. He does not know this particular equipment but it is not clear from the record that he was reading the data wrong. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraph 23. Adopted in paragraphs 37 and 38. Adopted in paragraph 33. Rejected in part, adopted in part (see conclusions of law). Finding of Fact Recommended by Respondent Toombs Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 14. 4.-5. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 36. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 35. 9.-11. Rejected as unnecessary. 12. Adopted in paragraph 5. 13.-18. Rejected as unnecessary. 19. Adopted in paragraph 12. 20.-26. Rejected as unnecessary. 27. Adopted in paragraph 41. COPIES FURNISHED: William Buckhalt, Executive Director Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Albert Peacock, Sr. Atty. Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth Brooten, Jr. 660 W. Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, FL 32789 Ronald Hand 241 E. Ruby Ave., Ste. A Kissimmee, FL 34741
The Issue Whether Ronald M. Marini, D.M.D., P.A. (Respondent), received Medicaid overpayments that the Agency for Health Care Administration is entitled to recover; and whether sanctions and costs should be imposed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Medicaid program (Medicaid) is a federal and state partnership that funds health care services for qualified individuals. Petitioner is the state agency charged with administering Medicaid in Florida. Petitioner is legally authorized to monitor the activities of Medicaid providers and to recover “overpayments.” Overpayments include reimbursement for services that are not medically necessary, as verified by records existing at the time of service. Petitioner is also empowered to impose sanctions and recover costs against offending providers. During all times relevant hereto, Respondent was a Florida Medicaid provider authorized to provide dental care to Medicaid beneficiaries and to receive reimbursement for covered services. The dental practice of Ronald M. Marini, D.M.D., P.A., is owned by Ronald M. Marini, D.M.D. Dr. Marini has continuously practiced dentistry since graduating in 1967 from the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine. Dr. Marini’s practice focuses primarily on the treatment of children who have dental coverage through Medicaid. Dr. Marini is not board-certified in any specialty. Pursuant to what is commonly referred to as the “pay- and-chase” system, Petitioner pays Medicaid providers under an honor system for services rendered to Medicaid recipients. If Petitioner subsequently determines that the provider was paid for services rendered which were not in compliance with Medicaid requirements, then Petitioner seeks reimbursement from the provider. The Medicaid Provider Agreement is a voluntary contract between Petitioner and a Medicaid provider. Paragraph 3 of the Medicaid Provider Agreement states that “[t]he provider agrees to comply with local, state, and federal laws, as well as rules, regulations, and statements of policy applicable to the Medicaid program, including the Medicaid Provider Handbooks issued by AHCA.” During the audit period, Respondent was an enrolled Medicaid provider and had a valid Medicaid Provider Agreement with Petitioner. By correspondence to Respondent dated February 27, 2014, Petitioner requested records related to claims billed to Medicaid by Respondent for the audit period March 1, 2010, through August 31, 2012. Respondent provided documents in response to Petitioner’s request for records. Petitioner completed a review of the records that Respondent submitted, and on July 9, 2014, issued a Preliminary Audit Report (PAR). Petitioner advised in the PAR that it believed Respondent was overpaid in the amount of $590,008.15. In response to the PAR, Respondent submitted additional information to the Agency. After receipt and evaluation of Respondent’s additional information, Petitioner issued its FAR finding that Respondent was overpaid $590,008.15 during the audit period (later reduced to $513,246.91). The FAR also informed Respondent that Petitioner was imposing a fine of $118,001.63 as a sanction for violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(7)(e), and was seeking reimbursement of costs in the amount of $2,223.64. The FAR states six grounds on which Petitioner seeks to recoup monies paid to Respondent, and provides as follows: The 2007 and 2011 Dental Services Coverage and Limitations Handbooks, page 2-2, specify that Medicaid reimburses for services that are individualized, specific, consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury under treatment, not in excess of the recipient's needs, and reflect the level of services that can be safely furnished. A review of your records by a peer consultant revealed that the level of service for some claims submitted was not supported by the documentation. The appropriate code was applied and the payment adjusted. Payments made to you for these services, in excess of the adjusted amount, are considered an overpayment. The 2008 Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook, pages 5-8 and 2-57, defines incomplete records as records that lack documentation that all requirements or conditions for service provision have been met. A review of your records revealed that documentation for some services for which you billed and received payment was incomplete or not provided. Payments made to you for these services are considered an overpayment. The 2008 Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook, page 5-4, states that when presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to present a claim for goods and services that are medically necessary. A review of your records revealed that the medical necessity for some claims submitted was not supported by the documentation. Payments made to you for these services are considered an overpayment. The 2008 Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook, page 5-4, requires that when presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to present a claim that is true and accurate and is for goods and services that have actually been furnished to the recipient. A review of your records revealed that some services were double billed. Payments made to you for these services are considered an overpayment. The 2008 Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook, page 5-4, requires that when presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to present a claim that is true and accurate and is for goods and services that have actually been furnished to the recipient. A review of your records revealed that some services rendered were erroneously coded. The appropriate code was applied and the payment adjusted, if applicable. Payments made to you for these services, in excess of the adjusted amount, are considered an overpayment. The 2007 and 2011 Dental Services Coverage and Limitations Handbooks, pages 2- 34 and 2-35 respectively, limit reimbursement for restorative services to essential services necessary to restore and maintain dental health; one restoration per tooth surface except for the occlusal surface of permanent maxillary 1st and 2nd molars; one resin restoration for a mesial or distal lesion; and one posterior one-surface resin restoration every three years per tooth number or letter per tooth surface. A review of your dental records revealed that you billed and received payment for a restoration in excess of the maximum. Payment made to you for this service is considered an overpayment. Mark Kuhl, D.M.D., was offered and accepted as Petitioner's expert in the areas of rendering dental care and dental medical necessity with respect to Medicaid overpayment cases. Dr. Kuhl was also offered and accepted as a peer reviewer pursuant to section 409.9131, Florida Statutes. Since 1985, Dr. Kuhl has been continuously licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida. Dr. Kuhl is not board-certified in any specialty and operates a general dentistry practice where he treats pediatric patients. W. Michael Ingalls, D.D.S., was offered and accepted as Respondent's “expert in dentistry with a focus on pediatric dentistry.” Dr. Ingalls was not, however, recognized as an expert as to matters pertaining to Medicaid coding for services rendered. Dr. Ingalls has practiced dentistry continuously since graduating from the University of Washington School of Dentistry in 1984. Dr. Ingalls has been board-certified by the American Board of Pediatric Dentistry since 1997. Dr. Ingalls has owned and operated his own pediatric dental practice in Lake Mary, Florida, since 1987. During the audit period, there were two versions of the Florida Medicaid Provider General Handbook in effect. As applied to the instant dispute, there are no material differences between the two General Handbooks so, unless otherwise indicated, they will collectively be referred to as the General Handbook. During the audit period, there were also two versions of The Florida Medicaid Provider Dental Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook in effect. As applied to the instant dispute, there are no material differences between the two Dental Handbooks so, unless otherwise indicated, they will collectively be referred to as the Dental Handbook. Missing or Incomplete Documentation The General Handbook provides, in part, as follows: When presenting a claim for payment under the Medicaid program, a provider has an affirmative duty to . . . present a claim . . . that is for goods and services that . . . [a]re documented by records made at the time the goods or services were provided demonstrating the medical necessity for the goods or services rendered. Medicaid goods or services are excessive or not medically necessary unless both the medical basis and the specific need for them are fully and properly documented in the recipient’s medical record. The General Handbook also provides that “[m]edical records must state the necessity for and the extent of services provided [and] the following requirements may vary according to the service rendered: Description of what was done during the visit; History; Physical assessment; Chief Complaint on each visit; Diagnostic tests and results; Diagnosis; Treatment plan, including prescription; Medications, supplies, scheduling frequency for follow-up or other services; Progress reports, treatment rendered; The author of each (medical record) entry must be identified and must authenticate his entry by signature, written initials or computer entry; Dates of service; and Referrals to other services. The General Handbook does not define what constitutes a medical record. The General Handbook further provides that a Medicaid provider has an affirmative duty to provide services “in accord with applicable provisions of all Medicaid rules, regulations, handbooks, and policies and in accordance with federal, state and local law.” For the applicable audit period, section 466.018(3), Florida Statutes (2011), required, in part, that “[e]very dentist shall maintain written dental records and medical history records which justify the course of treatment of the patient.” Additionally, section 466.028(1)(m) subjects a dentist to disciplinary action for “[f]ailing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient.” Section 466.018(3) makes clear that dental records and medical history records must justify, or explain why, a particular course of treatment was undertaken by a dental care provider. Respondent utilizes software to capture the services provided to his patients. The software has a “patient notes master” section, which allows the user to post narrative information about a patient, including information related to patient evaluation and insurance claims status. The software also has a “patient chart” section which reflects information such as dates of service, a description of services provided (with Current Dental Terminology codes, hereinafter CDT code(s)), the tooth and surface involved, and the treatment status of the affected tooth. The patient chart section also has a colorized tooth chart that visually depicts information found in the description, tooth, and surface sections of the patient chart. The “patient notes master” section and all parts of the “patient chart,” collectively and substantively, comprise the patient medical record contemplated by the General and Dental Handbooks, respectively. There is nothing in Petitioner’s rules, regulations, General or Dental Handbooks, or section 466.018(3), that requires patient treatment information to be gleaned only from the patient notes section of a patient’s dental record. Recipient 1 (Not in Patient Notes) On January 14, 2011, patient K.A., who at the time was an existing patient, was treated by Respondent. According to the dental records, Respondent performed a “periodic oral evaluation [CDT code 0120],” took several x-rays, and removed “plaque, calculus and stains from the tooth structures in the primary and transitional dentition [CDT code 1120].” The results of the evaluation revealed that K.A. had “decay” in teeth “S” and “A.” K.A. was given a topical fluoride treatment (CDT code 1203) and oral hygiene instructions (CDT code 1330). Petitioner denied treatment related to CDT codes 1203 and 1330 on the basis that there is no documentation in the “patient notes” to warrant payment for these services. While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for K.A. offers no justification or otherwise documents the need for CDT codes 1203 and 1330, the “patient chart” portion of K.A.’s dental record clearly documents that these services were provided to K.A. Payment for these services should be allowed. On February 15, 2012, K.A. was treated by Respondent. According to the dental record, Respondent performed a “periodic oral evaluation [CDT code 0120],” took several X-rays, and removed “plaque, calculus and stains from the tooth structures in the primary and transitional dentition [CDT code 1120].” The results of the evaluation revealed that K.A. had “decay” in teeth 14, 19 and 30. K.A. was given a topical fluoride treatment (CDT code 1203) and oral hygiene instructions (CDT code 1330). Petitioner denied treatment related to CDT codes 0120, 1203 and 1330 on the basis that there is no documentation in the “patient notes” to warrant payment for these services. While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for K.A. offers no justification or otherwise documents the need for CDT codes 0120, 1203 and 1330, the “patient chart” portion of K.A.’s dental record clearly documents that these services were provided by Respondent to K.A. Payment for these services should be allowed. On March 9, 2012, K.A. was treated by Respondent. According to the patient chart, Respondent applied a resin-based composite to K.A.’s teeth 14, 19 and 30 (CDT codes 2391 and 2392). Petitioner denied payment for treatment related to these services on the basis that there is no documentation in the “patient notes” to warrant payment. While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for K.A. fails to mention that these services were provided, the “patient chart” portion of K.A.’s dental record clearly documents that these services were provided by Respondent to K.A. and payment for these services should be allowed. Recipient 2 (Not in Patient Notes) On April 5, 2011, E.B. was treated by Respondent. According to the dental record, Respondent performed a “comprehensive oral evaluation [CDT code 0145]” and removed “plaque, calculus and stains from the tooth structures in the primary and transitional dentition [CDT code 1120].” E.B. was given a topical fluoride treatment (CDT code 1203) and oral hygiene instructions (CDT code 1330). Petitioner denied payment for the fluoride treatment on the basis that there is no documentation in the “patient notes” for these services. While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for E.B. fails to mention the fluoride treatment, the “patient chart” portion of E.B.’s dental record clearly documents that these services were provided by Respondent to E.B. and payment for these services should be allowed. Recipient 11 (Not in Patient Notes) On April 26 and May 23, 2012, P.D. was treated by Respondent. According to the dental record, Respondent, during these visits, applied “resin-based composite – two surface, posterior [CDT code 2393],” to the distal and occlusal surfaces of teeth 4 and 5, and the mesial and occlusal surfaces of tooth 3. Petitioner denied payment for treatment related to these services on the basis that there is no documentation in the “patient notes” to warrant payment. While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for P.D. fails to mention that these services were provided, the “patient chart” portion of P.D.’s dental record clearly documents that these services were provided and payment for these services should be allowed. Recipient 20 (Not in Record) On February 7, 2012, M.J. was treated by Respondent. According to the dental record, Respondent performed an “extraction, erupted tooth or exposed root [CDT code 7140]” for teeth D and E. Petitioner denied payment for treatment related to these services on the basis that there is no documentation in the patient record to warrant payment. The “patient chart” portion of M.J.’s dental record clearly documents that these services were provided and payment for the same should be allowed. Recipient 23 (Not in Patient Notes) On July 5, 2012, M.M. was treated by Respondent. According to the dental record, Respondent applied a “resin-based composite – three surfaces, anterior [CDT code 2393]” to teeth E and F. The dental record also reflects that behavior management techniques (CDT code 9920) were applied during the procedure. Petitioner denied payment for treatment related to these services on the basis that there is no documentation in the “patient notes” to warrant payment. While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for M.M. fails to mention that these services were provided, the “patient chart” portion of M.M.’s dental record clearly documents that these services were provided and payment for these services should therefore be allowed. Recipient 24 (Not in Patient Notes) On October 19, 2010, A.M. was treated by Respondent. According to the dental record, Respondent applied a “resin-based composite – two surfaces, posterior [CDT code 2392],” to teeth A and J. The dental record also shows that a “pulp cap – indirect [CDT code 3120]” was applied to tooth A. Petitioner denied payment for treatment related to the application of the pulp cap on the basis that there is no documentation of the same in the patient “notes.” While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for A.M. fails to mention the application of a pulp cap, the “patient chart” portion of A.M.’s dental record clearly documents that this service was provided and payment for should therefore be allowed. Recipient 25 (Not in Patient Notes) On February 16, 2011, I.O. was treated by Respondent. According to the dental record, Respondent applied a “resin-based composite – two surfaces, posterior [CDT code 2392],” to the occlusal/lingual and distal/buccal surfaces of tooth A. Petitioner denied payment for these services on the basis that there is no documentation of the same in the “patient notes.” While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for I.O. fails to mention that these services were provided, the “patient chart” portion of I.O.’s dental record clearly documents that these services were provided and payment for the same should be allowed. Recipient 26 (Not in Patient Notes) On November 1, 2010, C.R. was treated by Respondent. According to the dental record, Respondent, during these visits, applied “resin-based composite – one surface, posterior [CDT code 2391],” to the occlusal surfaces of teeth L and S, and both the occlusal and buccal surfaces of teeth K and T. Petitioner denied payment for treatment related to the application of the resin- based composite to the occlusal surface for tooth S on the basis that there is no documentation of this service in the “patient notes.” While it is true that the “patient notes” portion of Respondent’s dental record for C.R. fails to mention that this service was provided, the “patient chart” portion of C.R.’s dental record clearly documents that this service was provided and payment for the same should be allowed. Services Billed at Lower Level The Dental Handbook provides in part that “[a] comprehensive oral evaluation is used by a dentist when evaluating a patient comprehensively. This applies to new patients and to established patients who have a significant change in health conditions or who have been absent from treatment for three or more years.” The Dental handbook also states that “[a] provider may only be reimbursed for a comprehensive oral evaluation once every three years for the same recipient.” Respondent contends that Petitioner erroneously adjusted payment for this service because the comprehensive evaluations were conducted more than three years apart. Recipient 20 – J.M. On February 2, 2012, Respondent treated J.M. For this service date, Respondent billed for a comprehensive oral evaluation (CDT code 0150). According to J.M.’s dental record, Respondent previously performed a comprehensive evaluation on January 5, 2009. J.M.’s dental record also indicates that between these dates, Respondent treated her on seven different occasions. While it is true that the time between comprehensive evaluations is more than three years, Petitioner properly adjusted payment for the February 2, 2012, service because J.M. was not absent from treatment during this interval. Recipient 22 – S.M. On July 18, 2011, Respondent treated S.M. For this service date, Respondent billed for a comprehensive oral evaluation (CDT code 0150). According to S.M.’s dental record, Respondent previously performed a comprehensive evaluation on January 14, 2011. Petitioner adjusted the July 18, 2011, service to a “periodic oral evaluation [CDT code 0120],” which reimburses at a lower rate. Respondent does not dispute that Petitioner properly adjusted the reimbursement rate for this service. Not Medically Necessary Applicable Medicaid regulations require that “medical necessity” be documented by specific records made at the time the services were provided, and that the records fully identify the medical basis and the need for the services. In other words, a provider must document the rationale for conducting a particular service at the time of making the decision to perform the same. Petitioner asserts that Respondent failed to submit sufficient documentation to establish that the disputed charges were for "medically necessary" services. FAR Finding No. 3 involves CDT codes 0240, 0250 and 0260. These codes reflect services for radiograph/diagnostic imaging procedures that “[s]hould be taken only for clinical reasons as determined by the patient’s dentist.” According to the Dental Handbook, these radiographs will not, however, be reimbursed for caries (decay) detection. The Dental Handbook also states that “[r]eimbursement for a complete series of intraoral radiographs is limited to once in a three (3) year period, per recipient.” Petitioner asserts that Respondent failed to establish that the use of CDT codes 0240, 0250, and 0260 was medically necessary for certain claims related to patients 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14, 20, 22, 26, 31, and 32. Respondent contends that services related to the disputed charges were necessary to monitor growth and development and screen for oral pathology because children’s dentition is rapidly changing during early adolescence. In other words, Respondent suggests that medical necessity exists for the radiographs essentially for no other reason than because the child is of a particular age. According to Dr. Kuhl, the ADA Guidelines, which are authoritative and instructive, provide that for radiographs to be medically necessary there should be sufficient documentation in the dental record to indicate the specific, individualized indication for why Respondent billed for the radiograph procedure and any results that were obtained pursuant to that procedure. Dr. Kuhl testified that Respondent’s dental records for each of the disputed claims provide no indication for or need as to why the X-rays were taken. According to Respondent’s expert, Dr. Ingalls, the standard of care for taking occlusal X-rays is that they are to be taken “when there was decay present or trauma had occurred” and that they are not taken simply as screening X-rays. The following testimony from Dr. Ingalls is instructive: Q: Okay. If you were to take an intraoral occlusal radiograph, would you document why you took it? A: I would have a description of what was found from taking it, which would say why you took it. You’d have a reason to take it to begin with and then you write a comment of what was found. Q: And do you write that in the narrative form? A: I have it in the narrative form. Sometimes, again, if I gave you an example, a child comes who’s fallen and hit their front teeth on the floor at home and displaced or broken a tooth or even the parent was concerned with bleeding from the gumline, I would take an occlusal radiograph to record what was there, partly to assure that there was nothing that required treatment and also to provide a baseline for future comparison where I would take future occlusal radiographs to monitor any changes over time. And I would have a record of that traumatic incident, every part of it; where it occurred, how it occurred, all of the examination findings around it on a trauma evaluation and the outcome of the findings in the x-ray and any treatment plan and instructions given to the parent. Q: Would you say that approach to medical records is standard? A: Within my specialty, that is the guideline that is taught to us that we follow so that we do not miss anything. Hearing Transcript pp. 411-413. The opinions of Dr. Kuhl and Dr. Inglass are consistent and provide that a medical basis and need for the X-rays at issue must be established and documented, and that the X-rays in question are not to be used as a screening device as suggested by Respondent. Recipient 1 Recipient 1, K.A., had four claims that were denied as to CDT codes 0240, 0250, and 0260. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of these claims. Recipient 5 Recipient 5, S.C., had a single claim that was denied as to CDT code 0240. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of this claim. Recipient 8 Recipient 8, D.C., had a single claim that was denied as to CDT code 0240. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of this claim. Recipient 9 Recipient 9, D.D., had two claims that were denied as to CDT code 0240. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of these claims. Recipient 10 Recipient 10, G.D., had two claims that were denied as to CDT code 0240. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of these claims. Recipient 14 Recipient 14, E.E., had a single claim that was denied as to CDT code 0240. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of this claim. Recipient 20 Recipient 20, M.J., had six claims that were denied as to CDT codes 0240, 0250, and 0260. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of these claims. Recipient 22 Recipient 22, K.A., had two claims that were denied. Each claim was billed using CDT code 0250. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of these claims. Recipient 26 Recipient 26, C.R., had a single claim that was denied as to CDT code 0240. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of this claim. Recipient 31 Recipient 31, J.R., had two claims that were denied. Each claim was billed using CDT code 0240. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of these claims. Recipient 32 Recipient 32, J.R., had a single claim that was denied as to CDT code 0240. The dental records for this recipient provided no indication why the X-rays needed to be taken. Accordingly, Petitioner properly denied payment of this claim. Erroneous Coding According to the Dental Handbook, “[s]ealants are applied to pits and fissures of permanent teeth to prevent caries [and] [t]he enamel surface of the tooth may be mechanically or chemically[,] or mechanically and chemically prepared.” The Dental Handbook also states that “[s]ealants applied to deciduous (primary) teeth will not be reimbursed by Medicaid.” CDT code D1351 (sealant – per tooth) describes this service as “[mechanically and/or chemically prepared enamel surface sealed to prevent decay.” As for resin restorations, the Dental Handbook provides that “Medicaid may reimburse for . . . [r]esin restorations . . . [and that] [t]he fee for resin restorations includes local anesthesia, tooth preparation, routine lining and base, polishing, and the use of any adhesive, such as amalgam bonding agents.” As a restriction on the use of resin restorations, the Handbook provides that “[r]esin restorations may be used to restore carious lesions that extend into the dentin or areas that are deeply eroded into dentin.” CDT codes 2391/2392 provide that the resin composite is “[u]sed to restore a carious lesion into the dentin or a deeply eroded area into the dentin.” In comparing sealant and resin restoration services, it is evident that sealants are for the enamel surface of the tooth whereas restorations, when undertaken to eliminate carious lesions, are appropriate only when the lesions extend into the dentin. In understanding the sealant and restoration provisions of the Dental Handbook, it is also evident that in order to be reimbursed for either CDT code 2391 or 2392 there must be sufficient justification of carious intrusion into the dentin and in the absence of such justification it may be appropriate to adjust the service to CDT code 1351, unless, of course, the service relates to a deciduous tooth. FAR finding No. 5 involves CDT codes 2391, 2392 and 1351 and applies to recipients 8, 13, 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, and 32. Petitioner, based on Dr. Kuhl’s analysis, adjusted reimbursement for CDT codes D2391 and D2392 downward to CDT code D1351 when the following criteria were present: X-rays did not show any decay, Respondent’s dental record for the recipient did not specifically indicate that any decay was removed, Respondent’s dental record for the recipient stated that only a “flowable” resin was used, and Respondent’s dental record for the recipient did not indicate that anesthesia was used. Dr. Kuhl evaluated the criteria and, when all four were met, he concluded that it was very likely that any decay present did not extend into the dentin as required for CDT code descriptions and applicable Florida Medicaid Handbooks. Dr. Kuhl’s protocol for identifying claims that do not meet the requirements for codes 2391 and 2392 is consistent with the requirements of Florida Medicaid Handbooks and is credited. There are, however, instances where Dr. Kuhl made downward adjustments for claims when, according to the requirements of the Dental Handbook, the claims should not have been paid. Recipient 8 For recipient 8, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code 2391 or 2392 for claims 6 through 11. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl erred, however, in adjusting these claims to CDT code 1351 because the teeth involved in these claims (A, J, K, L, S, and T) are deciduous teeth that are not eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied. In accordance with the Dental Handbook, these claims should be denied. Recipient 13 For recipient 13, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code 2391 or 2392 for claims 8 through 13, 18, 20, 21, and 24 through 26. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl erred, however, in adjusting claims 8, 9, 12, 13, and 24 through 26 to CDT code 1351 because the teeth involved in these claims (A, I, J, K, S, and T) are deciduous teeth that are not eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied. In accordance with the Dental Handbook, these claims should be denied. As for claims 10, 11, 18, 20, and 21, Dr. Kuhl correctly adjusted these claims downward to CDT code 1351 because the permanent teeth involved in these claims are eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied under appropriate circumstances. Recipient 19 For recipient 19, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code 2391 or 2392 for claims 1 through 5. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl erred, however, in adjusting these claims to CDT code 1351 because the teeth involved in these claims (A, B, J, K, and T) are deciduous teeth that are not eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied. In accordance with the Dental Handbook, these claims should be denied. Recipient 22 For recipient 22, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code D2391 or D2392 for claims 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16. This opinion is credited. As for claims 10, 11, 13, and 16, Dr. Kuhl correctly adjusted these claims downward to CDT code 1351 because the permanent teeth involved in these claims are eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied under appropriate circumstances. Claim 15 involved tooth 20, which is not identified in the Dental Handbook as a tooth that is eligible for reimbursement when a sealant is applied. Accordingly, claim 15 should be denied. Recipient 23 For recipient 23, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code D2391 or D2392 for claims 13 through 15, and 17. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl erred, however, in adjusting these claims to CDT code 1351 because the teeth involved in these claims (K, L, S, and T) are deciduous teeth that are not eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied. In accordance with the Dental Handbook, these claims should be denied. Recipient 24 For recipient 24, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code 2391 or 2392 for claims 13, 17, and 21. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl erred, however, in adjusting claims 13 and 17 to CDT code 1351 because the teeth involved in these claims (A and J) are deciduous teeth that are not eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied. In accordance with the Dental Handbook, these claims should be denied. As for claim 21, Dr. Kuhl correctly adjusted this claim downward from CDT code 2392 to CDT code D2940 because the patient record reflects that a sedative filling was applied and not a resin-based composite restoration as billed. Recipient 26 For recipient 26, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code 2391 or 2392 for claims 9 through 11. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl erred, however, in adjusting these claims to CDT code 1351 because the teeth involved (K, L, and T) are deciduous teeth that are not eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied. In accordance with the Dental Handbook, these claims should be denied. Recipient 28 For recipient 28, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code 2391 or 2392 for claims 8, 9, and 11. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl correctly adjusted these claims downward to CDT code 1351 because the permanent teeth involved (3, 14, and 30) are eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied under appropriate circumstances. Recipient 29 For recipient 29, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code 2391 or 2392 for claims 4, 5, 8, and 10. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl erred, however, in adjusting claims 8 and 10 to CDT code 1351 because the teeth involved in these claims (K and T) are deciduous teeth that are not eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied. In accordance with the Dental Handbook, these claims should be denied. As for claims 4 and 5, Dr. Kuhl correctly adjusted these claims downward to CDT code 1351 because the permanent teeth involved in these claims (3 and 19) are eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied under appropriate circumstances. Recipient 32 For recipient 32, Dr. Kuhl determined that Respondent’s dental record for this patient does not support the use of either CDT code 2391 or 2392 for claims 9 through 12, 28, 30, and 32. This opinion is credited. Dr. Kuhl erred however in adjusting claims 11 and 32 to CDT code 1351 because the teeth involved in these claims (J and S) are deciduous teeth that are not eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied. In accordance with the Dental Handbook, these claims should be denied. As for claims 12 and 28, Dr. Kuhl correctly adjusted these claims downward to CDT code 1351 because the permanent teeth involved in these claims (14 and 30) are eligible for reimbursement when sealants are applied under appropriate circumstances. As for claim 30, Dr. Kuhl erred in adjusting this claim downward to CDT code 1351 because it involves tooth 30 which was addressed in claim 12. The Handbook provides that “[s]ealants may be reimbursed once per three years, per tooth.” The date of service for claim 12 is October 19, 2010, and the date of service for claim 30 is March 28, 2012. Claim 30 was not submitted more than three years after claim 12, and it should therefore be denied. Duplicate Claims Certain claims were denied by Petitioner as being duplicates of other claims. These claims relate to FAR finding No. 4, which involves CDT Codes 2391, 2392, and 1351. Recipient 8 For recipient 8, claims 12 and 13 were billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2391 for teeth K and T. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 for services related to these teeth. Because tooth K was addressed in claim 8 (as previously discussed) and tooth T was addressed in claim 11 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that claims 12 and 13 are duplicate claims that should be denied. Recipient 13 For recipient 13, claims 14 through 17, and 19, were billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2391 for teeth K, T, 3 and 30. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 for services related to these teeth. Because tooth K was addressed in claim 12 (as previously discussed), tooth T was addressed in claim 13 (as previously discussed), tooth 3 was addressed in claim 18 (as previously discussed), and tooth 30 was addressed in claim 11 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that claims 14 through 17, and 19 are duplicate claims that should be denied. Recipient 19 For recipient 19, claim 6 was billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2391 for tooth K. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 for services related to this tooth. Because tooth K was addressed in claim 8 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that this claim is a duplicate claim that should be denied. Recipient 22 For recipient 22, claims 12 and 14 were billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2392 for teeth 14 and 15. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 for services related to these teeth. Because the patient record does not support the use of code 2391, it also does not support the use of code 2392. Because tooth 14 was addressed in claim 11 (as previously discussed) and tooth 15 was addressed in claim 13 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that claims 12 and 14 are duplicates that should be denied. Recipient 23 For recipient 23, claim 16 was billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2391 for tooth T. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 for services related to this tooth. Because tooth T was addressed in claim 15 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that this claim is a duplicate that should be denied. Recipient 26 For recipient 26, claims 13 and 14 were billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2391 for teeth K and T. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 for services related to these teeth. Because tooth K was addressed in claim 9 (as previously discussed) and tooth T was addressed in claim 10 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that claims 13 and 14 are duplicates that should be denied. Recipient 28 For recipient 28, claim 10 was billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2391 for tooth 3. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 for services related to this tooth. Because tooth 3 was addressed in claim 8 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that this claim is a duplicate that should be denied. Recipient 29 For recipient 29, claims 6 and 7 were billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2392 for teeth 3 and 14. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 for services related to these teeth. Because the patient record does not support the use of CDT code 2391, it also does not support the use of CDT code 2392. Because tooth 3 was addressed in claim 4 (as previously discussed) and tooth 14 was addressed in claim 15 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that claims 6 and 7 are duplicates that should be denied. Recipient 32 For recipient 32, claims 13 and 31 were billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2391 for teeth 19 and 30, and claim 29 was billed and reimbursed under CDT code 2392 for tooth 14. As previously noted, Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that Respondent improperly used CDT code 2391 and 2392 for services related to these teeth. Because tooth 14 was addressed in claim 28 (as previously discussed) tooth 19 was addressed in claim 10 (as previously discussed), and tooth 30 was addressed in claims 12 and 30 (as previously discussed), Dr. Kuhl correctly opined that claims 13, 29, and 31 are duplicates that should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order that: Revises the Final Audit Report consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein; Recalculates the total overpayment consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein; Requires Respondent to pay interest at the statutorily mandated rate on the recalculated overpayment; and Requires Respondent to pay a fine in the amount of 20 percent of the recalculated overpayment. Pursuant to section 409.913(23)(a), Petitioner is entitled to recover all investigative, legal and expert witness costs. Petitioner has documented costs of $2,223.64, but advises that “[a]dditional costs have been incurred in preparing for and attending the final hearing.” Jurisdiction is retained to determine the amount of appropriate costs, if the parties are unable to agree. Within 30 days after entry of the final order, either party may file a request for a hearing on the amount. Failure to request a hearing within 30 days after entry of the final order shall be deemed to indicate that the issue of costs has been resolved. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 29th day of August, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Michael Germaine should be granted additional credit for Procedure 03-Amalgam preparation on the December 1988, dentistry examination or should be permitted to retake that portion of the examination at no additional cost.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Michael Germaine is a licensed dentist in the State of New York and has sought to be licensed as a dentist in the State of Florida. He has taken the Florida examination three times and has not passed the clinical examination. The last time Dr. Germaine took the Florida dental examination was in December 1988. The clinical portion involves the actual performance of various dental procedures on mannequin teeth and on live patients. On the December 1988, clinical examination, Germaine received an overall score of 2.97. The minimum passing score is 3.00. On Procedure 03- Amalgam preparation, Germaine received a score of 2.66. This score is the result of averaging the grades of 3, 2, and 3 given by three different examiners. During the clinical portion of the examination, a procedure is available to candidates for writing a "monitor's note." This procedure is the sole means by which a candidate may communicate with the examiners who will grade the procedures. The candidate could use this vehicle to advise the examiners about any problems or special circumstances encountered in the procedure in order to give the examiners all the information necessary to fairly and accurately grade the procedure. The process calls for the candidate to have a proctor summon a monitor who will oversee the preparation of the note and will deliver the note to the examiners. Procedure 03-Amalgam restoration involved filling a tooth with an amalgam filling after removal of a cavity. The procedure was timed. Within the allotted time, the candidate was to take an x-ray of the completed restoration. The x-ray was reviewed by the examiners. When Germaine looked at the x-ray for Procedure 03, he noticed what appeared to be excess loose amalgam lodged next to the tooth. He wanted to write a monitor's note to let the examiners know that he was aware of the excess amalgam that would be removed in the ordinary office setting. He was also concerned that the amalgam looked attached to the tooth, which would be a defect known as a gingival overhang. Dr. Germaine asked the proctor to send a monitor and then waited for the few minutes that remained of the time allotted for the procedure. When the monitor finally arrived, the time for the procedure had elapsed and for that reason the monitor did not allow Germaine to write a note. Procedure 03 was graded by three examiners. Examiner 195 gave a grade of 3, but noted on the grade sheet that there "may be loose [amalgam] at gingival margin (obvious on x-ray)." There is a place on the grader's sheet for certain "comments" to be marked if applicable to the procedure. Examiner 195 marked comments for Functional Anatomy and for Gingival Overhang. Examiner 131 awarded 2 points for the procedure and marked comments for Contact and for Gingival Overhang. Examiner 133 awarded 3 points and marked comments for Functional Anatomy and Margin. Dr. Theodore Simkin, accepted as an expert in dentistry, is an experienced examiner and has served DPR as a consultant doing grade reviews. Dr. Simkin acknowledges that Germaine should have been able to write a monitor's note, but such a note should not have changed the grading. Procedure 03 is a patient procedure and as such, examiners are only permitted to grade on what they see in the patient's mouth. The x-rays would only have served to alert the examiners to check the interproximal to see if the amalgam shown on the x-ray was gingival overhang or excess, loose amalgam. If the x-rays had been relied on for grading purposes, the grade would have been zero (0) because the x-rays show excess gingival overhang. Any gingival overhang which was as excessive as appeared on the x-ray would have mandated a grade of zero (0) as explained on the grading sheets of each examiner. Since a grade of zero was not given, it is apparent that the examiners thought the excessive amalgam shown on the x-ray was neither gross nor attached. That Examiner 195 was aware of the loose amalgam between the teeth is obvious from the grade sheet and from an Examiner to Monitor Instruction which went back to Germaine after grading. The instruction was to have the candidate remove the amalgam interproximal (between the teeth). Gross gingival overhang cannot be simply removed like loose amalgam can be removed. Even being aware of the loose amalgam, Examiner 195 still gave Germaine a passing grade of 3. Dr. Germaine maintains that the examiners were biased because they looked at the x-ray without having the benefit of the monitor's note which he was not allowed to write. The assertion is not supported by the competent, substantial evidence, but is instead based on speculation and assumption.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Department of Professional Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the petition filed by Michael Germaine and denying him licensure as a dentist in the State of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3899 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Michael Germaine Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 3(2); 4-6(4-6); 7 first sentence (7); and 9(8). Proposed findings of fact 2 and 11 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 7 second sentence, 12, 16, 17, and 20 are unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 8, 13, and 14 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 10, 15, 18, and 19 are irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(3). Proposed finding of fact 2 is unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 3 is a mere summary of testimony and is not a proposed finding of fact. Copies furnished: Michael J. Cherniga Attorney at Law Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Vytas J. Urba Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Section 466.24(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Albert Leo Vollmer is registered as a dentist with the Florida State Board of Dentistry, license no. 1437, and practices dentistry at Satellite Beach, Florida (Testimony of Mullins). On July 19, 1973, Allen M. Dingman made application to the Veterans Administration for medical benefits consisting of dental treatment (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Authorization was given by the Veterans Administration for the requested treatment and Mr. Dingman sought the services of the Respondent. Respondent submitted a treatment plan to the Veterans Administration which was approved. Respondent thereafter provided dental services to Mr. Dingman and, in October, 1973, billed the Veterans Administration for the completed treatment. On October 18, 1973, payment in the amount of $503.00 was approved and paid to the Respondent by the Veterans Administration. This included payment for providing a 3/4 crown on tooth 20 in the amount of $115.00, a full gold crown on tooth 19 for $110.00, and a gold pontic on tooth number 18 for $90.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). In April, 1974, Mr. Dingman visited Dr. Robert B. Downey, D.D.S., concerning a bridge which Respondent had provided him to replace the second molar (tooth number 18), which bridge Dingman had subsequently lost. He asked Dr. Downey what the cost would be to remedy his problem and informed him that the Veterans Administration had paid for the other work. Dr. Downey thereupon contacted the Veterans Administration concerning the prior treatment (Testimony of Dingman, Downey). Approximately a year later, Mr. Dingman was examined by Dr. Fred C. Nichols, D.D.S., of the Veterans Administration, who found that Dingman did not have gold crowns on teeth number 19 and 20, nor a gold pontic to replace tooth number 18. Mr. Dingman showed Dr. Nichols a cast metal frame work which had once been intended as a unilateral mandibular partial denture to replace tooth number 18 (Testimony of Nichols; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5). The Veterans Administration, by letter of May 19, 1975, advised the Respondent that he would be billed for $315.00 representing the work which had not been performed. Respondent advised the VA that Mr. Dingman had objected to crown preparations and that he had therefore prepared a cantilever bridge which had been too bulky and thereafter another bridge was made at his expense which was apparently acceptable. The Veterans Administration reasserted its claim for $315.00 and Respondent, by letter of July 14, 1975, sought a credit for the work which he had performed, and by a further letter of August 12, 1975 advised that, although all of his records concerning Mr. Dingman could not be found, he estimated the cost of his actual work to be $207.90, and sought credit therefor (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6). Respondent testified that although his original plan was to provide fixed bridge work for Mr. Dingman, upon reflection and after noting that the patient was a hypersensitive person who objected to having the necessary preparatory work that would be required for crowns, he decided to attempt to preserve the natural teeth if possible and not to "abort" them. He further testified that although he had requested his office assistant to prepare an amended VA form for the patient to reflect his decision to do a different type of work, he did not follow-up to see if it was sent in to the Veterans Administration. He further maintained that his office assistant had done poor work, that he did not pay much attention to the paper work in the office and, although he usually reviewed applications for treatment such as Exhibit 4 by "implicit faith", he would usually "skip-read" these forms and sign them without completely checking the details thereon. He stated that his accounts were in a mess during this period and that this was the reason the dental laboratory records concerning Mr. Dingman were unavailable and why he had since hired accountants to do his bookkeeping work. His present assistant supported the fact that when she was first employed about a year and a half ago, Respondent's records were sloppy and that it was her custom to prepare various forms for the Respondent's signature. Mr. Dingman denied that he had ever told the Respondent that he was afraid to have his teeth cut into, or that he was hypersensitive in nature (Testimony of Vollmer, Mander, Person, Dingman) Dr. Daniel Beirne, a physician of Indian Harbor Beach, testified that he had common patients with the Respondent, and that the Respondent had an excellent reputation for truth and veracity in the community. Dr. Downey testified to the Respondent's bad reputation as a dentist, as did Dr. Carroll D. House, a member of the Brevard Dental Society Grievance Committee (Testimony of Burre, Downey, House). Respondent's license to practice dentistry was suspended in 1958 for a period of three months for an advertising violation with the proviso that the suspension was suspended for a period of one year upon certain conditions. His license was again suspended for a period of six months in 1960 for advertising violations (Petitioner's Exhibits 7 & 8)
