STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DENTISTRY RESPONDENT. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT. undersigned counsel, and files this Administrative Complaint before the

Transcription

1 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DENTISTRY PETITIONER, V. CASE NO: MARK A. WEISKOPF, D.D.S., RESPONDENT. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW Petitioner, Department of Health, by and through its undersigned counsel, and files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Dentistry against Respondent, Mark A. Weiskopf, D.D.S., and in support thereof alleges: 1. Petitioner is the state department charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 466, Florida Statutes. 2. At all times material to this Complaint, Respondent was a licensed dentist within the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN Respondent's address of record is U.S. 19, Palm Harbor, Florida

2 4. An additional mailing address for Respondent is 1265 Darlington Oak Circle N.E., St. Petersburg, Florida On or about October , Patient L.R. presented to one of Respondent's associates, Dr. L., for an examination. Patient L.R. had existing bridge spanning teeth #'s 22 through On or about November 5, 2014, Dr. L. removed the existing bridge. Patient L.R.'s temporary impression for the bridge was taken. Dr. L. performed a root canal treatments to teeth #'s 22 and 28, and a core buildup without a post on tooth #28. Dr. L. placed a temporary bridge. 7. On or about December 9, 2014, Dr. L. replaced the temporary bridge with a permanent restoration. 8. On or about April 21, 2015, Patient L.R. presented to Respondent for the first time. Respondent recommended removal and replacement of the existing bridge spanning teeth #'s 22 through 28 and replacement of Patient L.R.'s full and partial denture. 9. On or about May 8, 2015, Respondent replaced Patient L.R.'s bridge spanning teeth #'s 22 through 28. Respondent placed the bridge without a post for any of the abutments. Teeth #'s 22, 27, and 28 acted as abutments for the placed bridge. 2

3 10. The minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment in the practice of dentistry requires a dentist to adequately diagnose when a post is indicated with a core buildup to avoid compromising the fit and retention of a permanent restoration. 11. For a tooth that has received root canal treatment, a dentist may fabricate a "post and core" to provide stability for the placement of a permanent dental restoration such as a bridge. 12. A tooth that has extensive loss of coronal tooth structure requires a post to retain the core. 13. In placing a post and core, a dentist drills into one of the root canals filled from the root canal treatment to create a space for placing the post. The dentist then inserts the post and prepares a core around it by using a filling material to rebuild the tooth structure that has been compromised by breakage or decay. The post serves an anchor for the core. 14. Patient L.R.'s tooth #28 lacked coronal tooth structure sufficient to support the proposed bridge. 15. Respondent did not place a post on tooth # Respondent failed to meet minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment by failing to diagnose the need for a post on 3

4 Patient L.R. tooth #28 that would enable the tooth to have sufficient tooth structure to support the bridge. 17. On or about June 8, 2016, Respondent removed the temporary bridge and placed the permanent bridge. 18. The minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment in the practice of dentistry requires a practitioner to adequately seat and verify the fit of a restoration such as a crown or bridge so as to avoid open margins. 19. Leaving an open margin allows for bacteria and debris to access the tooth underneath, and increases the risk for developing pathologies in the periodontia and gingiva, as well as the development of dental decay. 20. Radiographs taken by Respondent on June 8, 2015, showed open margins present on teeth #'s 22, 27 and 28 under the bridge placed by Respondent. 21. Respondent failed to meet minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment by failing to adequately seat and verify the fit of the bridge so as to avoid open margins. 4

5 22. On or about September 17, 2015, Patient L.R. presented to Respondent with a loose crown on tooth #28. Respondent diagnosed the need for a post and preparation. 23. During that same visit, Respondent placed a post for tooth #28 and took new impressions for the crown. 24. The minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment in the practice of dentistry requires a practitioner to evaluate the condition of any anchor teeth to the bridge so that the fit and stability of the restoration is not compromised. 25. Patient L.R.'s tooth #28 lacked corona' tooth structure sufficient to support the proposed bridge. 26. A radiograph taken of Respondent's post placed for tooth #28 shows the post was not sufficient or too short and did not extend beyond the level of bone to support the core of the crown for the tooth. 27. Respondent failed to meet minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment by failing to adequately place a post on Patient L.R. tooth #28 that would enable the tooth to have sufficient tooth structure to support the crown. 28. Section (1)(x), Florida Statutes (2014), states that "[b]eing guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the 5

6 minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance[,]" shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Dentistry. 29. Respondent violated Section (1)(x), Florida Statutes, in one or more of the following ways: A. By failing to diagnose the need for a post on Patient L.R.'s tooth #28 to support the bridge, before placing a permanent bridge; B. By failing to adequately seat and verify the fit of the bridge Respondent placed for Patient L.R. so as to avoid open margins; or, C. By failing to adequately place a post sufficient to support the last placed crown by Respondent on Patient L.R.'s tooth #28. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board of Dentistry enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: restriction of practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of Respondent on probation, corrective action, refund of fees billed or collected, remedial education and/or any other relief that the Board deems appropriate. 6

7 SIGNED this day of Celeste Philip, MD, MPH Surgeon e ral & Secretary FILED DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DEPUTY CLERK CLERK Amber Greene DATE JUL 'son Asist nt General Counsel DOH Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida Florida Bar # TEL: , FAX: Rose.Garrison@flhealth.gov PCP: 73Li1 t,r PCP Mem brs: nornas, Prepared: April 14, 2017 DOH v. Mark A. Weiskopf, D.D.S., Case #

8 NOTICE OF RIGHTS Respondent has the right to request a hearing to be conducted in accordance with Section and 12037, Florida Statutes, to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative, to present evidence and argument, to call and cross-examine witnesses and to have subpoena and subpoena duces tecum issued on his or her behalf if a hearing is requested. A request or petition for an administrative hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Department within 21 days from the day Respondent received the Administrative Complaint, pursuant to Rule (2), Florida Administrative Code. If Respondent fails to request a hearing within 21 days of receipt of this Administrative Complaint, Respondent waives the right to request a hearing on the facts alleged in this Administrative Complaint pursuant to Rule (4), Florida Administrative Code. Any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the material facts or charges contained in the Administrative Complaint must conform to Rule (5), Florida Administrative Code. Mediation under Section , Florida Statutes, is not available to resolve this Administrative Complaint. NOTICE REGARDING ASSESSMENT OF COSTS Respondent is placed on notice that Petitioner has incurred costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this matter. Pursuant to Section (4), Florida Statutes, the Board shall assess costs related to the investigation and prosecution of a disciplinary matter, which may include attorney hours and costs, on the Respondent in addition to any other discipline imposed. DOH v. Mark A. Weiskopf, D.D.S., Case #