64b5-2.013, fac, dental examination requirements and grading

BOARD OF DENTISTRYGENERAL BUSINESS MEETING

FRIDAY, JULY 31, 2009 BEGINNING AT 7:30 A.M.TAMPA AIRPORT MARRIOTT

TAMPA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTTAMPA, FL 33607

(813) 879-5151

CALL TO ORDERThe meeting was called to order at 7:30 a.m. on Friday, July 31, 2009 by Dr. Thomas, Chair. Those present for all or part of the meeting included the following:

Members present:Joseph Thomas, D.D.S., ChairThad Morgan, D.M.D., Vice-ChairBetty Klement, D.M.D.Carl Melzer, D.D.S.Wade Winker, D.D.S.Daniel Gesek, D.M.D.Robert Perdomo, III, D.M.D.Brenda Kitchens, R.D.H.Elmira GaineyTammy Baker, R.D.H.Vicki Campbell

Staff present:Michael Flury, Board CounselSue Foster, Executive DirectorWayne Mitchell, Esq. ProsecutorCindy Ritter, Program AdministratorCarmen Snapp, CSR, Dempster & Berryhill Court Reporting, 813-229-8225

Dr. Thomas recognized Mr. Tom Embree for his service as a consumer member of the board for the past four years and also welcomed Ms. Vicki Campbell, our recently appointed consumer member to the Board. Ms. Campbell is a native of Pensacola and is in the title insurance business.

Dr. Thomas also acknowledged former board members who were present in the audience: Dr. Stanley Levsky, Ms. Irene Stavros, Dr. William Robinson and Dr. Eva Ackley.

REVIEW OF MAY 29, 2009 MINUTESThe minutes of the May meeting were reviewed and following review, the following action was taken by the board:

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to approve as presentedSecond: by Ms. GaineyVote: unanimous

General Business MeetingJuly 31, 2009

1 of 24

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGSKurt O. Bally, D.M.D., Case No. 2008-13140, Revised Settlement(PCP Melzer & Thomas)Dr. Bally was present and was represented by Traci Glickman, Esq. A two count administrative complaint filed on May 19, 2009 alleged violations of s. 466.028 (1)(m), F.S. of failing to keep written dental records justifying the course of treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, exam results, x-rays, etc. and s. 466.028(1)(x), F.S. of failure to meet minimum standards involving failure to review adequate preoperative radiographs before performing surgical extraction of third molars, failure to take a panoramic x-ray preoperatively, failure to take post operative x-rays to assist in diagnosis of pain and/or swelling, failed to discover broken 0.3 cm burr had fractured and was embedded in surgical site to retrieve or refer.

Probable cause panel recommendation: appearance, reprimand, $15,000 fine within 6 months, costs within 6 months, level II in diagnosis and treatment planning and level III in exodontia, level I in record keeping, course in ethics within 6 months, permanently restricted from performing extraction of any 3rd molars, refund to patient, pass laws and rules exam within 12 months, CE audit for next biennium.

A revised settlement agreement was presented to the board with the following terms: letter of concern, fine of $12,000 payable within 6 months, costs of $ 3,970.98 payable within 6 months, permanent restriction from performing extraction of any “bony” impacted third molars until coursework in exodontia is completed. Completion of the following courses within eighteen (18) months of the filing of the final order: Level II (7-12 hours) with verified competency in diagnosis and treatment planning to be taken at or through an accredited college of dentistry, level III (13-18 hours) with verified competency achieved in exodontia to be taken at or through an accredited college of dentistry, level I (3 hours) in record keeping to be taken at or through an accredited college of dentistry or board approved course provider whose course is specifically approved to satisfy the final order, and a college level course in ethics to be taken in person at any college or university, refund to patient, Respondent shall either provide proof of payment within one year of filing of final order or provide proof that a civil judgment/settlement was provided to the patient), pass the laws and rules exam within 12 months and a CE audit for next biennium.

Stanley Lane, Esq., attorney for complainant, read a letter composed by complainant into the record.

Following review, the following action was taken by the board:

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to reject the revised settlement agreement Second: by Dr. WinkerVote: unanimous

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to offer a counter settlement agreement to include the terms of the revisedsettlement agreement with the following amendment: strike language in paragraph 5 of therevised settlement agreement, beginning with “until he completes the required continuingeducation noted in paragraph six (6) below regarding exodontias”

Second: by Dr. WinkerVote: unanimous

Marnie Bauer, D.M.D., Case No. 2008-07828, Settlement(PCP Melzer & Morgan)Dr. Bauer was present and was represented by Rory Jurman, Esq. A two count administrative complaint filed on March 23, 2009 alleged violations of s. 466.028 (1)(m), F.S. of failing to keep written dental records justifying the course of treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, exam results, x-rays, etc. and s. 466.028(1)(x), F.S. of failure to meet minimum standards by failing to perform periodontal


2 of 24

depth probing and charting, by seating crowns with open margins and by seating bulky crowns on the maxillary teeth and improperly cutting away the lower teeth.

Probable cause panel recommendation: appearance, reprimand, $20,000 fine within 6 months, costs within 6 months, one year dental remediation course and ethics course within 18 months, refund to patient, pass laws and rules exam within 12 months, CE audit for next biennium.

A settlement agreement was presented to the board with the following terms: letter of concern, fine of $7500 payable within 6 months, costs of $ 3,384.90 payable within 6 months, completion of the following courses within eighteen (18) months of the filing of the final order: 1 year comprehensive remedial dental program to be taken in person at or through an accredited college of dentistry and ethics course to be taken in person at any college or university, refund to patient, (closed claim resulted in payment of $28,691 to patient), pass the laws and rules exam within 12 months and a CE audit for next biennium.


Motion: by Dr. Winker to reject the settlement agreementSecond: by Dr. GesekVote: unanimous Motion: by Dr. Winker to offer a counter settlement agreement to letter of concern, fine of $10,000

payable within 6 months, costs of $3,384.90 payable within 6 months, completion of thefollowing courses within eighteen (18) months of the filing order : Level 1 recordkeeping, level1 in diagnosis and treatment planning, Level 1 in fixed prosthetics, ethics course to be taken inperson at any college or university, refund to patient, (closed claim resulted in payment of$28,691 to patient), pass the laws and rules exam within 12 months and a CE audit for nextbiennium.

Second: by Dr. GesekVote: unanimous

Kent B. Brown, D.M.D., Case No. 2008-13108, Settlement(PCP Melzer & Thomas)Dr. Brown was present however he was not represented. An administrative complaint filed on May 19, 2009 alleged a violation of s. 466.028 (1)(z), F.S. for delegating professional responsibilities to a person who is not qualified by training, experience, or licensure to perform them by allowing dental assistant to seat permanent crowns.

Probable cause panel recommendation: appearance, reprimand, $5,000 fine within 6 months, costs within 6 months, suspension for 2 years with 6 months active, ethics course within 6 months, pass laws and rules exam within 12 months, CE audit for next biennium.

A settlement agreement was presented to the board with the following terms: reprimand, fine of $5000 payable within 6 months, costs of $ 2,352.88 payable within 6 months, suspension of dental license for two years with the first year stayed. Respondent must complete a total of 80 hours of pro bono dental services to underserved dental patients in facilities approved by the board within the first calendar year of the filing of the final order and failure to complete the 80 hours of pro bono service will result in the entire two year suspension becoming active. The second year of suspension is stayed during which time respondent must complete another 80 hours of pro bono dental services to underserved patients in facilities approved by the board; the second year of suspension becomes active for 12 months if respondent fails to complete the 80 hours of pro bono service; within 6 months of filing of final order respondent must complete a college level ethics course to be taken in person at any college or university, pass the laws and rules exam within 12 months and a CE audit for next biennium.


3 of 24


Motion: by Dr. Gesek to accept the settlement agreementSecond: by Ms. GaineyVote: unanimous

Ronald Copenhaver, D.M.D., Case No. 2008-23303, Settlement(PCP Melzer & Thomas)Dr. Copenhaver was present and was represented by Ed Bayo, Esq. A three count administrative complaint filed on May 19, 2009 alleged violations of s. 466.028 (1)(s), F.S. of being unable to practice his profession with reasonable skill and safety to patients; s. 466.028(1)(p), F.S. of prescribing, procuring, ordering, dispensing, administering, mixing or otherwise preparing a legend drug including any controlled substance, other than in the course of the professional practice of dentistry and s. 466.028(1)(q), F.S. of prescribing, procuring, dispensing, or administering, any medicinal drug appearing on any schedule set forth in chapter 893, by a dentist to himself except those prescribed, dispensed or administered to the dentist by another practitioner authorized to prescribe them.

Probable cause panel recommendation: appearance, reprimand, $15,000 fine within 6 months, costs within 6 months, comply with all recommendations of PRN, completion of ethics course within 6 months; pass laws and rules exam within 12 months, CE audit for next biennium.

A settlement agreement was presented to the board with the following terms: Department is dropping Count III alleging a violation of Section 466.028(1)(q), F.S., letter of concern, fine of $10,000 payable within 12 months, costs of $9,291.91 payable within 12 months, completion of college level ethics course to be taken at any college or university, enter into a contract with PRN and comply with PRN requirements and successfully complete the PRN contract, pass the laws and rules exam within 12 months and a CE audit for next biennium.

Dr. Jerome Gropper, PRN, addressed the board on behalf of Dr. Copenhaver. Dr. Copenhaver has signed a monitoring contract and is in compliance. A second evaluation with a Department approved provider is requested by Dr. Copenhaver.


Motion: by Dr. Gesek to reject the settlement agreementSecond: by Ms. Gainey Vote: motion passes with Dr. Morgan, Dr. Winker and Ms. Baker opposed

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to offer a counter settlement agreement to include the terms of the originalsettlement with the additional requirement to complete 100 hours of community service withintwo (2) years of entry of the final order.

Second: by Ms. KitchensVote: motion passes with Dr. Morgan, Dr. Winker and Ms. Baker opposed

Dr. Copenhaver accepted the counter-offer.

Brian Ferber, D.D.S., Case Nos. 2007-06429, Settlement(PCP Melzer, Winker & Gesek)Dr. Ferber was present and was represented by Bonnie Navin, Esq. A two count administrative complaint filed on February 18, 2008 alleged violations of s. 466.028(1)(x), F.S. of failure to meet minimum standards by failing to perform a comprehensive examination, failure to develop and present a


4 of 24

treatment plan, failure to perform periodontal examination, failure to note the appropriate dosage and amount of medication used, placing an implant in less than optimal angulation and s. 466.028 (1)(m), F.S. of failing to keep written dental records justifying the course of treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, exam results, x-rays, etc.

Probable cause panel recommendation: appearance, reprimand, $15,000 fine within 6 months, costs within 6 months, comprehensive implant course and 3 hours in recordkeeping within 6 months, refund to patient, pass laws and rules exam within 12 months, CE audit for next biennium.

A settlement agreement was presented to the board with the following terms: letter of concern, fine of $3000 payable within 6 months, costs capped at $6,000 payable within 6 months, completion of Level I (3 hours) course in recordkeeping to be taken at or through an accredited college of dentistry or board approved course provider whose course is specifically approved to satisfy the final order within 6 months,(remove refund) pass the laws and rules exam within 12 months and a CE audit for next biennium. Included in the settlement agreement is the following: Based upon additional documentation from Respondent and an additional agency expert opinion, the Department agrees to drop Count I alleging a violation of Section 466.028(1)(x), F.S. The Department also agrees based upon additional documentation paragraph 26(d) in the AC is amended to read: 26(d) On numerous visits in 2006, Respondent failed to fully document the type and amount of local anesthesia he administered during treatment of Patient M.G. Following review, the following action was taken by the board:

Motion: by Dr. Thomas to accept the settlement agreement and reduce the costs to $3,000.Second: by Dr. PerdomoVote: unanimous

Counter offer was accepted by Dr. Ferber.

Kimberly Lynn Foster, R.D.H., Case No. 2008-21059, Settlement(PCP Melzer & Thomas)Ms. Foster was not present and was not represented. An administrative complaint filed on May 19, 2009 alleged a violation of s. 466.028 (1)(i), F.S. of failing to perform any statutory or legal obligation placed on a licensee by failing to pay fine and costs for citation filed on July 17, 2008.

Probable cause panel recommendation: appearance, reprimand, costs within 6 months, suspension until in compliance of citation final order, CE audit for next biennium.

A settlement agreement was presented to the board with the following terms: reprimand, costs of $ 817.38 payable within 6 months, suspension of dental hygiene license until full compliance with final order filed on July 17, 2008 to include: payment of $600 fine and costs in the amount of $75 and a CE audit for the next biennium.


Motion: by Dr. Gesek to waive the appearanceSecond: by Ms. GaineyVote: motion passes with Dr. Winker opposed

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to accept the settlement agreementSecond: by Ms. GaineyVote: motion passes with Dr. Winker opposed


5 of 24

Carlos Gonzalez, D.D.S., Case No. 2007-19534, Settlement(Melzer & Morgan)Dr. Gonzalez was not present and he was not represented. A five count administrative complaint filed on September 22, 2008 alleged violations of s. 466.028(1)(g) by aiding, assisting, procuring, or advising any unlicensed person to practice dentistry; s. 466.028(1)(h) by being employed to practice dentistry by a corporation that is not composed of dentists; s. 466.028(1)(z) by delegating professional responsibilities to a person who is not qualified by training, experience, or licensure to perform them; s. 466.028 (1)(ff), F.S. by operating or causing to be operated a dental office in such a manner as to result in dental treatment that is below minimum acceptable standards of performance for the community; and s. 466.028(1)(kk) by allowing a person other than another dentist or a professional corporation or limited liability company composed of dentists to direct, control, or interfere with his clinical judgment.

Probable cause panel recommendation: $50,000 fine and revocation.

A settlement agreement was presented to the board with the following terms: reprimand, fine of $7000 to be paid within one year of the filing of final order, costs of $ 3,804.85 payable within one year, suspension for 30 days, all 30 days shall be stayed, stayed suspension shall be followed by one year of probation, completion of a dental practice management course within 6 months and to be taken in person at or through an accredited college of dentistry, pass laws and rules examination and CE audit for the next biennium. Included in the settlement agreement is the following: based on post-probable cause depositions, the Department is dropping Counts I, III and V.


Motion: by Dr. Gesek to reject the settlement agreement.Second: by WinkerVote: unanimous

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to offer a counter settlement to impose probable cause recommendation of$50,000 fine and revocation.

Second: by Ms. Kitchens Vote: unanimous

Dr. Gonzalez arrived after the board’s review of the case. The following action was taken:

Motion: by Dr. Thomas to reconsider the caseSecond: by Dr. GesekVote: unanimous

Motion: by Dr. Thomas to accept the settlement with the amendment that he must complete Level I inethics and suspension of license until he passes laws and rules exam

Second: by Ms. KitchensVote: unanimous

Robert G. Hicks, D.D.S., Case No. 2007-33124, Settlement(PCP Melzer & Thomas)Dr. Thomas granted a continuance to the next meeting.

John William Humphries, D.M.D., Case No. 2008-22517, Settlement(Melzer & Thomas)The Department asked that this case be tabled.


6 of 24

Jackie Johns, D.M.D., Case No. 2007-33985, Settlement(PCP Melzer, Thomas & Gesek)Dr. Johns was present and was represented by Michael Ragan, Esq. An administrative complaint filed on February 2, 2009 for alleged violation of s. 466.028(1) (m), F.S. of failing to keep written dental records justifying the course of treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, exam results, x-rays, etc.

Probable cause panel recommendation: appearance, reprimand, $7500 fine within 6 months, costs within 6 months, 12 month suspension with 6 months stayed, Level II in diagnosis and treatment planning and Level III in record keeping within 6 months, pass laws and rules exam within 12 months, CE audit for next biennium.

A settlement agreement was presented to the board with the following terms: reprimand, fine of $7500 payable within 6 months, costs of $ 5,688.62 payable within 6 months, in lieu of imposition of license suspension licensee shall be permanently restricted from performing and/or administering any form of sedation and from administering or prescribing any sedative drugs; completion of Level II (7 to 12 hours) course in diagnosis and treatment planning to be taken at or through an accredited college of dentistry, 6 hours in pharmacology to be taken at or through an accredited college of dentistry, Level III (6 hours) in record keeping to be taken at or through an accredited college of dentistry or board approved course provider whose course is specifically approved to satisfy the final order within 12 months, pass the laws and rules exam within 12 months and a CE audit for next biennium.


Motion: by Dr. Winker to accept the settlement agreementSecond: by Dr. PerdomoVote: unanimous

Arthur Kaminsky, D.D.S., Case No. 2007-18654, Settlement(PCP Melzer & Thomas)Dr. Kaminsky’s appearance was waived by Dr. Thomas due to medical reasons, however he was represented by Stephen Knoerr, Esq. An administrative complaint filed on May 6, 2008 for alleged violation of s. 466.028(1) (m), F.S. of failing to keep written dental records justifying the course of treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, exam results, x-rays, etc.

Probable cause panel recommendation: appearance, reprimand, $10,000 fine within 6 months, costs within 6 months, 3 hours in record keeping and 3 hour ethics course within 6 months, pass laws and rules exam within 12 months, CE audit for next biennium.

A settlement agreement was presented to the board with the following terms: reprimand, fine of $4000 payable within 18 months, costs not to exceed $2,000 payable within 18 months, completion of 3 hours in record keeping to be taken at or through an accredited college of dentistry or board approved course provider whose course is specifically approved to satisfy the final order, pass the laws and rules exam within 12 months and a CE audit for next biennium. Included in the settlement agreement is the following: Paragraph 6 of AC is amended to delete the sentence “Respondent did not record a medical history for Patient BB in Patient BB’s dental records”, and paragraph 12(b) is deleted.


Motion: by Dr. Gesek to reject the settlement agreementSecond: by Ms. Kitchens


7 of 24

Vote: unanimous

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to offer a counter settlement to include reprimand, $7,000 fine, costs to date, add1 year suspension with 6 months stayed, 3 hours in ethics, CEs as stated above

Second: by Ms. KitchensVote: unanimous

Donald J. Klag, D.D.S., Case No. 2005-68374, Settlement(PCP Melzer & Morgan)Dr. Klag was present and was represented by Phoebe Wahba, Esq. A three count administrative complaint filed on March 23, 2009 alleged violations of s. 466.028(1)(x), F.S. of failure to meet minimum standards by failing to complete radiographic and periodontal examinations, failure to perform a comprehensive examination, failure to develop a treatment plan, failure to perform diagnostic exam/tests, failure to provide an adequate diagnosis, treatment plan and/or treatment basis to justify excessive and inappropriate prescribing of both antibiotics and narcotics, s. 466.028 (1)(m), F.S. of failing to keep written dental records justifying the course of treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, exam results, x-rays, etc. and s. 466.028(1)(p), F.S. of prescribing, procuring, ordering, dispensing, administering, mixing or otherwise preparing a legend drug including any controlled substance, other than in the course of the professional practice of dentistry.

Probable cause panel recommendation: $30,000 fine and revocation.

A settlement agreement was presented to the board with the following terms: reprimand, fine of $21,000 payable within 18 months, costs of $ 4,421.37 payable within 18 months, permanent restriction on prescribing “scheduled” controlled substances and permanent relinquishment of DEA prescribing permit, refund patients, pass the laws and rules exam within 12 months and a CE audit for next biennium.


Motion: by Dr. Thomas to reject the settlement agreementSecond: by Ms. GaineyVote: unanimous

Motion: by Dr. Thomas to maintain original settlement agreement with a change in fine to $21,001 andadd ethics course, level II in diagnosis and treatment planning and level II in recordkeeping.

Second: by Dr. GesekVote: unanimous

James Magee, III, D.D.S., Case No. 2008-15366, Settlement(PCP Melzer & Morgan)Dr. Magee was present and was represented by Catherine Chapman, Esq. A two count administrative complaint filed on March 23, 2009 alleged violations of s. 466.028(1)(x), F.S. of failure to meet minimum standards by failing to consider and/or utilize alternate means of relieving patient’s pain before attempting to perform a difficult extraction in an off-hours setting without the benefit of a competent team of surgical assistants, by failing to refer patient to oral and maxillofacial surgeon and extraction of a partially bony impacted third molar without a competent team of surgical assistants, s. 466.028 (1)(m), F.S. of failing to keep written dental records justifying the course of treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, exam results, x-rays, etc.

Probable cause panel recommendation: appearance, reprimand, $17,500 fine within 6 months, costs within 6 months, Level II in diagnosis and treatment planning, Level II in dental extractions and oral


8 of 24

surgery, Level I in record keeping and ethics course within 6 months, refund patient, pass laws and rules exam within 12 months, CE audit for next biennium. A settlement agreement was presented to the board with the following terms: letter of concern, fine of $10,000 payable within 12 months, costs of $2,358.53 payable within 12 months, completion of the following courses within twelve (12) months of the filing of the final order: Level II (7-12 hours) with verified competency in diagnosis and treatment planning to be taken at or through an accredited college of dentistry, level II (7-12 hours) with verified competency achieved in dental extractions and oral surgery to be taken at or through an accredited college of dentistry, level I (3 hours) in record keeping to be taken at or through an accredited college of dentistry or board approved course provider whose course is specifically approved to satisfy the final order, and a college level course in ethics to be taken in person at any college or university, refund to patient, pass the laws and rules exam within 12 months and a CE audit for next biennium.


Motion: by Dr. Thomas to accept the settlement agreementSecond: by Ms. KitchensVote: unanimous

Brock Philips, D.M.D., Case No. 2008-03908, Settlement(PCP Melzer & Morgan)(Dr. Gesek recused himself on this case)Dr. Philips was present and was represented by Edwin Bayo, Esq. An administrative complaint was filed on March 23, 2009 for alleged violation of s. 466.028(1) (m), F.S. of failing to keep written dental records justifying the course of treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, exam results, x-rays, etc.

Probable cause panel recommendation: appearance, reprimand, $7,500 fine within 6 months, costs within 6 months, Level I in record keeping, pass laws and rules exam within 12 months, CE audit for next biennium. A settlement agreement was presented to the board with the following terms: letter of concern, fine of $5000 payable within 6 months, costs of $ 2,205.04 payable within 6 months, completion of Level I (3 hours) in record keeping to be taken at or through an accredited college of dentistry or board approved course provider whose course is specifically approved to satisfy the final order within 6 months, pass the laws and rules exam within 12 months and a CE audit for next biennium.


Motion: by Dr. Perdomo to accept the settlement agreementSecond: by Ms. KitchensVote: unanimous

Nancy Beckwith, R.D.H., Case No. 2006-30822, Voluntary Relinquishment(PCP Melzer)Ms. Beckwith was not present nor was she represented. An administrative complaint was filed on March 12, 2007 for alleged violation of s. 466.028(1) (aa), F.S. by violating a final order of the board or department previously entered in a disciplinary hearing. Ms. Beckwith signed a voluntary relinquishment of license on April 17, 2009.


Motion: by Dr. Gesek to accept the voluntary relinquishment


9 of 24


Kevin J. Doherty, D.D.S., Case No. 2009-01216, Voluntary Relinquishment(PC Waived)Dr. Doherty was not present nor was he represented. The alleged violations in this case are as follows: 64B5-17.0011, FAC, of failure to notify the Board in writing within 10 days of any change of address, s. 466.028(1)(n) failing to make available to a patient or client, s. 466.028(1)(x) being guilty of incompetence or negligence, s. 466.028(1)(ll) of violating any provision of this chapter or chapter 456. Dr. Doherty signed a voluntary relinquishment of license on June 15, 2009.


Motion: by Dr. Gesek to accept the voluntary relinquishmentSecond: by Dr. KlementVote: unanimous

Ebrahim Mamsa, D.D.S., Case Nos. 2006-43077, 2007-14963, Voluntary Relinquishment(PCP Melzer, Thomas & Morgan)Dr. Mamsa was not present nor was he represented. An administrative complaint in case 2006-43077 filed on May 5, 2008 alleged violations of s. 466.028(1) (x) of failure to meet minimum standards in diagnosis and treatment and s. 466.028(1) (m), F.S. of failing to keep written dental records justifying the course of treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, exam results, x-rays, etc. An administrative complaint in case 2007-14963 filed on September 23, 2008 also alleged violations of s. 466.028(1) (x) of failure to meet minimum standards in diagnosis and treatment and s. 466.028(1) (m), F.S. of failing to keep written dental records justifying the course of treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, exam results, x-rays, etc. Dr. Mamsa signed a voluntary relinquishment of license on May 15, 2009.


Motion: by Ms. Gainey to accept the voluntary relinquishmentSecond: by Ms. KitchensVote: unanimous

Brenda Vawter, R.D.H., Case No. 2009-04693, Voluntary Relinquishment(PC Waived)Ms. Vawter was not present nor was she represented. The alleged violations in this case are as follows: s. 466.028(1)(a), FS, of attempting to obtain, obtaining or renewing a license under this chapter through bribery, fraudulent misrepresentations or through an error of the department or the board; s. 466.028(1)(ii) by violating any provision of this chapter or chapter 456. Respondent failed to disclose on her application that she had been convicted of a felony. Ms. Vawter signed a voluntary relinquishment of license on May 8, 2009.


Motion: by Ms. Kitchens to accept the voluntary relinquishmentSecond: by Dr. GesekVote: unanimous

Woodrow Wheetley, D.D.S., Case No. 2007-34889, Voluntary Relinquishment(PCP Melzer & Thomas)


10 of 24

Dr. Wheetley was not present nor was represented by Alexander Macgregor. An administrative complaint filed on May 19, 2009 alleged violations of s. 466.028(1) (x) of failure to meet minimum standards in diagnosis and treatment and s. 466.028(1) (m), F.S. of failing to keep written dental records justifying the course of treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, exam results, x-rays, etc. Dr. Wheetly signed a voluntary relinquishment of license on June 3, 2009.


Motion: by Dr. Klement to accept the voluntary relinquishmentSecond: by Dr. WinkerVote: unanimous

Robert Lai, D.D.S., Case No. 2008-09647, Waiver(PCP Melzer & Morgan)Dr. Lai was not present nor was he represented. A two count administrative complaint filed on September 19, 2008 alleged violations of s. 466.028(1) (m), F.S. of failing to keep written dental records justifying the course of treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, exam results, x-rays, etc. and s. 466.028(1) (x) of failure to meet minimum standards in diagnosis and treatment.


Motion: by Dr. Gesek that respondent was served with the administrative complaint and this is an informal hearing before the boardSecond: by Dr. KlementVote: unanimous

Motion: by Dr. Thomas to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in the administrative complaint and find that they constitute a violation of the dental practice actSecond: by Dr. GesekVote: unanimous

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to suspend license until he is compliant with probable cause panelrecommendations

Second: by Ms. GaineyVote: unanimous

Motion: by Dr. Thomas to assess costs in the amount of $2145.56. Second: Ms. GaineyVote: unanimous

Joseph Gaeta, D.D.S., Case No. 2003-05087, Recommended Order(PCP Melzer & Klement)Dr. Gaeta was present and he was represented by Max Price, Esq. An administrative complaint filed on February 28, 2005 alleged violations of s. 466.028(1) (m), F.S. of failing to keep written dental records justifying the course of treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, exam results, x-rays, etc. and s. 466.028(1) (x) of failure to meet minimum standards in diagnosis and treatment.

The recommended penalty by the hearing officer includes the following: $20,000 fine, suspend license until the greatest of 30 days, full payment of fine or posting of security adequate to Board for full payment of fine, pass laws and rules exam within one year of final order; 5 years probation or until respondent completes the two year remedial course, CE audits for the remainder of licensure. (suitable restriction on


11 of 24

practice would be an effective substitute for the minimum 30-day suspension although restriction on practice would need to extend longer than 30 days)

Respondent has filed exceptions to the Recommended Order. Following review, the following action was taken by the board:

Motion: by Dr. Thomas to deny the exception in paragraph 81Second: by Dr. WinkerVote: unanimous

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to deny the Count 2 exception Second: by Dr. WinkerVote: unanimous

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to deny the Count 3 exception in paragraph (m) chargeSecond: by Dr. WinkerVote: unanimous

Motion: by Ms. Baker to deny the fourth exception Second: by Dr. WinkerVote: motion passes with Drs. Morgan and Thomas opposed

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to accept the findings of fact in the recommended order as the board’s ownSecond: by Dr. ThomasVote: unanimous

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to accept the conclusions of law as the board’s ownSecond: by Dr. WinkerVote: unanimous

It is noted that mitigating circumstances are contained in Page 82 and were considered when making he following motion:

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to impose reprimand, $5,000 fine, suspend license for 30 days, full payment of fine or posting of security adequate to Board for full payment of fine, pass laws and rules examwithin one year of final order; two year comprehensive dentistry course to be completed within36 months, probation until completion of the two year remedial course, CE audits for the next

two biennia. Second: by Dr. WinkerVote: unanimous An Amended Motion to Assess Costs of $40,167.02 in Accordance with Section 456.072(4) was presented to the Board. Following discussion, the following action was taken by the board:

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to assess costs of $40,167.02 payable within 3 yearsSecond: by Ms. KitchensVote: motion passes with Dr. Thomas opposed

PETITIONSLyle Hotchkiss, D.D.S., Petition for Declaratory Statement1. Petition for Declaratory Statement from Dr. Lyle E. Hotchkiss2. Additional correspondence


12 of 24

Dr. Hotchkiss was present and was accompanied by his dental hygienist and his therapy dog. He is requesting that he be permitted to keep his certified therapy dog present in his dental office, a type of pet therapy for his patients.

Discussion included the fact that the dental office setting is different than other office settings where a therapy dog may be used due to the fact that surgery is performed in the dental office. Following discussion, the following action was taken by the board:

Motion: by Dr. Thomas to opine that it is not permissible to have therapy dog in a dental office due toinfection risks.

Second: by Dr. MelzerVote: motion passes with Ms. Baker and Dr. Klement opposed

Sandra Pizon, D.D.S., Petition for Variance or WaiverPetition for Variance or WaiverDr. Pizon was present and was represented by Edwin Bayo, Esq. Dr. Pizon received her dental degree in Bogota, Colombia from a university which is not ADA accredited. She intends to apply for the Florida licensing exam in the Spring of 2010. She completed two years of supplemental education, one at Dade County Dental research Clinic and one year at Northwest Dental Residency under the University of Washington. She is licensed in the state of Washington

Following discussion, the following action was taken by the board:

Motion: by Dr. Winker to approve the petition for variance or waiverSecond: by Dr. GesekVote unanimous

Gary V. Burkholder, D.D.S., Petition for Variance or Waiver1. Petition for Variance or Waiver2. Limited License Application FileDr. Burkholder was present and was not represented by counsel. Dr. Burkholder appeared at the last board meeting, is a dentist in Wisconsin, and had petitioned the board for a Health Access Dental license. Due to the restrictions on this license, he did not qualify. He has applied for a limited license and has responded affirmatively to one of the questions on the history section of his application.


Motion: by Dr. Thomas to approve the petition for variance or waiverSecond: by Dr. PerdomoVote: motion passes with Dr. Klement, Dr. Morgan, Dr. Gesek and Ms. Gainey opposed

Motion: by Dr. Thomas to approve the limited license application pending submission of a letter ofemployment

Second: by Dr. PerdomoVote: motion passes with Drs. Klement, Dr. Morgan, Dr. Gesek and Ms. Gainey opposed

Sacha Piedratita, D.D.S. Petition for Variance or WaiverPetition for Variance or WaiverDr. Piedratita was present and was represented by Edwin Bayo, Esq. Dr. Piedratita received her degree from the Higher Institute of Medical Services in Havana, Cuba. She completed the Advanced Education in General Dentistry program at the University of Florida. She is requesting a waiver to rule 64B5-


13 of 24

2.013(3)(g), F.A.C. She completed the Class III composite and finished Class II amalgam up to the preparation for March 7, 2009 exam. Upon retake in June, she completed Class II amalgam and upon preparation of her patient for Class III composite, her patient experienced very high blood pressure reading.

Ms. Allyson Stevens, Examination attorney was present to represent the Department of Health. Ms. Stevens asked that the board deny the petition as this was an examination challenge and applicant must pass all four parts of the exam.


Motion: by Dr. Thomas to deny the petition for variance or waiverSecond: by Ms. GaineyVote: unanimous

APPLICATIONS/OTHER REQUESTNicole Theos Havener, R.D.H., Applicant for Dental Hygiene LicensureMs. Havener was present and was not represented by counsel. She is an applicant for dental hygiene licensure and had been referred to PRN and has signed a 5 year monitoring contract and is in compliance with it.


Motion: by Dr. Melzer contingent on successful completion of a two month course at dental hygiene school to ensure that clinical skills are adequateSecond: by Dr. ThomasVote: unanimous

Robbin Quarterman, D.M.D., Applicant for Conscious Sedation PermitDr. Quarterman is an applicant for a conscious sedation permit. Information has been submitted and the Anesthesia Committee chair requested that this be placed on agenda for board review.


Motion: by Dr. Thomas to approve the applicationSecond: by Dr. WinkerVote: motion passes with Drs. Melzer, Gesek and Klement opposed

Sherrie Lynn Crossen, D.D.S., Request for ExtensionDr. Crossen is requesting an extension of time for her 20 hour/2 day continuing education. The course, hands on implant placement and bone management costs $3800 and she is requesting a one year extension. She has paid fine, costs, taken the laws and rules exam and has been audited for her CE.


Motion: by Dr. Thomas to grant extension 30 days after the completion of the courseSecond: by Ms. GaineyVote: unanimous

Michelle Groothouse, D.R., Request for ExtensionMs. Groothouse was present and was not represented by counsel. She is requesting an extension of time to pay her fines and costs of her previous final order. She was given 12 months from the filing of the


14 of 24

final order in April, 2008 to pay costs. She is requesting additional time to pay. Total costs were $3500 and she owes $2000.


Motion: by Dr. Gesek to grant an extension to pay until April 30, 2010.Second: by Dr. MorganVote: unanimous

Tamir M. Segal, D.M.D., Motion to Vacate Citation Final OrderDr. Segal was not present nor represented by counsel. Additional continuing education certificates were reviewed by the Board office in this matter, and the board is asked to vacate this citation final order.


Motion: by Dr, Gesek to approve motion to vacate final orderSecond: by Dr. MelzerVote: unanimous

John Bitting, DOCS, Petition for Rulemaking, Chapter 64B5-14, F.A.C.Mr. Bitting appeared and is requesting rulemaking changes for oral sedation training. He has included a petition for rulemaking. He is requesting that guidelines be revised to reflect current ADA guidelines.


Motion: by Dr. Perdomo to refer to the Anesthesia committeeSecond: by Dr. MelzerVote: motion passes with Dr. Winker opposed

Douglas Manning, Proposed Practitioner Survey for DentistsDr. Manning discussed the proposed practitioner survey planned during the next dentistry and dental hygiene renewal. A series of questions will be asked of dentists to determine their specialty, how many are in full time clinical practice, how many plan to retire within the next 5 years, etc. The Board of Medicine and the Board of Nursing have had similar surveys which have been requested by the legislature.

TOPIC DISCUSSIONNone

FOR YOUR INFORMATION Continuing Education Audit Report – Dentist expiring 2/28/08

598 dentists audited – 90% compliance rate Continuing Education Audit Report – Dental Hygienist expiring 2/28/08

512 dental hygienists audited - 95% compliance rate Memo from American Dental Association regarding Clinical Licensing Examinations Proposed Board Meeting Dates for 2010 Memo from Michael Curtis, Testing Services Unit, Dental and Dental Hygiene Exam

Updates Dental Satisfaction Survey Reports Dental Hygiene Satisfaction Survey Reports Dental Examiner Performance Reports Dental Hygiene Examiner Performance Reports


15 of 24

Letter from Florida Society of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons regarding Proposed Rule 64B9-8.005, FAC, Disciplinary Proceedings

Motion: by Dr. Gesek that the board send a letter to the BON that their rule change will affect thegeneral anesthesia permit holders


Rule Draft 64B9-8.005, FAC, Disciplinary Proceedings, Board of Nursing Article, Minnesota Adopts Canadian Dental Licensing Exam Letter from Boyd Robinson, D.D.S., MEd, University of FL Letter from Florida Dental Association regarding proposed rule change

to 64B5-2.013, F.A.C. Letter from AADE, One Single National Clinical Exam

Dr. Thomas said one exam would take away checks and balances. The majority of the board (10 – 1) would not be in favor of a national exam.

REPORTSRules Committee Meeting, July 7, 2009Ms. Gainey requested that the minutes be amended to include herself and Dr. Klement as present at this telephone conference call.

Dr. Winker reviewed the actions of the Rules Committee with the board. Mr. Flury asked that a motion be made for each rule that was approved as to whether there is a financial impact associated with the rule.

64B5-2.0126, FAC, Conduct at Examination Site (1) The Eexamination Ssupervisor, Assistant Examination Supervisors and proctors are the designated agents in maintaining a secure and proper examination and administration.(2) Any individual found by the Eexamination Ssupervisor, examiner supervisor, or Aassistant Eexaminer Ssupervisor, to have engaged in conduct which subverts or attempts to subvert the examination process shall be ejected from the examination site. Furthermore, following completion of the examination as scheduled, the Board shall consider any such finding and determine if further action is required. Such action shall include having scores on the examination withheld or declared invalid, disqualification from the practice of dentistry, and imposition of other appropriate sanction by the Board.(3) Conduct which subverts or attempts to subvert the examination process includes:(a) Conduct which violates the security of the examination materials, such as removing from the examination room any of the examination materials; reproducing or reconstructing any portion of the licensing examination; selling, distributing, buying, receiving or having unauthorized possession of any portion of a future or current licensing examination.(b) Conduct which violates the standard of examination test administration, such as disrupting the examination site, inappropriately communicating with any other examinee during the administration of the examination; copying answers from another examinee or permitting one’s answers to be copied by another examinee during the administration of an the examination; having in one’s possession during the administration of the licensing examination any appliances, tools, models, teeth, books, notes, written or printed materials or data of any kind, other than the examination materials distributed or specifically listed as approved materials for the examination room in the examinee’s official Candidate Information Booklet which is made available for download on the Department’s examination webpage, http://www.doh.state.fl.us/Exam/main-cand.htm was mailed or presented to the examinee in advance of the examination date by the Department or it’s contracted vendor. In cases where the examinee is found to be in possession of items other than those distributed at the exam site or specifically listed as approved materials for the examination in the


16 of 24

Candidate Information Booklet room in the Candidate Information Booklet, the minimum sanction shall be to declare the scores on said examination invalid.(c) Conduct which violates the credentialing process, such as falsifying or misrepresenting educational credentials or other information required for admission to the examination; impersonating an examinee or having, or attempting to have, an impersonator take the licensing examination on one’s own behalf.(4) Any violation of the conduct rules or other irregularities will be documented in writing by the agent(s) and the documentation of the violation or irregularity will be presented to the Board for consideration and further action. The agent(s) shall exercise extreme care in their documentation to ensure that the violation or irregularities are precisely recorded as they were witnessed.

Specific Authority 456.004(5), 466.004(4) FS. Law Implemented 456.017(1)(d), 456.079 FS. History–New 2-7-96, Amended 5-

21-96, Formerly 59Q-2.0126, Amended 5-1-02, ________.

Motion: by Dr. Thomas to approve the languageSecond: by Dr. MorganVote: unanimous

Motion: by Dr. Thomas that there was no financial impactSecond: by Dr. MorganVote: unanimous

64B5-2.013, FAC, Dental Examination Requirements and GradingCommittee did not have a motion to present to the board. After discussion, the following action was taken.

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to revisit after one year to allow time to evaluate the exam in it’s present formatSecond: by Ms. GaineyVote: motion passes with Dr. Thomas and Dr. Morgan opposed

Dr. Gesek clarified that his motion did not prohibit the board from identifying the type of lesions used in the exam. Dr. Morgan stated that Exam Development committee can reevaluate this.

64B5-2.017, FAC, Acceptable Variance of Examiners(1) All clinical gradings by examiners are to be made independently. Each clinical procedure shall be graded by three (3) examiners. However, a score of 0 or 1 that is not corroborated by another score of either 0 or 1 will be discarded and will not be used in averaging. A critical difference score, which means there is one score that is either pass or fail while the other two scores are in the opposite pass/fail cat egory, will be discarded and will not be used in averaging. The critical difference analysis shall precede the discarding of the uncorroborated 0 or 1. On the clinical examinations described in Rules 64B5-2.013 and 64B5-2.019, F.A.C., the three independent grades shall be averaged to determine an candidate’s final grade on each procedure of the clinical examination. On the clinical portion of the dental hygiene examination described in Rule 64B5-2.0135, F.A.C., the three independent grades shall be utilized in a system of corroborated errors to determine an applicant’s final grade on each procedure of the clinical portion. The corroborated errors grading system requires that at least two (2) of the independent examiners must agree on the presence of the error before the error may be used in calculating an applicant’s grade.(2) There shall be a variance review of all grades of all applicants taking the clinical part of the examination for the purpose of determining inter-examiner variance.(3) Failure of an applicant in any clinical procedure may be documented on the grading sheet by the examiner. Documentation may be accomplished through the use of “comments” contained on the grade sheet. The “comments” section may contain any technical terms or charts that define, illustrate or otherwise explain the criteria utilized in grading a particular procedure. For the purpose of expedience


17 of 24

and brevity in grading, appropriate “comments” may be noted by recording “comments” on an optical scan field contained on the grade sheet. On the clinical portion of the dental hygiene examination described in Rule 64B5-2.0135, F.A.C., the actual marking of the presence of errors for specific teeth shall be considered documentation. When there exists a discrepancy on the grade sheet between the handwritten grade and the grade penciled in on the optical scan field and the discrepancy cannot be resolved by an examination of the grade sheet, the handwritten grade shall be accepted as the intended grade.

Specific Authority 466.004(3), 466.006(4)(b)5. FS. Law Implemented 466.006(4) FS. History–New 12-10-79, Amended 6-22-80,

4-20-81, 5-24-82, 12-6-82, 5-24-83, 5-2-84, 5-19-85, Formerly 21G-2.17, 21G-2.017, 61F5-2.017, 59Q-2.017, Amended 10-12-

04, __________..

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to approve the language Second: by Dr. KlementVote: unanimous

Motion: by Dr. Winker that there was no financial impactSecond: by Dr. GesekVote: unanimous

64B5-2.020, FAC, Selection of Examiners(1) In order to be eligible for selection and retention as an examiner, a Florida licensed dentist or dental hygienist must meet the following minimum qualifications:(a) Has been actively engaged in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene in Florida for five (5) years immediately preceding selection;(b) Has demonstrated interest in continuing dental education; and(c) Is not connected in any way with any medical college or dental college. (2) Licensees who meet the base qualifications listed in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) and have never acted as an examiner must be recommended to the Department of Health by the Board. Those licensees who meet the base qualifications listed in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b) and have acted as an examiner at previous examinations may be asked to be an examiner by the Department so long as their previous performance as an examiner was satisfactory as determined by post-examination examiner variance statistics compiled by the Department.(3) Prior to each examination the Department will determine the number of examiners it will need to administer the examination. Once that determination is made, the Department will establish a pool of individuals from which the actual examiners will be selected. In forming this pool the Department will initially contact those individuals who have previously examined and whose past performance is deemed satisfactory based on post-examination examiner variance statistics compiled by the Department. When the Department is unable to establish a sufficient pool of individuals with satisfactory experience as examiners, it will notify the Board who will then recommend a list of individuals meeting the qualifications of paragraphs (1)(a) and (b). The Department will select from the Board’s recommended list sufficient individuals to insure that there will be an adequate pool from which to draw the requisite number of examiners.(4) Those individuals forming the pool from which the examiners will be selected shall attend every session of the pre-examination standardization exercise conducted by the Department. At the conclusion of standardization, the individual members of the pool will be tested on their ability to adhere to and apply the examination grading criteria.(5) Subsequent to the examination, the Department will compile post-examination variance statistics for each examiner which statistics shall be utilized in determining whether a particular examiner will be requested to participate in any future pools of prospective examiners.(6) In an attempt to continually replenish the pool of possible examiners, no individual will be permitted to examine for more than four (4) consecutive years. Any such individual will be eligible for the pool of


18 of 24

prospective examiners after not examining for a period of one (1) year. However, this prohibition will not be enforced when the Department is unable to establish a sufficient pool of prospective examiners.(7) In determining whether to ask an otherwise qualified individual to participate in the examiner pool, the Department and the Board may also consider the following factors:(a) Whether the individual is currently or has ever had a license to practice dentistry or dental hygiene revoked, suspended, or otherwise acted against, including the denial of licensure by the licensing authority of another state, territory or country;(b) Whether the individual limits his practice of dentistry to a recognized specialty area;(c) Whether the individual has any criminal convictions;(d) Whether the individual has been involved in any civil litigation and, if so, the nature and result of the litigation;(e) Whether the individual has been associated with a dental hygiene program.

Specific Authority 456.017(1)(b), 466.004(3) FS. Law Implemented 456.017(1)(b) FS. History–New 5-24-83, Amended 5-27-84,

Formerly 21G-2.20, 21G-2.020, 61F5-2.020, 59Q-2.020, Amended 2-15-06, _____________.

Motion: by Dr. Winker to approve the language Second: by Ms. GaineyVote: unanimous


64B5-2.021, FAC, Additional Education Requirements for ReexaminationMotion: by Dr. Winker to make no changes in the languageSecond: by Ms. GaineyVote: unanimous

64B5-2.0135, FAC, Dental Hygiene Examination Requirements and GradingAn additional sentence that had been omitted was added to the text that was presented to the Rules Committee.

Dr. Thomas read the following into the record These median competency levels are translated into a numerical score. Applicants must earn at least 75% of the maximum possible raw score to pass that part.

Motion: by Dr. Winker to approve the revised language Second: by Ms. GaineyVote: unanimous


64B5-4.002, FAC, Advertising and Soliciting by Dentists(1) – (2) No change(3) No dentist shall disseminate or cause the dissemination of any advertisement or advertising which is in any way fraudulent, false, deceptive, or misleading in form or content. Additionally, no dentist shall disseminate or cause the dissemination of any advertisement or advertising which: (a) – (g) No change


19 of 24

(h) States or implies that the dentist has received formal recognition as a specialist in any aspect of the practice of dentistry unless the dentist has in fact received such recognition and such recognizing agency is approved by the Board. However, a dentist may use on letterhead or in advertising a reference to the dentist’s specialty recognition received from a recognizing agency that has not been approved by the Board only if the letterhead or advertising also contains in the same print size or volume the statement that “The specialty recognition identified herein has been received from a private organization not affiliated with or recognized by the Florida Board of Dentistry.” For purposes of this rule, the Board approves the dental specialty certifying boards recognized by the American Dental Association and the Commission on Dental Accreditation as recognizing agencies, and such other recognizing agencies as may request and receive future approval by the Board.(4) – (7) No change

Dr. Frank Recker addressed the board. He stated that, in his opinion, the rule draft is contrary to the decision made in April 2009 in the Ducoin case. Board counsel advised that the Board could begin the rule process and any changes could then be made through this process. He stated that this language mirrored that used by the Board of Medicine.

Motion: by Dr. Melzer to approve the languageSecond: by Dr. GesekVote: unanimous

Motion: by Dr. Thomas that there is no impact on small businessSecond: by Ms. BakerVote: unanimous

64B5-4.004, FAC, Advertising Specialty Services64B5-4.004 Advertising Specialty Services.(1) The Board recognizes as a specialty only those specialties recognized by the American Dental Association (ADA).(2) Any advertisement of specialty services must state whether the service will be performed by a general dentist or a specialist. Only dentists who meet the qualifications of subsection 64B5-4.004(4), F.A.C., may hold themselves out as specialists. Specialty services advertised by a dentist who is not so qualified and who limits his practice to a specialty area must be advertised in the following manner: “General Dentist, Practice limited to (particular specialty area).”(3) Specialty services for the purpose of this rule shall include all endodontic procedures (ADA Code # 03000-03999), all orthodontic procedures (ADA Code # 08000-08999), all oral surgery procedures except nonsurgical extraction (ADA Code # 07200-07999), and all periodontal surgical procedures (ADA Code # 04200-04272). Use of terms which generally describe specialty services, i.e. children’s dentistry, pediatric dentistry, pedodontics or similar phrases are also considered to be advertisement of specialty services.(4) No dentist may hold himself or herself out as a specialist unless such licensee meets one of the following qualifications:(a) The dentist is eligible for examination by an ADA recognized national specialty board.(b) The dentist is a diplomat of an ADA recognized national specialty board.(c) The dentist has continuously held himself out as a specialist since December 31, 1964.(d) The dentist has completed a specialty educational program approved by the American Dental Association and the Commission on Dental Accreditation.(5) No dentist may advertise a service in a manner which in its form or content would lead a reasonable person to believe that the service is a specialty unless that service is a specialty recognized by the Board. For example, it is misleading for a dentist to advertise that he is a specialist or that he limits his practice to the diagnosis and treatment of temporomandibular joint disorders, facial pain therapy or


20 of 24

implantology since these are not Board recognized specialties. However, a dentist may advertise that he diagnoses and treats temporomandibular joint disorders or facial pain and that he places dental implants.

Specific Authority 466.004(4), 466.019 FS. Law Implemented 466.019, 466.028(1)(d), 466.0282 FS. History–New 1-11-89, Formerly 21G-4.004, 61F5-4.004, Amended 6-9-96, Formerly 59Q-4.004.

Motion: by Dr. Melzer to approve the deletion of this sectionSecond: by Ms. GaineyVote: unanimous

Motion: by Dr. Winker that there is no impact on small businessSecond: by Dr. GesekVote: unanimous

64B5-12.013, FAC, Continuing Education Requirements(1) – (2) No change (3) Continuing education credit shall be awarded only for educational experiences that are specifically appropriate for, and contain useful information directly pertinent to, dentistry and only if received through the following methods:(a) – (h) No change (i) By participating as an anesthesia inspection consultant, a licensee may receive two hours of continuing education credit each biennium.(4) – (6) No change

Specific Authority 456.013(8), 456.031, 466.004(4), 466.0135, 466.014, 466.017(3), (4) FS. Law Implemented 456.013(8), 456.031, 466.0135, 466.014, 466.017(3), (5), 466.028(1)(i), (bb) FS. History–New 4-2-86, Amended 12-31-86, 4-26-87, 7-20-87, 9-16-87, 11-18-89, 7-9-90, Formerly 21G-12.013, Amended 5-19-94, 7-18-94, Formerly 61F5-12.013, Amended 11-15-95, 4-8-96, Formerly 59Q-12.013, Amended 2-17-98, 2-15-99, 3-11-99, 11-9-00, 5-20-01, 8-25-03, 5-31-04, 7-13-05, 2-14-06, 12-25-06, _________________.

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to approve the languageSecond: by Dr. KlementVote: unanimous

Motion: by Dr. Winker that there is no impact on small businessSecond: by Ms. GaineyVote: unanimous

64B5-16.005, FAC, Remediable Tasks Delegable to Dental AssistantsRules committee did not provide a recommendation to the Board. Additional language was provided in the file folders for consideration.

Dr. Morgan has been working on committee formed by HERSA grant. He summarized the work of the committee as follows: Florida is 49th in country in dental caries and the most restrictive in delegable duties. He stated that 50% of all children born today are on Medicaid. The Committee has developed strategies, Medicaid component, workforce component, and a survey will be included with upcoming dental license renewal.

The language proposed at this time is close to that proposed by the committee. Federal law requires FQHC requires dental exam for nursing home patients every year. These rule changes are not intended for non federal FQHC.

Mr. Flury indicated board could approve rule for development, however, the language must be submitted to the Council on Dental Hygiene for review and recommendation.


21 of 24

Don Erbes, FDA, stated that rule draft for 64B5-16.005, FAC, may be acceptable with some amendments. Dr. Erbes felt legislative changes may be required; Dr. Morgan felt legislative changes were not necessary.

Dr. Erbes stated that rule draft for 64B5-16.006, FAC, is acceptable to FDA to help with standard of care, if language includes general supervision. Dr. Hoffman is concerned that a legislative change may be required to have language that does not provide supervision.

Nancy Zinser, FDHA, is on workforce group with Dr. Morgan and Dr. Hoffman. Ms. Zinser stated the statute already allows dental charting in certain health care settings.

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to move language to Council on Dental Hygiene, then to Rules committee andreturn to full board

Second: by Ms. GaineyVote: unanimous

Motion: by Dr. Morgan to ask counsel to initiate rule developmentSecond by Ms. GaineyVote: unanimous

Board Counsel Rules Report

Letter from JAPC re Rule 64B5-1.021, FAC

Dental exam application (revised)The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) expressed concerns about specific deadline and exam dates in the current dental exam application instructions. Staff made changes to address the concerns. Upon review, the board took the following action:

Motion: by Dr. Thomas to approve the applicationSecond: by Dr. WinkerVote: unanimous

Dental hygiene exam application (revised)The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) expressed concerns about specific deadline and exam dates in the current dental hygiene exam application instructions. Staff made changes to address the concerns. Upon review, the board took the following action:

Motion: by Dr. Winker to approve the applicationSecond: by Dr. GesekVote: unanimous

Letter from JAPC re Rule 64B5-2.014, FACLetter from JAPC re Rule 64B5-2.0144, FAC

Rule draft, 64B5-2.0135, FAC, revised after 7/7/09 rules committeeThis language was approved under the rules committee report.

Board DirectorRatification of Lists


22 of 24

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to ratify the listsSecond: by Dr. WinkerVote: unanimous Meeting with Veterans Affairs (July 9, 2009) Ms. Foster reported on the meeting with Veterans Affairs. She stated that the purpose of this meeting was to initiate dialogue among the various parties to look for avenues to allow retired military physicians and dentists to practice in Florida. An information sheet was handed out at this meeting listing statistics of physicians, osteopaths, and dentists and all of the current avenues available for licensure in Florida.

2009 Legislation SB 462, EngrossedThis is the prescription drug monitoring program. The Department must establish an electronic database system by December 1, 2010 regarding dispensed controlled substances. The department will establish reporting protocol.

Ms. Foster stated that the board office will notify all dental dispensing practitioners of this new law and additional reporting requirements/changes to ID requirements. There are currently about 230 dental dispensing practitioners. The post card mail out will refer the practitioner to the board website for a summary of the bill and link to the full bill.

SB 1986, Engrossed, Medicaid Fraud/ReformThis bill places limitations on licensure and renewal relating to applicants convicted of Medicaid fraud - they would be disqualified for licensure. Additional questions will need to be added to the licensure applications – draft questions were in the file folder.

Motion: by Dr. Gesek to approve for rule developmentSecond: by Ms. KitchensVote: unanimous

SB 2188This bill requires web-site posting of a public book for any profession with digital agendas.

ChairVice-ChairBoard MembersDr. Melzer reported that the Probable Cause Panel had reviewed 111 cases on the previous Friday. Ms. Campbell stated that she would like to attend the November examination.

Request for rule development for anesthesia training requirements – Dr. GesekMotion: by Dr. Gesek to refer to Anesthesia committee to develop language to require dental cases in

the area of permit the individual is requestingSecond: by Dr. MelzerVote: unanimous


23 of 24

OLD BUSINESSNone

NEW BUSINESSNone

ADJOURNMENTThe meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.


24 of 24

64b5-2.013, fac, dental examination requirements and grading

Documents