Board of Dentistry | The Health Law Firm Blog

Florida Board of Dentistry Proposes Change to Minimum Record Keeping Requirements for Dentists

By Christopher E. Brown, J.D., The Health Law Firm

On August 22, 2014, the Florida Board of Dentistry will meet to discuss implementing new requirements for record keeping. We believe that these changes are due to the Board’s concern over potential ambiguity with the current regulations, and due to the recent difficulty it had in disciplining Florida dentists for record keeping violations.

Read on for an outline of the proposed new requirements. Be sure to check this blog regularly. We will have a firm representative at this meeting and will post any updates.

Current Florida Rule.

Rule 64B5-17.002, Florida Administrative Code, provides the minimum record keeping requirements placed on Florida’s dentists. Currently, the rule requires a dentist to record the following information:

(a) Appropriate medical history;
(b) Results of clinical examination and tests conducted, including the identification, or lack thereof, of any oral pathology or diseases;
(c) Any radiographs used for the diagnosis or treatment of the patient;
(d) Treatment plan proposed by the dentist; and
(e) Treatment rendered to the patient.

Outline of Proposed New Requirements.

The proposed rule change will amend the Rule 64B5-17.002, Florida Administrative Code, as follows:

(a) Appropriate medical history, including any current or previous medical conditions, surgeries, hospitalizations, medications, and legible blood pressure readings (when taken). The updating and review of the medical history must also be documented.
(b) Results of clinical examinations and tests conducted, including the identification, or lack thereof, of any oral pathology or diseases.
(c) Any radiographs to include Cone Beam Computer Tomography (CBCT), and the results used for the diagnosis or treatment of the patient.
(d) Treatment plan and treatment options proposed by the dentist.
(e) Treatment rendered to the patient, including but not limited to the following, when applicable to the treatment performed:

(i) Type, amount, and mode of delivery (i.e., Mandibular block, Infiltration, etc.) of local anesthesia used;
(ii) Type and shade of restorative material used;
(iii) Preoperative and/or postoperative medications prescribed;
(iv) Medications delivered, administered, or provided to the patient during treatment or for use following treatment;
(v) Radiographs taken;
(vi) Impression material and type of impression taken (i.e., maxillary, mandibular, interocclusal, digital, etc.);
(vii) Medicaments, medications, sutures, irrigants, or bases applied to teeth or periodontal tissues;
(viii) Names or initials of all staff involved with clinical care of the patient;
(ix) Use of dental barrier or rubber dam;
(x) Tooth or arch treated identified by name, number or letter;
(xi) Working length, canals treated, identify untreated canals and reason left untreated, master apical file size, and obturation materials used during endodontic procedures; and
(xii) Unusual or unexpected events or reactions during or after the procedure including, but not limited to separation, breakage, retention, swallowing or aspiration, of any instrument or portion thereof.

In addition to the above changes, the Board is also seeking a number of other amendments to the rule, including additional requirements for record alterations and duties of dentists of record.

The complete proposed rule change can be found at: http://bit.ly/1vr4Cxw

Comments?

Did you know about these proposed changes? If imposed, how will the changes affect you? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Consult With An Attorney Experienced in the Representation of Dentists.

We routinely provide deposition coverage to dentists, dental hygienists and other health professionals being deposed in criminal cases, negligence cases, civil cases or disciplinary cases involving other health professionals.

The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in both formal and informal administrative hearings and in representing dentists and dental hygienists and other health professionals in investigations and at Board of Dentistry hearings. Call now or visit our website www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

About the Author: Christopher E. Brown, J.D., is an attorney with The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of George F. Indest III, P.A. – The Health Law Firm, a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 1996-2014 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Administrative Final Orders Must State Findings of Fact Based on the Evidence Presented

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by the Florida Bar in Health Law

Following is a summary of a recent appellate case on an issue relevant to health law:

Borges v. Dep’t of Health, 143 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
Gustavo Borges (Borges) appealed a final order of the Florida Board of Dentistry that revoked his license to practice dentistry based on a conviction of the knowing receipt of child pornography under a federal statute.

At hearing, eight lay witnesses and four expert witnesses testified. In the recommended order’s discussion of the evidence presented, which was the basis for the Board’s final order, the administrative law judge (ALJ) discussed the testimony of only one witness-Borges-after concluding that a statement by Borges constituted a concession that established that his conviction was related to his ability to practice dentistry. No other testimony was discussed in the order, or even acknowledged.

On appeal, the appellate court concluded that the ALJ’s recommended order adopted by the Board did not comply with one of the requirements of section 120.57, Florida Statutes-that an ALJ’s order must contain “express findings of fact.” The court was quick to point out that, while the findings of fact did not have to address the testimony of every witness (i.e., all twelve here), the order must at least address the factual controversies at issue to the extent they are relevant to the disposition, or address why the testimony is irrelevant. Having failed to do so in this case, the appellate court reversed and remanded.

The case summary above was originally published in the Administrative Law Section Newsletter, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Dec. 2014), a publication of The Administrative Law Section of The Florida Bar.

Editor’s Comments on Case Summary.

This case demonstrates an important concept in administrative law. This is, an administrative law judge is required to discuss the evidence presented at the hearing and make specific findings of fact based on that evidence. Failing to do this in the recommended order (RO) can lead to reversal by an appellate court.

Comments?

Do you think the appellate court should have reversed? Do you think it was important to discuss all testimonies in this case? Please leave any thoughtful comments below.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Handling Licensure Matters.

If you have been arrested, it is strongly recommended that you retain an experienced healthcare attorney who can advise you as to the effects a potential outcome could have on your license.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm routinely represent physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and other healthcare practitioners in licensure matters. We frequently consult with criminal defense attorneys regarding defense strategies tailored to minimizing criminal sanctions while preserving the practitioner’s license.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or (850) 439-1001 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone (407) 331-6620.

KeyWords: Criminal law, license, defense attorney, health law, health care attorney, health care lawyer, health investigation, medical license, conviction, desntist, dentist criminal charges, Department of Health, DOH, professional license, federal statutes, license disciplined, license revoked, health attorney, finding of guilt, adjudication withheld, diversion program, DOH conviction, adjudication, discipline, criminal trial, defense lawyer, ALJ, administrative law judge, administrative law, appellate court, administrative orders, Florida Board of Dentistry, Board of Dentistry, dentistry, statutes, testimony

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T10:01:44-04:00May 15, 2018|Categories: Board of Dentistry, Dental Law, Dentist Defense attorney, Dentistry Law|Tags: adjudication, adjudication withheld, administrative law, administrative law judge, administrative orders, ALJ, appellate court, Board of Dentistry, conviction, criminal law, criminal trial, defense attorney, defense lawyer, dentist criminal charges, dentistry, department of health, desntist, discipline, diversion program, doh, DOH conviction, federal statutes, finding of guilt, Florida Board of Dentistry, health attorney, health care attorney, health care lawyer, health investigation, health law, license, license disciplined, license revoked, medical license, professional license, statutes, testimony|Comments Off