Vol. 19, No. 1 July 2003

• 1887 •

OREG

ON

BOARD OF DENTISTRY

Our Mission: The mission of the Oregon Board of Dentistry is to assure that the citizens of the state receivethe highest possible quality oral health care.

New Board Member ..................................... 2

A Case Study ................................................ 3

Caution ......................................................... 3

Disciplinary Actions ..................................... 5-9

2003 Legislative Session and the

Dental Practice Act .................................. 10

OBD has been questioned and criticized forhaving a different position than the ODA. It isnot necessary or required that OBD and ODAshare the same opinion on all issues. Differencesof opinion, properly expressed, are good forprovoking thought and discussion and are vitalfor our Republic form of Government.

As individuals and board members we makedecisions based on our knowledge of the issue athand, our colleagues’ and friends’ advice, ourpast experiences and our own “gut” feelings.Since these items are not the same for any two ofus, we all make slightly different decisions.

I was heavily lobbied regarding the Board’sposition on the minority shareholder issue.Opponents to this proposal insisted that theindividual dentist must be protected from pres-sure exerted by outside interests such as non-dentist minority owners. As I recall, 49% or lessownership of anything doesn’t give much control.

(continued on page 4)

PRESIDENT’SMESSAGEby Ronald Short, DMD

The smoke hascleared somewhaton Senate Bill 390

dealing with DentalPractice ownership. The bill has passed theLegislature by a substantial majority. In general,the bill changes the Dental Practice Act to allowthe ownership and operation of Dental Practices bygovernment entities such as County Health Depart-ments, Federally Qualified Community HealthCenters and non-profit charitable organizations.Provisions are also made for the transition of thepractice of a deceased or disabled owner-dentist.Multi –practitioner dental practices must name anactively licensed dentist as dental director whoshall be responsible for the clinical practice ofdentistry and the overall quality of patient carerendered in the clinic.

This helps many clinics performing necessarydental services to be in compliance with the law.This is a much needed and long overdue change inthe law. The Oregon Board of Dentistry has beenstudying these problems for several years with itssub-committee on ownership and has also encour-aged and served on the Oregon DentalAssociation’s taskforce on ownership.

Not included in SB 390, but recommended bythe ODA taskforce and supported by the OBD,was a provision for minority ownership of DentalPractices to enable sole practitioners or smallpartnerships to take advantage of financing oppor-tunities and for estate and tax planning. This washeavily opposed by the ODA as a result of opposi-tion at the annual ODA House of Delegates.

2 JULY 2003

O R E G O N B O A R D O F D E N T I S T R Y

NEW BOARD MEMBER

Rodney Nichols,DMD, joined theBoard in May

2003. Dr. Nichols is anative of Montana butreadily claims Oregon ashome. “Like many Orego-nians I have been accused ofhaving moss growing on mynorth side,” he states, “but I

won’t claim to be a webfoot for obvious reasons.”Raised in Salem, he attended South Salem High

School then received his undergraduate degree inmicrobiology at Oregon State University. Heobtained his dental degree from University of OregonHealth Sciences Center (now OHSU) and continuedthere to complete a residency in Oral andMaxillofacial Surgery. He is a Diplomate of theAmerican Board of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.

Past teaching experience includes appointments inthe Departments of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeryand Oral Pathology at OHSU but he currentlymaintains a private practice in Milwaukie.

Dr. Nichols is on the medical staff at severalPortland area hospitals including Legacy PortlandHospitals (Good Samaritan Hospital and MedicalCenter and Emanuel Hospital and Health Center) aswell as Mount Hood Medical Center. He currentlyserves as the section chairman for Oral andMaxillofacial Surgery at Legacy Portland Hospitalsand was the OMS division chairman at HolladayPark Hospital.

Like many Board members, Dr. Nichols has beenactive in organized dentistry including serving on theODA Government Relations Council and theStrategic Governance Task Force as well as recentlycompleting his tenure as President of the ClackamasCounty Dental Society. He is a Past President of theOregon Society of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeryand is on the Executive Board of the Western Societyof Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Dr. Nichols alsorepresents District VI of the American Association ofOral and Maxillofacial Surgeons on the AAOMSCommittee for Hospital and Inter-ProfessionalAffairs (CHIA).

Dr. Nichols notes his interest in serving on theBoard stems from his activity on the credentials

BOARD MEMBERS

Ronald Short, DMD, PresidentKlamath Falls — Term expires 2004

●

George McCully, DMD, Vice-PresidentEugene — Term expires 2004

●

Melissa Grant, DMDPortland/Salem — Term expires 2005

●

Kenneth Johnson, DMDCorvallis — Term expires 2005

●

Linda Lee, RDH, MBALake Oswego — Term expires 2005

●

Jean Martin, DDS, MPHCanby — Term expires 2006

●

Rodney Nichols, DMDMilwaukie — Term expires 2007

●

Ellen Potts, RDH, BSPortland — Term expires 2006

●

Richard “Rick” SwartPublic Member

Enterprise — Term expires 2006

committees of Holladay Park Hospital and LegacyPortland Hospitals where he has been a committeemember, chairman and vice chairman of thecommittees during the past 20 years. “Assessing thequalifications of the professional staff for membershipand granting privileges to perform procedures hasbecome much more complicated and important as thenature of the medical staff has changed. We havemoved away from small community based facilitiesto much larger corporate institutions with a moretransient and diverse medical staff of many specialties,”he states. “The Board functions much like a credentialscommittee in a hospital, trying to assure that thepatient receives care from qualified and competentpractitioners with adequate training and currentexpertise.”

Dr. Nichols’ past experience with the Board includesbeing an examiner for the OMS specialty examinationand serving on the Board’s Anesthesia AdvisoryCommittee.

In addition to his professional interests Dr. Nicholsenjoys golf and exploring the many wonders of Oregon.On a sunny day you may also find him cruising thetwo-lane back roads on his H-D Road King Classic orhiking the trails in Portland’s Forest Park. ■

JULY 2003 3

O R E G O N B O A R D O F D E N T I S T R Y

A CASE STUDY

The Board received a complaint allegingthat a dentist, for an extended period, hadfailed to complete continuing education

courses as required by the Board.In accordance with Oregon law which requires

that the Board conduct an investigation of anycomplaint received regarding a licensee, the Boardopened an investigation. A review of the dentist’slicensing file revealed that the doctor had certifiedon his past three renewal applications that he hadcompleted the 40 hours of required C.E. during thelicensure periods.

The dentist was asked to provide verification thathe had completed the C.E. hours that he certifiedhaving completed. After several attempts to gatherthe required information, a list was submitted. Areview of all courses, study clubs, video tapes, andlocal component meetings listed revealed that thedoctor had not completed the required three hours inmedical emergencies, had not taken and passed anyof the tests required when using videotapes orjournals for C.E., and was short several hours in twoof the previous licensure periods. The doctor alsodid not have a current and valid Health Care Pro-vider BLS/CPR certification required to maintain aClass 1 anesthesia permit.

As a resolution to this matter, the doctor agreed toenter into a Consent Order with the Board in whichhe agreed to be reprimanded, to pay a civil penaltyin the amount of $1,000 within 12 months, tocomplete the hours of C.E. that he had certified tobut had not taken, and to provide ten hours ofcommunity service in the form of unremunerateddirect patient dental care.

(The Board requirement for C.E. is minimal –less than two hours per month for dentists, and onlyone hour per month for dental hygienists – and C.E.can be obtained from a variety of sources. TheBoard also has a policy that if a licensee hascompleted at least 75% of the required C.E. by theend of the renewal period, a 60 day extension can begranted upon request. Falsely certifying that allC.E. has been completed when it has not is aviolation of the Dental Practice Act and subject todisciplinary action.) ■

The carpule in thesyringe is labeled 2%lidocaine. As youbegin to inject, canyou be sure thatlidocaine is what thepatient will receive?

The Board recently reviewed a case where apatient received an inferior alveolarinjection from a carpule containing so-

dium hypochlorite. The patient was treated at anemergency room, and fortunately, has recoveredcompletely.

One dentist in this office used a “refilledcarpule technique” to place bleach in anestheticcarpules for use in endodontic irrigation. Assis-tants were directed to remove the labels fromanesthetic carpules and refill them with sodiumhypochlorite. These carpules were to be kept in aclearly marked envelope for “endodontic useonly.” This practitioner felt that the system inplace was error proof.

The only error-proof system is to NEVERfill an injectable carpule with anything otherthan the labeled contents or a medicationintended for injection.

The injury to this patient was painful andfrightening. The anxiety and concern experiencedby the dentist was, no doubt, unforgettable. Allwere lucky that the patient’s injury wasn’t worse.

Many systems are available for endodonticirrigation—none of them expensive. Please usethem. Spare yourself and your patients even thesmallest chance that your injection will causeunintended, and avoidable, harm. It bears sayingagain:

NEVER fill an injectable carpule withanything other than the labeled con-tents or a medication intended forinjection. ■

Jean Martin, DDS. MPH

4 JULY 2003

O R E G O N B O A R D O F D E N T I S T R Y

Does that also include influence from spousesand family members even if they are not share-holders?

The licensee has the legal and moral obligationto practice acceptable dentistry on all patientsregardless of any external influence to do other-wise from any source including employers, 3rd

party payers, spouses and families, and anyoneelse so inclined to exert such influence. Other-wise, the licensee’s license is in jeopardy!

It is not the duty of the OBD to protect licens-ees from external pressure to practice bad den-tistry. It is the duty of the Board to protect thepublic from bad dentistry done by the licensees.If the licensee cannot resist outside influences,the licensee should not be practicing dentistry orshould, at the least, make whatever changes arenecessary to escape the influence.

The Legislature and the dental communityhave now spoken. It remains illegal for anydentist to allow a non-dentist to hold any sharesof a dental clinic except for those practicesenabled by SB 390. The Oregon Board of Den-tistry will now begin enforcement of the sectionof the Dental Practice Act which limits theownership of Oregon dental practices to Oregonlicensed dentists only. This will involve thosedentists with Professional Corporations or LLCswho have non-dentist owners of stock or shares,etc. This issue has been referred to the Board’sEnforcement Committee for study and recom-mendation of enforcement procedures and penal-ties for violation. I urge all Oregon licenseddentists to immediately review their practiceorganization to ensure that it is in compliancewith the law.

“I love the man that can smile in trouble, thatcan gather strength from distress, and grow braveby reflection. `Tis the business of little minds toshrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whoseconscience approves his conduct, will pursue hisprinciples unto death.”- THOMAS PAINE ■

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE (Continued from page 1)

QUESTIONS? Call the Board office at503-229-5520 or e-mail your questions to usat information@oregondentistry.org.

TRANSITIONSJo Ann Bones

After more than 30 years as anemployee of the State of Oregonand the last seven years as

Executive Director of the Board ofDentistry, I have decided to retire from Stateservice and see what the next phase of mylife holds for me. The years with the Boardhave been a time of learning, challenge,growth, and fun. I have met manywonderful people and had the privilege ofserving the dental community and the publicwith a terrific staff and many dedicatedBoard members and volunteers. Togetherwe have made many significantimprovements in the Dental Practice Act andrules of the Board and I am very proud tohave been a part of that progress. I have agreat respect for the time, effort andexpertise that Board members contribute totheir profession and encourage everylicensee to be a part of this process.

Albert Schweitzer said, “I don’t knowwhat your destiny will be, but one thing I doknow: the only ones among you who will bereally happy are those who have sought andfound how to serve.” I have found my yearsof service to the State of Oregon and theBoard of Dentistry to be very gratifying andextend my heartfelt THANKS to all whomade this time so rewarding and successful.Best wishes to all who read this. I hopeyour career is as rewarding and happy foryou as mine has been for me. Hopefully,this is not “Good-bye” but only “So long,until we meet again.” ■

JULY 2003 5

O R E G O N B O A R D O F D E N T I S T R Y

DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS TAKEN BETWEEN

NOVEMBER 1, 2002 AND MAY 3, 2003Note: In the November issue of the newsletterthe Disciplinary Actions were erroneously la-beled as actions taken between October 1, 2001and April 30, 2002 when in fact they were actionstaken between May 1, 2002 and October 30,2002. We regret the error.

Unacceptable Patient Care ORS 679.140(1)(e)

Case #2002-0190 Based on an investigation,the Board issued a Notice of Proposed DisciplinaryAction alleging that a dentist failed to obtain in-formed consent prior to extracting a tooth and failedto document the administration of nitrous oxide.Aware of his right to a hearing, the Licensee voluntar-ily entered into a Consent Order in which the Lic-ensee agreed to be reprimanded and to comply withthe Dental Practice Act and rules of the Board.

Case #2001-0063 Based on an investigation,the Board issued a Notice of Proposed DisciplinaryAction alleging that a dentist failed to document careand treatment for a patient. In order to resolve thematter, the Licensee voluntarily entered into a Con-sent Order in which the Licensee agreed to bereprimanded and to comply with the Dental PracticeAct and rules of the Board.

Cases #2001-0139 and #2002-0104Based on two investigations involving at least twopatients, the Board issued a Notice of ProposedDisciplinary Action alleging that a dentist failed totake post-treatment radiographs following the place-ment of posts, failed to take diagnostic radiographs toevaluate post-treatment pain in a patient and placed arestoration when there was no dental justification.Aware of his right to a hearing, the Licensee enteredinto a Consent Order with the Board in which theLicensee agreed to be reprimanded and to pay a civilpenalty in the amount of $1,500.00.

Case #2002-0049 Based on an investigation,the Board issued a Notice of Proposed DisciplinaryAction alleging that, for multiple patients on multiple

occasions, a dentist failed to document a descriptionof the examination and diagnosis, failed to documentperiodontal charting, failed to document “PARQ;”failed to document the name, quantity and strength ofdrugs administered; repeatedly failed to document adiagnosis to justify treatment provided for patients,misrepresented a fee by billing for services per-formed on a date other than the date stated on the billfor purposes of invoking insurance coverage, andfailed to document the date and description of ser-vices provided. Aware of his right to a hearing, theLicensee entered into a Consent Order in which theLicensee agreed to be reprimanded, to be placed onindefinite probation but for not less than five years, topay a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000.00, tocomplete a Board- approved course in record keepingwithin one year and to perform 80 hours of Board-approved community service in the form of unremu-nerated direct patient dental care within one year.

Case #2001-0120 Based on an investigation,the Board issued a Notice of Proposed LicenseRevocation alleging that, for multiple patients onmultiple occasions, a dentist performed scaling androot planing without a dental justification, providedunacceptable care when performing planing andscaling, failed to document diagnosis of periodontaldisease, submitted bills to insurance companies forservices that were not provided on the date billed for,and misrepresented facts and made untrue statementsto the Board during its investigation. Aware of herright to a hearing, the Licensee voluntarily enteredinto a Consent Order with the Board in which theLicensee agreed to be reprimanded, to a licensesuspension of one year with 11 months stayed andwith the remaining suspension of 30 consecutivedays to be completed within one year; to be placed onprobation for ten years, to pay total restitution of$668.40 to three different patients, to pay totalrestitution of $2,542.00 to three different insurancecompanies, to pay a civil penalty in the amount of$15,000.00, to provide 120 hours of communityservice in the form of unremunerated direct dental

(continued on page 6)

6 JULY 2003

O R E G O N B O A R D O F D E N T I S T R Y

DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS (Continued from page 7)

care within three years, to appear before the Board ata frequency determined by the Board but initially twotimes per year; and, for a period of ten years, topractice dentistry only as an employee of a dentalpractice in which the Licensee has no ownershipinterest or management involvement.

Case #2002-0123 Based on an investigation,the Board issued a Notice of Proposed DisciplinaryAction alleging that a dentist failed to diagnose anddocument caries evident on dental radiographs andfailed to document “PARQ” or its equivalent whenobtaining informed consent. Aware of his right to ahearing, and wishing to resolve this matter, theLicensee entered into a Consent Order with theBoard in which the Licensee agreed to be repri-manded, to make a restitution payment to the patientin the amount of $984.00 within 90 days, and to paya civil penalty of $1,000.00 within 30 days.

Cases #1999-0211, #2000-0152 and#2000-0197 Based on an investigation, theBoard issued a Notice of Proposed DisciplinaryAction alleging that for multiple patients over aperiod of time a dentist failed to document diagnosesto justify initiating orthodontic treatment, initiatedorthodontic therapy when a panoramic radiographtaken prior to initiating treatment showed generalizedmoderate to severe bone loss, failed to documentdiagnoses of periodontal disease, failed to documentdiagnoses to justify treatment provided; failed todocument and diagnose root resorption, looseningteeth, and ongoing bone loss resulting from orthodon-tic treatment; failed to consult with or refer a patientto a periodontist when bone loss and increasingpocket depths was noted; failed to seek consultationor make referrals when complex orthodontic relation-ships were diagnosed; after treating two patients formultiple years the patients had no change in the initialconditions that the dentist originally diagnosed;attempted to non-surgically correct an orthodonticcondition that required surgical correction and failedto document that informed consent was obtainedprior to initiating treatment. Aware of his right to ahearing, and wishing to resolve these matters, Lic-ensee entered into a Consent Order with the Board in

which he agreed to cease performing any orthodonticservices and to not resume the performance oforthodontic services until after demonstrating profi-ciency to the Board.

Case #2002-0290 Based on an investigation,the Board issued a Notice of Proposed DisciplinaryAction alleging that a dentist failed to diagnose anddocument periodontal disease indicated by increas-ing periodontal probings and radiographic evidenceof bone loss and failed to document “PARQ” or itsequivalent. Aware of his right to a hearing andwishing to resolve the matter, the Board and Lic-ensee entered into a Consent Order in which theLicensee agreed to be reprimanded and to make arestitution payment to the patient in the amount of$2,000.00 within 30 days.

Case #2002-0282 Based on an investigation,the Board issued a Notice of Proposed DisciplinaryAction alleging that a dentist seated a crown with adefective mesial margin, failed to document “PARQ”or its equivalent after obtaining informed consent,failed to document a diagnosis of periodontal diseaseor to do periodontal probings although radiographsshowed evidence of bone loss and heavy subgingivalcalculus, failed to document a diagnosis to justifyplacing crowns on two teeth prior to preparing theteeth for crowns, failed to document the name of thelocal anesthetic administered, and failed to documentthat impressions were taken or that temporary crownswere placed. Aware of his right to a hearing, in orderto resolve this matter the Licensee voluntarily signeda Consent Order in which he agreed to be repri-manded, to make a restitution payment to the patientin the amount of $680.00 within 60 days, and tocomplete a Board-approved course in record keepingwithin one year.

Case #2002-0143 Based on an investigation,the Board issued a Notice of Proposed DisciplinaryAction alleging that a dentist failed to document adiagnosis of caries in several teeth for a period of atleast five years and failed to restore caries that werediagnosed until four years after the diagnosis. Awareof his right to a hearing, in order to resolve this matter

(continued on page 7)

JULY 2003 7

O R E G O N B O A R D O F D E N T I S T R Y

the Licensee voluntarily signed a Consent Order inwhich the Licensee agreed to be reprimanded and tomake a restitution payment to the patient in theamount of $2,500.00 within 120 days.

Case #2002-0244 Based on an investigation,the Board issued a Notice of Proposed DisciplinaryAction alleging that a dentist seated a crown withdeficient margins. Aware of her right to a hearing, inorder to resolve this matter the Licensee voluntarilysigned a Consent Order in which she agreed to bereprimanded and to pay a civil penalty in the amountof $1,000.00 within 30 days.

Case #2003-0003 Based on an investigation,the Board issued a Notice of Proposed DisciplinaryAction alleging that a dentist perforated through thebuccal surface of a tooth while attempting to locatethe canal openings of the roots while initiatingendodontic therapy on the tooth. Aware of his rightto a hearing, the Licensee voluntarily entered into aConsent Order in which he agreed to be reprimanded,to successfully complete at least five hours of Board-approved hands-on education in endodontics, fivehours of Board-approved education in diagnosis andtreatment planning and a Board-approved course inrecord keeping within one year.

Case #2003-0073 Based on the results of aninvestigation, the Board issued a Notice of ProposedDisciplinary Action alleging that a dentist failed todiagnose and document that restorations placed intwo teeth were defective, placed composite buildupsin teeth with deficient contacts and contours, failedto treat the DL canal of a tooth while completingendodontic therapy in the tooth, failed to document“PARQ” or its equivalent after obtaining informedconsent, failed to document that local anesthetic wasadministered to the patient and failed to documentthe name of the endodontic fill material used tocomplete endodontic therapy in the two teeth.Aware of his right to a hearing, and in order toresolve this matter, the Licensee entered into aConsent Order with the Board in which the Lic-ensee agreed to be reprimanded, to make a restitu-tion payment to the patient in the amount of$875.00 within 60 days, and to complete at least

14 hours of a Board-approved hands-on course inrestorative dentistry, at least six hours in diagnosisand treatment planning, and a Board-approvedrecord keeping course within one year.

Unprofessional Conduct

Case #2003-0023 A dental hygienist voluntar-ily advised the Board of the Licensee’s abuse of andaddiction to, or dependence on alcohol and prescrip-tion drugs. The Licensee also advised the Board ofpending criminal charges regarding tampering withdrug records and forgery. Licensee was subsequentlyconvicted of one count of tampering with drugrecords. Aware of her right to a hearing, the Licenseevoluntarily entered into a Consent Order in which theLicensee agreed to be placed on indefinite probationfor at least five years; to not use alcohol, controlledsubstances or mood altering drugs unless prescribedby a licensed practitioner for a bona fide medicalcondition; to adhere to and complete all aspects ofany treatment and recovery plan recommended by aBoard-approved care provider; submit to a Board-approved random, supervised urinalysis testingprogram; to personally appear before the Board or itsdesignated representative at a frequency to be deter-mined by the Board but initially three times per year,and assure that the Board always has the most currentinformation regarding Licensee’s address, phonenumber and employment information.

Case #2003-0149 Based on a report receivedby the Board that a dentist may have been treatingpatients while impaired, a dentist acknowledgedthat he was addicted to, dependent upon or self-abused alcohol. Aware of his right to a hearing, theLicensee voluntarily entered into a Consent Orderin which the Licensee agreed to be reprimanded, tobe placed on indefinite probation for at least fiveyears, to not use alcohol, controlled substances ormood altering drugs at any time unless prescribedby a licensed practitioner for a bona fide medicalcondition, to adhere to and complete all aspects ofany treatment and recovery plans recommended bya Board-approved care provider, to submit to aBoard-approved, random, supervised urinalysistesting program at Licensee’s expense with a

(continued on page 8)

8 JULY 2003

O R E G O N B O A R D O F D E N T I S T R Y

frequency of testing initially at a minimum of 24tests per year, to appear before the Board or itsdesignated representative at a frequency to bedetermined by the Board but initially at least threetimes per year, and to assure that the Board alwayshas the most current addresses, phone numbers andemployment information regarding the Licensee.

Case #2003-0056 A dental hygienist advisedthe Board of a history of alcohol abuse, of a convic-tion of careless driving and of the Licensee’s currenttreatment and recovery program. The Board isauthorized under the Dental Practice Act to disci-pline Licensees for unprofessional conduct whichincludes addiction to, dependency on, or self abuseof alcohol or drugs. Aware of her right to a hearing,the Licensee voluntarily entered into a ConsentOrder in which the Licensee agreed to be placed onindefinite probation for not less than five years; tonot use alcohol, controlled substances or moodaltering drugs at any time unless prescribed by alicensed practitioner for a bona fide medical condi-tion; to adhere to and complete all aspects of anytreatment and recovery plans recommended by aBoard-approved care provider; to submit to aBoard- approved, random, supervised urinalysistesting program at Licensee’s expense with afrequency of testing initially at a minimum of 24tests per year; to appear before the Board or itsdesignated representative at a frequency to bedetermined by the Board but initially at least threetimes per year, and to assure that the Board alwayshas the most current addresses, phone numbers andemployment information regarding the Licensee.

Applicant Issues 679.060(4)

Case #2003-0064 Based on informationprovided in an application for a license to practicedentistry in which the Applicant admitted to havingbeen convicted of an offense, misdemeanor or felonywhich could have resulted in imprisonment, theBoard conducted an investigation and determinedthat the Applicant had been found guilty of one countof Giving False Information Police. In addition, onthe application the Applicant responded “No” to thequestion, “Have you ever used or possessed a

controlled substance in a manner that violated afederal, state or local law?” The Board’s routinebackground check revealed that the Applicant hadbeen arrested and charged with an offense involvingcontrolled substances. Applicant initially repeatedlydenied the evidence contained in the record in anattempt to deceive the Board. The Board determinedthat Applicant willfully made false statements to theBoard in a material record and that the Board hadlegal cause to deny the Applicant’s application forlicensure. In order to resolve the matter, Applicantand Board entered into a Consent Order in which theBoard agreed to issue a dental license to Applicant onthe condition that the Applicant agree to be repri-manded, to pay a civil penalty in the amount of$1,000.00, to provide 20 hours of community servicein the form of unremunerated direct patient dentalcare and to appear before the Board or its designatedrepresentative at a frequency to be determined by theBoard but initially at a frequency of two times peryear for a period of two years.

Case #2002-0176 Subsequent to an investiga-tion based on information received regarding anapplication for licensure which revealed that theApplicant had pled nolo contendere to a felonyviolation of the Welfare and Institutions Code inanother state and disciplinary action by that state’sdental licensing Board, the Oregon Board issued aNotice of Proposed Denial of Application. Appli-cant did not request a hearing and the Board subse-quently issued a Default Order denying Applicant alicense in Oregon.

Case #2003-0052 A dentist submitted anapplication for licensure without further examina-tion. The Board’s subsequent investigation deter-mined that the dentist had practiced dentistry inOregon for more than two months prior to submit-ting the application. The Board determined that theApplicant engaged in prohibited practices bypracticing dentistry without a license and deter-mined that it had legal cause to deny Applicant’sapplication for licensure. In order to resolve thematter, the Board and Applicant entered into a

DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS (Continued from page 9)

(continued on page 9)

JULY 2003 9

O R E G O N B O A R D O F D E N T I S T R Y

Consent Order in which the Board agreed to issueApplicant a license on condition that the Applicantagree to be reprimanded, to be placed on probationfor five years, to pay a civil penalty in the amount of$1,000.00 within 30 days and to provide 40 hours ofcommunity service in the form of unremunerateddirect patient dental care within six months.

Case #2003-0065 A dentist submitted anapplication for licensure in Oregon. On the applica-tion the Applicant responded, “No” to the question,“Has there been any disciplinary action, pending orfinal regarding any dental or dental hygiene licenseyou now hold or have ever held?” The Board’sinvestigation revealed that the Applicant had beendisciplined by another state dental board. During aninterview with the Board’s investigator, the Appli-cant denied having been disciplined by another statedental licensing board. The Board determined thatthe Applicant engaged in prohibited practices whenhe willfully made false statements to the Board in amaterial regard. The Board further determined thatit had legal cause to deny the Applicant’s applica-tion for licensure. In order to resolve the matter, theBoard and the Applicant entered into a ConsentOrder in which the Board agreed to issue a dentallicense to the Applicant on the condition thatApplicant agree to be reprimanded, to pay a civilpenalty in the amount of $1,000.00 within sixmonths, and to provide ten hours of unremuneratedcommunity service in the form of direct patientdental care within six months.

Case #2003-0209 A dental hygienist submittedan application for licensure in Oregon. With theapplication, the Applicant submitted informationrelated to two arrests for driving under the influenceof intoxicants. The Board’s subsequent investigationrevealed that the Applicant had pled guilty in anotherstate to operating a vehicle while impaired on twoseparate occasions. Applicant acknowledged abusingalcohol and advised that she had entered a recoveryprogram. Based on the results of the investigation,the Board determined that legal cause existed to denythe Applicant’s application for licensure. In order toresolve the matter, the Board and Applicant entered

into a Consent Order in which the Board agreed toissue the Applicant a license to practice dentalhygiene on the condition that she agree to be placedon indefinite probation for not less than five years; tonot use alcohol, controlled substances or moodaltering drugs at any time unless prescribed by alicensed practitioner for a bona fide medical condi-tion; to continue with regular attendance at Alcohol-ics Anonymous and continue regular contact with anAA sponsor, to advise the Board within 72 hours ofany alcohol related relapse or any substantial failureto participate in any recommended recovery program,and to appear before the Board or its designatedrepresentative at a frequency to be determined by theBoard but initially at least three times per year. ■

DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS (Continued from page 10)

BOARD STAFF

Tonaya Craft, Office SpecialistTonaya.Craft@oregondentistry.org

Teresa HaynesLicensing and Examination ManagerTeresa.Haynes@oregondentistry.org

Sharon Ingram, Executive AssistantSharon.Ingram@oregondentistry.org

Paul Kleinstub, DDS, MSDental Director and Chief InvestigatorPaul.Kleinstub@oregondentistry.org

Daryll Ross, InvestigatorDaryll.Ross@oregondentistry.org

Harvey Wayson, InvestigatorHarvey.Wayson@oregondentistry.org

The Board office is open from 7:30 a.m. to4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday exceptState and Federal holidays.Phone: 503-229-5520 Fax: 503-229-6606

10 JULY 2003

O R E G O N B O A R D O F D E N T I S T R Y

2003 LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND THE DENTAL PRACTICE ACT

Several pieces of legislation have beenpassed by the 2003 Legislature whichmake changes to the Dental Practice Act and

should be noted by all licensees. These changesinclude several housekeeping matters to update theDental Practice Act to more appropriately reflect orbetter define the licensing and examination process.

Changes effective immediately include:

Oral Health ScreeningsUnder the general supervision of a dentist, dental

hygienists and dental assistants may perform oralhealth screenings after training and screening proto-cols are adopted by the Board of Dentistry. Screen-ing results may be made to the individual or to theparents or guardians of minors needing referral for adiagnosis. These reports will not be considered adiagnosis for purposes of the Dental Practice Act.

Supervision of Dental AssistantsA Dental Assistant may be supervised by a Dental

Hygienist who is performing dental hygiene func-tions. In a dentist’s office, this would be at thediscretion of the dentist. For purposes of LimitedAccess Permit Dental Hygienists, the change allowsthe LAP to engage the services of a dental assistant toassist in providing dental hygiene care in the perfor-mance of LAP services.

Education for Limited Access PermitDental Hygienists who wish to obtain a Limited

Access Permit may now get the required additionaleducation hours from programs accredited for otherhealth professional programs (such as nursing) inaddition to CODA accredited programs.

Also, the list of required education has beenmodified to reflect that LAP dental hygienists maywork with students and incarcerated adults in addi-tion to geriatric and disabled populations.

Confidentiality of InvestigativeInformation

Statutory language was added to provide anexception to the confidentiality of investigativeinformation so that the Board may divulge infor-mation to treatment providers in situations where alicensee has been found to have a substance abuseproblem and the Board, licensee and treatmentproviders need to work closely in order to assistthe licensee in their recovery.

Board Jurisdiction over a LicenseLanguage was added to the statute to clarify that

the Board retains jurisdiction of a license for up tofour years notwithstanding expiration, suspension,revocation, surrender or retirement of the license.Since a retired or expired license can be broughtback to active status for a period of four years, theBoard needs to have clear statutory authority overthe license for that period.

Housekeeping Changes (a sample)Added to definition of “state” to include the

states and territories of the United States and theDistrict of Columbia.

Repealed the statute that stated that if anyoneappends the designation “DDS,” “DMD,” or theword “dentist” after a person’s name for advertis-ing purposes, it is prima facie evidence that theperson is practicing dentistry.

Repealed the requirement that examinations beconducted under oath administered by the Boardand repealed the requirement that applications forexamination be received by the Board 45 daysprior to the date of the examination. (Since theBoard uses CRDTS and WREB for the clinicalexams, these requirements were outdated andunnecessary.)

Amended the law to allow the Board to adopt rulesregarding remedial training requirements for appli-cants who fail the clinical examination three times.

JULY 2003 11

O R E G O N B O A R D O F D E N T I S T R Y

Changes effective January 1, 2004 include:

Ownership of Dental PracticesCertain entities may now legally operate a

dental clinic and engage in the practice of den-tistry. These entities include local governmentagencies, Federally Qualified Community HealthCenters, nonprofit charitable corporations(501(c)(3)) providing dental services by volunteerlicensed dentists, and institutions or programsaccredited by the Commission on Dental Accredi-tation of the American Dental Association.

Changes to the law also allow for the orderlytransition of a dental office upon the disability ordeath of an owner dentist by allowing certainpersons (such as an executor, personal representa-tive or guardian) to retain an ownership interest for12 months. Upon request, the Board may extendthis 12-month period.

The law does not allow, and it remains an illegalpractice, for a dentist to form or maintain abusiness relationship that allows any ownership bya non-dentist; i.e., allowing a non-dentist to own apercentage of a Professional Corporation.

Dental DirectorThe same bill that made the changes regarding

ownership (SB 390) also amended the statute torequire that any entity that owns or operates adental office or clinic must name an activelylicensed dentist as its dental director who shallhave responsibility for the clinical practice ofdentistry in the dental office or dental clinic.

Administration of Local Anesthesiafor Certain Electrology Procedures

Dentists may administer local anesthesia for apatient who is going to have hair removed from thelip area by a licensed electrologist. This is anamendment to ORS 680.500 which allows dentiststo administer local anesthesia for a person who ishaving permanent lip color applied by a licensedtattoo artist.■

FAREWELL TO

EUGENE O. KELLEY, DMD

We wish to extend a huge “ThankYou” to Dr. Eugene Kelley forhis contributions to the Board of

Dentistry and the citizens of Oregon. Dr.Kelley served as a member of the Board forthe past eight years. During his tenure on theBoard Dr. Kelley served many roles includ-ing as President in 1999 and for many yearsas Chair of the Board’s Anesthesia Commit-tee and has acted as Chief Examiner formany Board specialty exams over the years.Under Dr. Kelley’s leadership, the Board’sanesthesia rules were completely revised andnew rules adopted in 1998. The work of theAnesthesia Committee is an importantcomponent of the Board’s mandate to protectthe public and even after his service as aBoard member, Dr. Kelley has agreed tocontinue to serve as a member of the Anes-thesia Committee. His long career as apracticing Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeonfollowed by his term as Acting Chair of theOral Surgery Department at OHSU School ofDentistry adds great expertise and depth ofknowledge to the work of the Board. Hispresence as an active Board member will bemissed but his continued assistance will begreatly appreciated. ■

SCHEDULED BOARD MEETINGS

2003

● July 25, 2003

● September 19, 2003

● November 21, 2003

2004

● January 23, 2004

● March 19, 2004

● May 14, 2004

● July 9, 2004

● September 17, 2004

● November 19, 2004

12 JULY 2003

OREGON BOARD OF DENTISTRY1515 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 602Portland, OR 97201-5449

Licensees are required to report any change of address within 30 days.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS FORM

Licensee Name: _________________________________________________Print Name Phone

License Number:_________________________________________________

New Mailing Address: ____________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Mail or Fax to: OREGON BOARD OF DENTISTRY

1515 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 602Portland, OR 97201-5449Phone: (503) 229-5520Fax: (503) 229-6606

✁