Duvall Discipline Panel Decision (redacted) - College of Dental ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

-34- Dr. Duvall did not address this allegation in his response letter. The Panel has decided that the preparation for crown 4.6 was improperly done and 1s incompetent dentistry practice within the meaning of Section 39(1)(d) of the HPA. d. Damage to tooth 4.7 The CDSBC alleges that while preparing tooth 4.6, Dr. Duvall damaged tooth 4.7. Paragraph 272 of the CDSBC written submission says "Dr. Penner testified that the mesial of tooth 4. 7 appears to have damaged during the preparation of 4.6. This is confirmed in the pre and post preparation radiographs. " The Panel has decided that this allegation has not been proven. Although the radiograph shows damage to tooth 4.7 following the procedure, it is minimal. On occasion such minimal damage occurs without poor practice on the dentist's part. In this case, the CDSBC has not established by clear and convincing evidence that the damage to that tooth was caused by improper practice by Dr. Duvall. Therefore the Panel dismisses paragraph 22(d) in the Citation. Citation #23 In or about 2007, as regards your patient, GO, you extracted 11 teeth without sufficient radiographic information. The Panel reviewed Dr. DH’s report and affidavit, the patient's chart, five radiographs, Dr. Duvall's response and heard testimony from Dr. Penner. In this case, Dr. D H deposed that Dr. Duvall extracted eleven teeth and made plans for complete upper and lower immediate dentures without obtaining sufficient information in advance.
-35 Dr. Penner agreed with Dr. D H ’ s concern. He explained that before extractions are performed, a dentist requires radiographic information that shows the full length of a tooth including the root. This information is necessary so that the dentist will know what the implications of tooth removal on neighboring anatomical structures will be. The two bitewing radiographs Dr. Duvall reviewed did not show the complete roots of any of the upper or lower teeth that he extracted. In his response, Dr. Duvall stated "I do not recall the circumstances of why more x-rays were not taken. As far as the extractions being done, there seemed to be no reason why I should not have done them. " Dr. Duvall's response does not address his decision to proceed when he was missing important information. This suggests that he did not understand the significance of obtaining adequate information before extracting teeth. The Panel is satisfied that Dr. Duvall proceeded with the tooth extractions without sufficient information and that this is incompetent practice within the meaning of Section 39(1)(d) of the HPA. Citation #24 In or about 2007, as regards your patient JC, you failed to properly place a post in tooth 1.2. The Panel reviewed Dr. DH’s report and affidavit, the patient's chart, four radiographs, Dr. Duvall's response letter and heard oral testimony from Dr. Penner. Dr. DH complained that a post inserted by Dr. Duvall on tooth 1.2 was too short. radiograph confirmed Dr. DH’s concern. The Dr. Penner agreed with Dr. DH’s opinion. He explained that a post is used after a root canal to assist in creating a build-up upon which a crown will be placed. A post should extend as far below the gum line as the crown will extend when completed for stability.
Page 1 and 2: IN THE MATTER OF THE COLLEGE OF DEN
Page 3 and 4: - 3 In its decision, whenever the P
Page 5 and 6: - 5 Citation #2. In or about 2007,
Page 7 and 8: - 7 The Panel is unable to accept D
Page 9 and 10: - 9 c. you improperly placed an imp
Page 11 and 12: - 11 In January and February 2006,
Page 13 and 14: - 13- The evidence established that
Page 15 and 16: - 15- · Dr. Penner testified that
Page 17 and 18: - 17 The Panel reviewed a letter of
Page 19 and 20: - 19 did not contain any entry that
Page 21 and 22: -21 The Panel reviewed a letter of
Page 23 and 24: -23- The Panel understands the Coll
Page 25 and 26: -25 work. The Oct 24, 2006 radiogra
Page 27 and 28: -27 RK could see that some of the c
Page 29 and 30: -29 Citation #19 In or about 2006,
Page 31 and 32: -31 is left in the mouth there is a
Page 33: -33 In response to this aspect of t
Page 37 and 38: -37 The patient, 17 years old, was
Page 39 and 40: -39 patient would be. Dr. Duvall di
Page 41 and 42: -41 Both GC and her mother were unc
Page 43 and 44: -43 Section 8(j) of the AUSPA requi
Page 45 and 46: -45 Section 8(n) of the AUSPA requi
Page 47 and 48: Appendix "A" College of Dental Surg
Page 49 and 50: 3 11. In or about 2009, as regards
Page 51 and 52: 5 (d) (f) (j) (k) to fully comply w
Page 53 and 54: -46- from Dr. L to the effect that
Page 55: -46- from Dr. L to the effect that

Duvall Discipline Panel Decision (redacted) - College of Dental ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?