STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DENTISTRY

Final Ordo> No. DOJ J-0 I· 1982- For ·il-1.Q 1\ nLF.U OATt ---lLJ or Dcp•ttma>l STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DENTISTRY By:_ 15 / 01 .. I •ltl1 ~- ...
43 downloads 0 Views 3MB Size
Final Ordo> No. DOJ J-0 I· 1982- For ·il-1.Q 1\ nLF.U OATt

---lLJ or

Dcp•ttma>l

STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF DENTISTRY

By:_

15 / 01 ..

I •ltl1

~- Q.._ I~ :::.,-., Deputy Agency Clerk

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF DENTISTRY, Petitioner. vs.

DOAH CASE NO : 99-4690 A HCA CASE NO.: 98-3745

DOUGLAS J. PHILLIPS, Jr. D.D.S. Respondent.

FINAL ORDER THIS MATIER was heard by the Board of Dentistry pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1). Florida Statutes, on September 28, 2001, in Tallahassee, Florida, for consideration of the Recommended Order entered by Claude B. Arrington, Administrativ·~ Law Judge, dated August 15, 2001 (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A). Petitioner was represented by Rosana Catalano, Senior Attorney. Respondent was present and represented by James Tuthill, Esquire. Upon consideration of the Administrative Law Judge's Recommended Order. after review of the entire record and having been otherwise fully advised in its premises, the Board makes the following findings and conciusions. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS FILED BY RESPONDENT 1. Respondent filed exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. A copy of said exceptions is attached as Exhibit B, and by reference incorporated herein. Respondent's exceptions total 45 pages, they are not separately numbered, and do not specify which paragraphs in the Recommended Order Respondent takes exception to. Respondent's exceptions fail to demonstrate that any specific finding of fact was not supported by competent substantial evidence, nor that the proceedings upon which the findings of fact were based departed from the essential requirements of law. The exceptions

-

instead go to maters such as the Cf9dibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence For all the reasons advanced by Petitioner in its Response to Respondent's Exceptions to Recommended Order (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit C and by reference incorporated herein). Respondent's exceptions are DENIED. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS FILED BY PETITIONER 2. Petitioner filed "Petitione(s Exceptions to Recommended Penalty, or in the alternative Petitioner's Motion to Increase Recommended Penalty.· A copy of said Exceptions/Motion is attached as Exhibit D. and by reference incorporated herein. The Board concurs that revocation is within the range of penalties provided by the Board's disciplinary guidelines for two out of the three violations for which Respondent was found guilty. The Boan:! further finds the existence of aggravating factors as elaborated in Petitioner's Exceptions/Motion. For all of the reasons and citations to the record advanced by Petitioner in the Exceptions/Motion, the Board grants the exception to the recommended penalty, and grants the motion to increase recommended penalty. FINDINGS OF FACT 3. The Administrative Law Judge's Findings o f Fact are approved and adopted and are incorporated herein by reference. 4. There is competent, substantial evidence to support the Board's findings. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 5. The Board has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this case pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 4e6, Florida Statutes. 6. The Administrative Law Judge's Conclusions of Law are approved a nd adopted and are incorporated herein by reference. 7. The Board REJECTS the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation

ivnEREFORt:, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED ttiat the Respondent's license to practioe be and the same 1s hereby REVOKED. Administrative Costs are assessed at $151, 181.24. This Final Order becomes effective upon its filing wi1h the Cieri( for the Department of Health. The parties are hereby notified ltlat they may appeal this Final Order by fiHng one copy of a Notice of Appeal wi1h the Cieri( of the Department of Health and by tiling a filing fee and one copy of a Notice of Appeal wi1h the District Court of Appeal witt'lin thirty (30) days of the date this Final Order is tiled. OONE AND ORDERED this

I

~ riA day of N m11rn'o0c{

'2001.

BOARD OF DENTISTRY

c~~~

CHAIRMAN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Omer has been forwarded by United States Mail to Douglas J. Phillips, Jr., O.D.S., 4512 North Flagler Drive, #301. West Palm Bead\, FL 33407-3802, to James Tuthill, Esq.. Raymond Plaza, Suite 407,

2161 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd, West Palm Beach, FL 33409, to Lisa Pease, Senior AttomeyAppeals, Agency for Health Care Administration, P.O. Box 14229, Tallahassee, FL 32317-4229 by interoffice mail to Claude Arrington, Administrative Law Judge, Divisic•n of Administrative Hearings, The DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Pancway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060, and by hand delivery/interoffice mail to Department of Health and its counsel, this

jJ~'\~

~-~ ~__...... _ _ _ _ __,,

2001 .

l 5-

dayof

STATE OF F LOR~DA 'JlVISION OF ADMINI STRATI VE HEARINGS OF HEALT!r , 30ARD OF DE:N'I'I Sl'RY,

DEPA..~TMENT

Petit:.oner, vs . DOUGLAS J . PHI LL I PS, D. D. S ., Respondent . ___ ______________

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

..· . ...

.;·~

. .. .

'"

'

..

.. l

Case No . 99 .. 4 590

RECOMMENDE'J ORDER Purs ua nt to not:.ce , a fi nal he aring was held in this case o:-i October 16 - 1 8, 2000, and January 2/. - 24, 7. 00 1, a t West Pa l n 3e ach, Florida, before Claude B. Arringto n, a d uly-des ignate d Ad~\i nistra tive

Hearings .

J,a w Judge o f the Divisio:-i of Adminis trative

The re cord clo sed in th i s p r oceeding when t he oart :te s .- . I



.:.~

~ -•

complete d a rebuttal de posj t i on on Apri l 5, 20 0 1. APPEARANCES For Petitioner:

Rosanna Catala no, 3 s qui r~ R. Lynn Lovej oy, Esquire Age ncy for Health Care Admin:strati on 2727 Ma han Drive Fort Knox Building, Mails top 39 Tallahas see, Fl orida 37.3 08

For Respondent :

James M. Tut h il l , Esquire 21 6 1 Palm Bea ch Lakes Boulevard Raymond Plaza, Sui t e 4 07 West Pa l~ Beach, Flo r ida 3 3~09

00163.Z

,:_.)

.:.:

STATEMEN1' OF THE ISSUE Whether Respondent, a licensed dentist, committed the offenses alleged in t he Firs t Amended Administ rative Complaint a nd t he pena l t ies, if any, that should be i mposed. PRELIMIN!\RY STA1'1':M!;lilT Petitioner filed an Administrative Compla:nt against Respor.dent based on his d i agnosis and treatrr.er.t of a patient wto w:11 be referred to a s C. C.

Respondent den:.e d the alleged

v iolations set forth it: the Administrative Compl aint and demanded a f orma l admi ni s t rat ive heari ng.

Th e m.a tter was referred t o the

Divisi on o f Admin i s tra t ive Heari ngs, .r.iended Admi nistrative Complain: filed by the Respondent in May of 2000.

The Adminis t rative Lal-i Judge made a find.'.ng that one prior disciplinary proceeding had been filed against Respondent's licens e and that the record was silent as to the details of that pri or disciplinary action. The J·.idge noted tha t the Respondent practices al~ernative

dentistry, also referred to as biol ogica l dentistry, on

chronically ill patients, practice,

the

a nd

Respondent

that in his

utilizes

alternative

unconventional

dental

diagnostic

met!'lodologies and horr.eopathic remedies. ~he

Judge found that the subj ect patient c onsidered herself to

be "chronically ill.H (R0-6) The patient had attended a seminar on toxicity emanating from the oral cavity and ca.,.1sin9 systemic health problems (R0-7) and had met with a medical doctor at this ser:iinar who also recommended that she have extract ed any toot h that had a root canal. (R0-7) Also at the seminar, the patient becar:ie fa:r.iliar with the homeopathic remedies which were used by the

Respon~en t

in

th i s matter. (R0-7) The Judge fo und that -::he patient had fi:.led out a standard ~edical

history forr:i that the Respondent had used in h is practice

for s e veral years (R0-8) a nd that the patient discussed her medical and dental

history with the

Responden~,

and told h irn th.at she

considered herself to be chronically ill. (R0-8)

Page.2 of

C01S48

45

AUG.29 . 2001

~ JTHILL

8'32AM

P.4/ 45

ET AL

' I t was stated i:'. the Recommended Order that Re spondent had evaluated the patient's dental status by evaluati:i.g her autonomi c ne rvous s ystem and by using autonomic response testing which was explained

by

several

of

the

experts

who

testified

in

the

proceedi:-.g. (RO-B -9 ) The Judge found that the human body has an autonomic nervo·.is systel:l and described the esser.tial anatomy A~~ini s trative

:~n

his Order. Th e

Law Judge found that the sympathetic part of the

autonomic nervous system deals wi th s t resses that come from outside the body.

.

(R0-9)

A finding was made response tes ting,

., ·,

that

which the

i n addition

Acl~.ini st ra ti ve

to using auto:i.o;nic Judge

!o·Jnd to be

unconventional , that the Respondent e ngaged in conve ntional and traditional methods of examination by visually inspecting the

...

..

..

patient 's teeth with a dental mi rror, using a d ental explorer to exami:i.e t he edge s of fillings and cracks in the teeth, probing her gu.'Tls, percussing her tee th and palpating all of he r teeth . In addition, the Adrr.inistrative Law Judge found t hat the Reseondent reviewed x-rays previously taken eight months before the patient presented to the Responden t's office. (R0-12) Judge Arrington specifically f ound that "Respondent adequately explair.ed to CC (the patient) how he intended to extract the two teeth and what she could expect following the extract ion . Although CC did not ask t o have

those two teeth extracted,

Page 3 of

45

001549

she c learly

agreed to have the extra::tions.

It is fi.:rther found that cc

!