April 2010 - the Ohio State Dental Board - State of Ohio

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETINGAPRIL 7, 2010ATTENDANCE...................................................................................................... 1CALL TO ORDER.................................................................................................. 2INTRODUCTION OF BOARD MEMBERS........................................................... 2EXECUTIVE SESSION .......................................................................................... 2OPEN SESSION.............................................................................................................. 3REVIEW OF THE MARCH 2010 BOARD MEETING MINUTES......................... 3ENFORCEMENT REPORT.................................................................................... 3PERSONAL APPEARANCE(S)....................................................................................... 3JOHN M. BROOKE, D.D.S...........................................................................................................................3MODIFICATION REQUEST(S) .................................................................................... 5DANIEL A. GLICK, D.D.S............................................................................................................................ 5EXECUTIVE SESSION........................................................................................................................ 5OPEN SESSION ................................................................................................................................... 6PROPOSED CONSENT AGREEMENT(S) ................................................................... 6DISCIPLINARY ............................................................................................................................................. 6KEVIN HARDY, D.D.S. ........................................................................................................................... 6RUDYARD C. WHIPPS, D.D.S. ............................................................................................................... 6MACK A. WRIGHT, D.D.S. .................................................................................................................... 7ENFORCEMENT UPDATE ........................................................................................... 7LICENSE APPLICATIONS .................................................................................... 8LICENSURE REPORT.................................................................................................... 8DENTAL ...................................................................................................................................................... 8DENTAL HYGIENE....................................................................................................................................... 8DENTAL ASSISTANT RADIOGRAPHER.......................................................................................................... 8LIMITED RESIDENT’S LICENSE APPLICATION(S)......................................................................................... 2LIMITED CONTINUING EDUCATION LICENSE APPLICATION(S).................................................................. 2CORONAL POLISHING ................................................................................................................................. 2EXPANDED FUNCTION DENTAL AUXILIARY................................................................................................ 2REINSTATEMENT LICENSE APPLICATION(S) – NO INTERVIEW......................................... 10JEANNETTE M. BERNER-MORRISION, D.D.S............................................................................................ 10STEPHANIE J. BREZNY, D.D.S................................................................................................................... 10MARY N. ANNTONACCI, R.D.H. .............................................................................................................. 10REVIEW OF WAIVER REQUEST(S) .......................................................................... 11MARY N. ANNTONACCI, R.D.H. .............................................................................................................. 11AD HOC BOARD OPERATIONS REPORT......................................................... 11ANESTHESIA COMMITTEE REPORT ............................................................... 11CONSCIOUS SEDATION PROVISIONAL PRIVILEGE(S) ....................................... 11CONSCIOUS SEDATION PERMIT APPLICATION(S) ............................................ 12COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE REPORT .................................................. 12EDUCATION COMMITTEE REPORT................................................................ 12BIENNIAL CONTINUING EDUCATION SPONSOR APPLICATION(S) ............... 12

LAW AND RULES REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT......................................... 14SCOPE OF PRACTICE COMMITTEE REPORT ................................................. 14SECRETARY'S EXPENSE REPORT ..................................................................... 14OFFICE EXPENSE REPORT................................................................................ 15EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT .................................................................. 15CONTROLLING BOARD............................................................................................. 15EDWARD R. HILLS, D.D.S. – INTERIM C.O.O. OF METROHEALTH MEDICALCENTER ............................................................................................................................. 15NORTH EAST REGIONAL BOARD, INC. LETTER................................................... 16FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS............................................................... 16ANYTHING FOR THE GOOD OF THE BOARD ................................................ 16OHIO REPRESENTATIVE TO ADEX ......................................................................... 16AM.SUB.H.B. 215......................................................................................................... 16GENERAL DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................24H.B. 190......................................................................................................................... 25BOARD MEMBER APPOINTMENTS ........................................................................ 26INSURANCE COMPANY TREATMENT OF DISCIPLINED LICENSEES .............. 26ADJOURN ........................................................................................................... 26

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETINGAPRIL 7, 2010MINUTESATTENDANCEThe Ohio State Dental Board (Board) met in Room 1960, 19th Floor of The VernRiffe Center for Government and the Arts, 77 South High Street, Columbus, Ohio onApril 7, 2010, beginning at 1:00 p.m. Board members present were:Billie Sue Kyger, D.D.S., PresidentLawrence B. Kaye, D.D.S., Vice PresidentWilliam G. Leffler, D.D.S., SecretaryKetki B. Desai, D.D.S., Vice SecretaryW. Chris Hanners, D.D.S.Berta I. Howard, D.D.S.Clifford Jones, R.D.H.Lawrence B. Kaye, D.D.S.Ann E. Naber, R.D.H.Douglas W. Wallace, D.D.S.Mary Ellen Wynn, D.D.S.Mr. James Lawrence arrived late to the meeting immediately following the “PersonalAppearances”. Mark T. Armstrong, D.D.S. and Linda R. Staley, R.D.H. were unable toattend the meeting.The following guests were also in attendance: Katherine Bockbrader, Esq. of the OhioAttorney General’s Office; Keith Kerns, Esq. and Henry Fields, D.D.S. of the OhioDental Association (ODA); Denise Bowers, R.D.H. of the Ohio Dental Hygienists’Association; Peter D. Rogers, M.D., Mark Lutz, M.A., L.C.D.C. III, and David Sullivan,M.A., M.Div., C.D.C.M. of the Ohio Physicians Health Program; Michele Carr, R.D.H.,M.A. of the Ohio State University (OSU) Department of Dental Hygiene and MallorySmith, Dental hygiene student; Lili Reitz, Esq., Executive Director, Joseph Yonadi,Enforcement Supervisor, Kathy Carson and Gail Davis, Dental Board EnforcementOfficers, Jayne Smith, Licensing Coordinator and Malynda Franks, Executive Secretaryof the Ohio State Dental Board; and other guests.

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESAPRIL 7, 2010 PAGE 2CALL TO ORDERDr. Kyger extended greetings to everyone and noting that there was a quorum presentcalled the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.INTRODUCTION OF BOARD MEMBERSDr. Kyger introduced herself as the Board President, a general dentist from Gallipolis,Ohio. She then introduced the other Board members: Dr. Lawrence Kaye, the BoardVice President, a periodontist from Akron, Dr. William Leffler, the Board Secretary, ageneral dentist from Massillon, Dr. Ketki Desai, the Board Vice Secretary, a generaldentist from Columbus, Dr. Berta Howard, a general dentist from Hamilton, Dr. ChrisHanners, a general dentist from Piketon, Dr. Douglas Wallace, an oral and maxillofacialsurgeon from Fairfield, Dr. Mary Ellen Wynn, a general dentist from Cincinnati, Mr.Clifford Jones, a dental hygienist from Cincinnati, Ms. Ann Naber, a dental hygienistfrom Bellbrook, and Mr. James Lawrence, the Board’s pubic member from Akron.Dr. Kyger noted that Dr. Mark Armstrong, a general dentist from Troy and Ms.Linda Staley, a dental hygienist from Lima were not in attendance to the meeting.EXECUTIVE SESSIONMotion by Ms. Naber, second by Dr. Wynn, to move the Board into executivesession pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 121.22(G)(3) to confer withcounsel on matters that are the subject of pending or imminent court action.Roll call vote:Dr. Desai – YesDr. Hanners – YesDr. Howard – YesMr. Jones – YesDr. Kaye – AbsentDr. Kyger - YesDr. Leffler – YesMs. Naber - YesDr. Wallace - YesDr. Wynn – YesMotion carried.Dr. Kyger invited Ms. Reitz, Mr. Yonadi, and Ms. Bockbrader to attend the executivesession.

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESAPRIL 7, 2010 PAGE 3OPEN SESSIONThe Board resumed open session at 1:36 p.m. Dr. Kyger had previously approved theagenda for the afternoon as presented with the notation that the Chair may modify theagenda due to timing constraints or extenuating circumstances.REVIEW OF THE MARCH 2010 BOARD MEETING MINUTESThe Board reviewed the minutes of the March 7, 2010 Board meeting.Motion by Mr. Jones, second by Dr. Desai, to approve the March 7, 2010Board meeting minutes as presented.Motion carried unanimously.ENFORCEMENT REPORTPERSONAL APPEARANCE(S)JOHN M. BROOKE, D.D.S.Ms. Noble introduced Dr. Brooke and informed the Board that he was originallyconfronted in early 2006 after the Board received several phone calls from office staffthat Dr. Brooke was working on patients while intoxicated. She stated that DentalBoard Enforcement Officer, Harry Pasku, attempted to intervene, however, Dr. Brookedenied that he was impaired.Ms. Noble stated further investigation revealed that Dr. Brooke had been arrested inNovember, 2005 and March, 2006 for Driving Under the Influence. She stated that theBoard attempted to get Dr. Brooke into a Consent Agreement at that time; however, herefused to cooperate. She stated that Dr. Brooke was subsequently charged on March29, 2006 by the Board, a hearing was held and Adjudication Order issued on January 12,2007 suspending his license for twelve (12) months. Ms. Noble said that Dr. Brookeappealed the order which was upheld by the Supreme Court and after 2 years, our orderbecame effective on March 20, 2009.Continuing on, Ms. Noble stated that Dr. Brooke initially received inpatient care atLaurelwood Hospital in 2006 after the initial Order from the Board. However, shestated that since they are no longer an approved facility, Dr. Brooke went to Glenbeighfor an assessment in June, 2009. Ms. Noble informed the Board that they did not feelinpatient treatment was appropriate at that time, since he had already receivedtreatment and remained sober since 2006. She stated that it was recommended that Dr.

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESAPRIL 7, 2010 PAGE 4Brooke participate in Intensive Outpatient Treatment (IOP), which he successfullycompleted on September 1, 2009.Concluding, Ms. Noble said that initially there were a few small problems with Dr.Brooke (as reported by Glenbeigh), but he eventually turned his “attitude” around, didvery well and seems to still be doing well. She stated that Dr. Brooke’s minimum twelve(12) month suspension period has been met along with all other requirements of hisAdjudication Order. Ms. Noble said that Dr. Brooke has been attending requiredmeetings and is in the process of getting everything together for his random urine screenswith OPHP.Upon questioning by the Board, Dr. Brooke stated that he placed his recovery as histop priority because without sobriety he has nothing. He stated that he has beenattending four (4) meetings per week and complying with the terms of his adjudicationorder from the Board. He informed the Board that he feels really good and keeps busywith maintaining a household for his 18-year old son and a Sheppard dog. Additionally,Dr. Brooke stated that he has been studying Russian, exercising, and working theprogram. He informed the Board member that his sobriety date was March 16, 2006,that he is feeling good, and that his perspective on people and life has changeddramatically.When questioned about his future plans, Dr. Brooke stated that he wishes to bereinstated so that he can continue practicing his profession, however, he has no desire tobe in a private practice. Dr. Brooke indicated that he had sold his practice and felt hewas past the point in his life wherein he wanted to begin again. He informed the Boardthat he had been working approximately thirty-two (32) hours per week when he lastpracticed and felt that would be an appropriate number of hours to work again.However, he stated that he might not have that same opportunity to pick and choose hishours while working for another dentist.Concluding, Dr. Brooke stated that he had practiced for over thirty-two (32) years,enjoys dentistry, and has always enjoyed the people connected to the teeth.Motion by Mr. Jones, second by Dr. Howard, to reinstate the license of JohnM. Brooke, D.D.S. to practice dentistry in the state of Ohio, subject to the termsof his adjudication order from the Board.Motion carried.Dr. Brooke thanked the Board for their decision and then thanked them for theirintervention.

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESAPRIL 7, 2010 PAGE 5MODIFICATION REQUEST(S)DANIEL A. GLICK, D.D.S.Ms. Reitz informed the Board members that Dr. Glick has submitted a request askingthat he be released from his “conditions” from the Consent Agreement that he originallysigned in August, 2009. She stated that Dr. Glick signed his consent after we received acomplaint regarding standard of care. Ms. Reitz said that after a thorough investigation,the case was sent to an expert at the direction of the Board Secretary and the expertfound the work to be below the standard of care. Ms. Reitz stated that the BoardSecretary asked that he enter into a Consent Agreement which stipulated that Dr. Glickcomplete fifty (50) hours of education (20 hours of endodontics, 20 hours of crown andbridge, and 10 hours in recordkeeping). She stated that Dr. Glick completed theeducation and was now under probationary conditions with the Board.Ms. Reitz informed the Board that Dr. Glick recently asked that he be released fromthese probationary conditions due to insurance carriers refusing to accept claims becauseof the “limitations” placed on his license to practice. She stated that Dr. Leffler initiallyapproved this request, however, Ms. Bockbrader informed them that the full Board mustvote to amend the terms of the consent agreement since the full Board voted toimplement these terms. Therefore, Ms. Reitz stated that the Board must vote on anymodification of the original Consent Agreement.EXECUTIVE SESSIONMotion by Dr. Howard, second by Ms. Naber to move the Board into executivesession pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 121.22(G)(1) to consider thematter involving Daniel A. Glick, D.D.S.Roll call vote:Dr. Desai – YesDr. Hanners – YesDr. Howard – YesMr. Jones – YesDr. Kaye – YesDr. Kyger - YesMr. Lawrence – YesDr. Leffler – YesMs. Naber - YesDr. Wallace – YesDr. Wynn - YesMotion carried unanimously.

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESAPRIL 7, 2010 PAGE 6OPEN SESSIONThe Board resumed open session at 2:13 p.m.Motion by Mr. Lawrence, second by Mr. Jones, to deny the modificationrequest of Daniel A. Glick, D.D.S.Motion carried. Dr. Leffler abstained.Mr. Lawrence requested that Ms. Reitz draft a letter to Dr. Glick’s insurance carrierexplaining that “probationary terms” is not considered “limitations” in regards tolicensure.PROPOSED CONSENT AGREEMENT(S)The Board reviewed three (3) proposed consent agreements. The names of theindividuals/licensees were not included in the documents reviewed by the Board. Thenames of the individuals/licensees have been added to the minutes for public noticepurposes.DISCIPLINARYKEVIN HARDY, D.D.S.Motion by Ms. Naber, second by Dr. Desai, to approve the proposed consentagreement for Kevin Hardy, D.D.S., Resident’s license number RES2784, casenumber 09-18-0043.Motion carried.RUDYARD C. WHIPPS, D.D.S.Motion by Dr. Kaye, second by Ms. Naber, to approve the proposed consentagreement for Rudyard C. Whipps, D.D.S., license number 30-021222, casenumber 10-25-0019.Motion carried.

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESAPRIL 7, 2010 PAGE 7MACK A. WRIGHT, D.D.S.Motion by Dr. Desai, second by Dr. Kaye, to approve the proposed consentagreement for Mack A. Wright, D.D.S., license number 30-020302, case number09-11-0079.Motion carried. Ms. Naber abstained.ENFORCEMENT UPDATEMr. Yonadi informed the Board that there were three (3) cases pending hearings, allof which have been assigned for hearing. He stated that there are two (2) cases underappeal and currently twenty-nine (29) licensees under suspension. Mr. Yonadi informedthe Board members that we have two (2) cases active in QUIP. Mr. Yonadi stated thatthe Board has issued five (5) subpoenas all of which were to complainants who had notsigned forms to release their records. He informed the Board that there have been sixtythree(63) infection control evaluations performed and that the Board currently has onehundred and fifty-nine (159) active cases He concluded by stating that forty-one (41)cases have been investigated and reviewed by the Board Secretary and are recommendedto be closed.Due to the requirement in Chapter 4715.03(D) of the Ohio Revised Code, that "Theboard shall not dismiss any complaint or terminate any investigation except by amajority vote of its members,..." Mr. Yonadi reviewed the cases to be closed with theBoard.The following cases are recommended to be closed:08-77-0061 Practicing W/OLicense08-12-0435 Standard/Misrep/Warning Ltr W/CE08-43-0626 Standard Of Care08-18-0633 Drugs/Prescribing09-78-0081 Dentures09-48-0412 Standard09-13-0430 Standard Of Care/Warning09-18-0444 Misrep/Standard09-48-0445 Standard Of Care09-18-0450 Dentures09-18-0460 Drugs/Misrep-Warning10-77-0008 Standard Of Care10-50-0031 Standard Of Care/Warning10-25-0024 Standard Of Care10-50-0016 Advertising10-50-0039 Standard Of Care10-77-0038 Standard Of Care10-23-0035 Standard Of Care10-25-0061 Standard Of Care10-18-0052 Dentures10-18-0051 Dentures10-25-0065 Practicing W/O Lic10-21-0060 Standard Of Care10-79-0056 Records10-60-0063 Advertising10-25-0064 Standard Of Care

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESFEBRUARY 3, 2010 PAGE 710-25-0074 Standard Of Care10-48-0068 Standard Of Care10-80-0071 Standard Of Care10-77-0075 Dentures10-23-0079 Standard Of Care10-43-0086 Standard Of Care10-48-0087 Standard Of Care10-18-0089 Standard Of Care10-18-0097 Advertising-Warning10-76-0090 Standard Of Care/Warning10-48-0088 Drugs10-25-0091 Standard Of Care10-21-0103 Advertising10-23-0109 Standard Of Care10-70-0110 Standard Of CarePrior to the vote to close the above listed cases, Dr. Kyger inquired as to whether anyof the Board members had any personal knowledge that the cases that were being votedon today involve either themselves or a personal friend.Roll call:Dr. Desai – NoDr. Hanners – NoDr. Howard – NoMr. Jones – NoDr. Kaye – NoDr. Kyger - NoMr. Lawrence – NoDr. Leffler - NoMs. Naber - NoDr. Wallace - NoDr. Wynn – NoDr. Kyger then called for a motion to close the cases.Motion by Dr. Kaye, second by Dr. Wynn, to close the above forty-one (41)cases.Roll call vote: Dr. Desai – YesDr. Hanners – YesDr. Howard – YesMr. Jones – YesDr. Kaye – YesDr. Kyger – YesMr. Lawrence – YesDr. Leffler - YesMs. Naber – YesDr. Wallace – YesDr. Wynn – Yes

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESAPRIL 7, 2010 PAGE 8Motion carried.LICENSE APPLICATIONSLICENSURE REPORTJayne Smith, Licensure Coordinator, had prepared a report of the licenses issued sincethe March 2010 meeting, for Board member review.DENTALMotion by Dr. Wynn, second by Ms. Naber, to approve the licensure report forthe following dental licenses issued by North East Regional Board, Inc. (NERB)examination:Courtney A. ConwayTracy E. DaviesDavid J. FranzJohn B. GilbrethJoo-Yong LeeAdam M. McVeighAmit ShahThomas M. Walsh, IITimothy G. WeaverWilliam B. WittersMotion carried unanimously.DENTAL HYGIENEMotion by Ms. Naber, second by Dr. Desai, to approve the licensure report forthe following dental hygiene licenses issued by North East Regional Board, Inc.(NERB) examination:Angela M. JonesMotion carried unanimously.DENTAL ASSISTANT RADIOGRAPHERMotion by Dr. Kaye, second by Dr. Wynn, to approve the licensure report forthe following dental assistant radiographer licenses issued by: acceptablecertification or licensure in another state, certification by the Dental AssistingNational Board (DANB) or the Ohio Commission on Dental Assistant

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESFEBRUARY 3, 2010 PAGE 12Certification (OCDAC), or successful completion of the Board-approvedRadiography course:Gabriela AlvarezHolly AndersonMaria Banegas-CallejasRosa BanksSamantha BedardJessica BoltzBeverly BrittonChloe BurdineAngela ByrdKim CarrollTiffany CastoAlexis ClarkLisa ClarkAdelle ClingmanSharon CoffeltHeather CowellSharon ErdmannPatti GabbardNikeia GanttAmanda GormanMichelle GreenerRachael HallBlaire HalliganStephanie HendersonMelanie HerynkDiane HrubikKimberly JacksonStacey KiddChristine KingCourtney KnippMoria KomaromyMichelle KuzmaMollie LeachAlyshia LeesonRebecca MeekJessi MerrimanApril MickerCarrie MillerAngela MitchellStephanie MoodyDiana MullinsJennifer MurphyMichele MurphyRachel OhlerChristina PaluchKristina PavicicRayma PearceElizabeth RamseyNicolle ReedJoel RichardsDeanne RockwellNicole SadlerBarbara SchaeferAlisha SextonAnupa ShahGelardina ShelguAmber ShiflettAllison SmithHolly SmithAlicia Soto MejiaRachel SpiegelAshanti StaffordDevon StewartShemeka StoneJessica SurberAshley SwainTiffany Taylor-WilliamsCasey TetersShannon ThomasTena TompkinsBrittany TroxellErin VardavasShannon VealTara VestDawn WheelerBeth WiseCathy WrightJanet Young

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESMARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 2Motion carried unanimously.LIMITED RESIDENT’S LICENSE APPLICATION(S)Motion by Dr. Wynn, second by Dr. Howard, to approve the licensure reportfor the following limited resident’s licenses:Mohamed I. AbdelhamedHaider A. GhloomAnna GrinbergHsiu-Wan MengMotion carried unanimously.LIMITED CONTINUING EDUCATION LICENSE APPLICATION(S)Motion by Dr. Kyger, second by Dr. Kaye, to approve the licensure report forthe following limited teaching license:Randy M. FreijMotion carried unanimously.CORONAL POLISHINGMotion Dr. Kaye, second by Dr. Wynn, to approve the licensure report for thefollowing coronal polishing certificates issued by: certification by the DentalAssisting National Board (DANB) or the Ohio Commission on Dental AssistantCertification (OCDAC) and completion of the requirements necessary to obtaincertification:Mandy B. BowenJennifer L. EricksonDarlene B. EubankStacey McKnightLinda S. ParsleyKaren C. RowleySarah D. SmithLisa A. YoungMotion carried unanimously.EXPANDED FUNCTION DENTAL AUXILIARYMotion by Ms. Naber, second by Dr. Wynn, to approve the licensure report forthe following expanded function dental auxiliary registrations issued by:

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESMARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 10certification by the Dental Assisting National Board (DANB) or the OhioCommission on Dental Assistant Certification (OCDAC) and completion of therequirements necessary to obtain registration:Jody J BestPaula M HensleyRhonda D KellySara A StaubsMotion carried unanimously.REINSTATEMENT LICENSE APPLICATION(S) – NO INTERVIEWJEANNETTE M. BERNER-MORRISION, D.D.S.The Board reviewed and considered the licensure information for Jeannette M.Berner-Morrision, D.D.S.. that was prepared by Ms. Smith.Motion by Dr. Kaye, second by Dr. Wynn, to approve Dr. Berner-Morrison’sreinstatement application for dental licensure in the state of Ohio, pendingreceipt of her background check.Motion carried unanimously.STEPHANIE J. BREZNY, D.D.S.The Board reviewed and considered the licensure information for Stephanie J.Brezny, D.D.S. that was prepared by Ms. Smith.Motion by Ms. Naber, second by Dr. Desai, to approve Dr. Brezny’sreinstatement application for dental licensure in the state of Ohio.Motion carried unanimously.MARY N. ANNTONACCI, R.D.H.The Board reviewed and considered the licensure information for Mary N.Anntonacci, R.D.H. that was prepared by Ms. Smith.Motion by Dr. Wynn, second by Dr. Desai, to approve Ms. Anntonacci’sreinstatement application for dental hygiene licensure in the state of Ohio,pending approval of her hepatitis B waiver request.Motion carried unanimously.

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESMARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 11REVIEW OF WAIVER REQUEST(S)MARY N. ANNTONACCI, R.D.H.Dr. Kyger stated that the Waiver Committee had reviewed and considered theHepatitis B Waiver application for Mary N. Anntonacci, R.D.H. and was recommendingthat the request be approved.Motion by Mr. Jones, second by Dr. Desai, to approve Ms. Anntonacci’shepatitis B waiver request.Motion carried unanimously.AD HOC BOARD OPERATIONS REPORTDr. Kaye informed the Board members that the Ad Hoc Board Operations committeehad met earlier that morning to review their progress and make a recommendation forapproval on the Board Operation Manual.Motion by Dr. Kaye, second by Dr. Wallace, that the Board OperationsManual, excluding the section on the Quality Intervention Program (QUIP), beapproved with the recommended changes from the committee.Motion carried unanimously.Dr. Kaye expressed his thanks to all those involved in the development of the newmanual. Dr. Kyger then thanked Dr. Kaye for his lead in this project.ANESTHESIA COMMITTEE REPORTCONSCIOUS SEDATION PROVISIONAL PRIVILEGE(S)Dr. Wallace stated that the following individuals have applied for conscious sedationpermits. He explained that the Anesthesia Committee has reviewed the applications andthe applicants are recommended to receive provisional privileges:Dr. Paul R. Barnes, Granville, Ohio- IntravenousDr. Carl A. Gleichauf, Ironton, Ohio- Intravenous

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESMARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 12Dr. Margarita Kutsikovich, Lyndhurst, Ohio- IntravenousCONSCIOUS SEDATION PERMIT APPLICATION(S)Dr. Wallace stated that the following individuals have applied for Conscious Sedationpermits. He explained that the Anesthesia Committee has reviewed the applications,evaluations have been performed and the applicants are recommended to receiveconscious sedation permits:Dr. Jonathan Conover, Cincinnati, Ohio- Intravenous-Dr. Nishant Joshi, Richmond Heights, Ohio- IntravenousMotion by Dr. Wallace, second by Dr. Kaye, to accept the AnesthesiaCommittee recommendations and approve the above applicants to receiveprivileges and permits.Motion carried unanimously.COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE REPORTDr. Wynn stated that the Communications Committee had held a brief meetingearlier in the day and she was excited to report that they were looking into the possibilityof using TWITTER to communicate and update licensees on what is going on with theBoard. She stated that Ms. Massaro, Compliance Officer, has agreed to assist inobtaining further information on this subject and that they hope to have a more detailedreport for the May meeting.EDUCATION COMMITTEE REPORTBIENNIAL CONTINUING EDUCATION SPONSORAPPLICATION(S)In Ms. Staley’s absence, Dr. Wynn reported that the followingindividuals/organizations have applied for approval as biennial sponsors of continuingeducation for the years 2010-2011 and have been recommended for approval by theEducation Committee:

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESMARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 13Heights SmilesRyan J. Serra, D.M.D., M.S.Dr. Wynn informed the Board that the Committee had met last night and receivedan update on the Automatic Suspension/Automatic Audit letters that had been mailedout in an effort to close out the dental and dental hygiene renewal for 2009. She statedthat the committee had discussed the specific difference in licensure status between“retired”, “lapsed” and “suspended for non-renewal”. Dr. Wynn stated that thecommittee had received an update on how the process would continue from this pointsuch as issuance of warning letters or the files being forwarded to enforcement for furtherprocessing.Continuing on, Dr. Wynn stated that draft curriculum requirements have beenstarted for the monitoring of Nitrous Oxide-Oxygen (N 2 O-O 2 ) by the certified dentalassistant with the consideration that Expanded Function Dental Auxiliary language canbe the same. She stated that the committee also began drafting curriculum requirementsfor administration of N 2 O-O 2 for the licensed dental hygienist. She stated that thecommittee will await direction from the Law and Rules Review Committee to determineminimum educational/training requirements (ie. On-the-job-training, dental assistingschools/curriculums, examinations) for dental assistants prior to being allowed to betrained/educated to monitor N 2 O-O 2. Dr. Wynn stated that the committee has receiveda letter from Dr. Sangrik regarding limitation of dental assistants monitoring to certfifieddental assistants and expanded function dental auxiliry vs. basic qualified personnel. Shestated that the committee has recommended that Ms. Reitz response to Dr. Sangrik thatthe Board will take his suggestions into consideration when drafting any rules in thisregard.Dr. Wynn stated that the committee had continued their discussions regardingremediation education and course approval for disciplined licensees. She informed theBoard that they had discussed Board Secretary vs. Education Committee for approval ofthis specific education. She stated that it was decided that the committee wouldcontinue in its’ process of approval of continuing education sponsors and the BoardSecretary will be looking at providers of remediation and consent agreements with bothworking towards the creation of a master listing of acceptable providers for these types ofeducation requirements.Motion by Dr. Wynn, second by Ms. Naber, to accept the EducationCommittees recommendations regarding approval of the sponsor applications.Motion carried.

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESMARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 14LAW AND RULES REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORTDr. Leffler informed the Board members that the 2010 Dental Practice Act just wentinto effect the previous Friday. He commented that they would be posted to the Board’swebsite once it has been determined that there was no conflict with the currentjurisprudence examination on the Board’s website.Dr. Leffler stated that the Committee had met earlier that day to begin discussionson permissible practices regarding nitrous oxide-oxygen and the rules slated for thecurrent rule review year. He stated that in regards to discussions on rules to permit themonitoring and administration of nitrous oxide-oxygen (N 2 O-O 2 ) by dental assistantsand dental hygienists respectively, he concurred with the information provided in Dr.Wynn’s Education Committee Report. Additionally, he stated that the Law and RulesReview Committee would be continuing its discussions and has set up sub-committees tolook into and address those issues which were raised during the committee meeting.Dr. Leffler informed the Board members that the committee was provided copies the2010 workbook which covers the rules for this year and the committee will be meetingagain in May.Ms. Naber took a moment to inform the two (2) dental hygiene directors inattendance that they should use the 2009 Dental Practice Act and jurisprudenceexamination posted on the Board’s website when examining for this years graduates.SCOPE OF PRACTICE COMMITTEE REPORTDr. Kyger stated that the Scope of Practice Committee had met earlier that day todiscuss two (2) issues. She stated that the Committee discussed the dynamic issue ofrestalyn, botox and dermafillers and is referring this area of interest back to the PolicyCommittee to reevaluate our current policy and make any changes they deemappropriate.Dr. Kyger stated that the second issue addressed the area of expertise which dealswith sleep apnea testing and evaluation. She stated that the Committee is referring thistopic to the Policy Committee to consider the development of Dental Board policy as itrelates to sleep apnea testing and evaluation.SECRETARY'S EXPENSE REPORTDr. Leffler attested that he has spent in excess of twenty (20) hours per weekattending to Board business.

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESMARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 15Motion by Mr. Jones, second by Dr. Desai, to approve the Secretary's expensereport.Motion carried unanimously.OFFICE EXPENSE REPORTThe report of the Board expenditures was reviewed.Motion by Dr. Wallace, second by Dr. Desai, to approve the expense reportand approve payment of the March 2010 Board bills.Motion carried unanimously.EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORTCONTROLLING BOARDMs. Reitz informed the Board members that she had gone to the Controlling Boardon Monday originally to request the ability to be able to spend the money the Board hadbrought in to cover the SkipJack Credit Card fees. However, she stated that after aninitial meeting with representatives from the Central Services Agency, wherein theyindicated that the Board was operating at a deficit, they suggested that she go back tothe Controlling Board and request the amount that was cut out of the original proposedbudget, $500,000 along with the moneys obtained for the credit card processing fromrenewal. She stated that her request had been approved which will allow the Board tooperate “in the black” but that there is no funding available for any additional expensesthe Board may incur.Continuing on, Ms. Reitz stated that one of the challenges faced in the upcomingbudget is that the State Auditor has performed semi-annual audits of the Boards financesat their expense in the past. She stated that recent legislation now mandates that theBoard pay those expenses. She commented that an average audit will cost the Boardover $25,000 per year. She stated that while many boards are already intending ongoing to the Controlling Board to request the additional funding to pay for these audits,she intends to wait and see how much this will cost before requesting any funding tocover this expense.EDWARD R. HILLS, D.D.S. – INTERIM C.O.O. OFMETROHEALTH MEDICAL CENTERMs. Reitz stated that she had sent all the Board members a copy of an articleregarding former Board member, Edward Hills, D.D.S., appointment as the Interim

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESMARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 16C.O.O. of MetroHealth Medical Center. She stated that in addition to thisappointment, Dr. Hills is still supervising the dental clinic one day a week until selectionof a candidate for his replacement can be made.NORTH EAST REGIONAL BOARD, INC. LETTERMs. Reitz indicated that the North East Regional Board, Inc. sent a letter out to allstate dental board directors inviting them to attend their meeting in June in an attemptto get more states involved. She stated that the meeting will be held in Washington,D.C.FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTSConcluding, Ms. Reitz made one final reminder that the Financial DisclosureStatements were due by April 15, 2010. She informed the Board members that thestatements were different than those of previous years and requested that they besubmitted no later than Tuesday, April 13 in order that Mr. Yonadi could deliver themprior to the deadline.ANYTHING FOR THE GOOD OF THE BOARDOHIO REPRESENTATIVE TO ADEXDr. Kyger stated that she had received a telephone call from former Board Member,Leondard Weiss, D.D.S., asking who the Board would like to put forward as therepresentative for ADEX. She stated that Dr. Weiss stated that former Board Member,Phillip Beckwith, D.D.S. has served in that capacity for the past two (2) years. Dr.Kyger stated that she contacted Dr. Beckwith in this regard and that he expressed adesire to continue in the representative capacity.Dr. Wallace nominated Phillip Beckwith, D.D.S. to remain the Board’s representativeto ADEX.Dr. Kyger noted that there were no additional nominations and stated that thenomination of Dr. Beckwith passed by acclamation.AM.SUB.H.B. 215Dr. Kyger stated that Ms. Reitz had provided copies of Am.Sub.H.B.215 to theBoard members which was an amended version from that previously reviewed. Shestated that Ms. Reitz had created a draft position document of the current amended billfor their review and study if so desired. She stated that at the end of the last meeting the

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESMARCH 10, 2010 PAGE 17House of Representatives had just finished their vote on the bill and some of the finallanguage was new.Dr. Kyger stated that there were quite a few board members who had expresseddisappointment and dissatisfaction with the language. Specifically, she stated, regardingstatute of limitations and the tolling of the investigation issue. She stated that membershad expressed comments that it is not really criminal cases that delay the Boardsinvestigative processes but it is more often civil cases among other things. Dr. Kyger saidthat as a result of those discussions during the last Board meeting and for otherdiscussions forthcoming, she had asked Ms. Bockbrader and Deputy Attorney General,Jonathan Fulkerson, Esq. to give this issues some thought and possibly provide the Boardwith some tolling language at this meeting. She then turned the discussion over to Ms.Bockbrader.Ms. Bockbrader informed the Board that as Dr. Kyger had said, the Board expresseda concern that the statute of limitations language did not provide for exceptions and soforth that had been discussed previously. She stated that Dr. Kyger had asked that Mr.Fulkerson and herself to perhaps propose or draft language that the Board might usewhen approaching the legislature to amend that particular language in the bill.Ms. Bockbrader clarified that she was not advocating for or against this provision orlanguage. She stated that she was merely giving the Board technical advice about whatmight be appropriate language to accomplish what was desired. She stated that she hadlooked at some other statute of limitations in the criminal arena and other area anddrafted the following:“If an individual under investigation fails to cooperate in a board investigation orotherwise engages in conduct that delays a board investigation, the time during whichthe individual fails to cooperate or engages in conduct to delay a board investigationshall not be computed in determining the time period within which the supervisoryinvestigative panel is required to make its recommendation to the board under thatsection. The time period set forth in that section may also be tolled for other goodcause for time periods where delays result from circumstances beyond the board’scontrol.”Continuing on, Ms. Bockbrader stated that the “tolled for other good cause” was justto cover other scenarios that the board has discussed such as civil litigations or otherthings that were not under the boards control or fault that might cause the board to notbe able to pursue an investigation in a timely manner.Dr. Kyger stated that Ms. Reitz had a couple good examples to share with the Boardmembers regarding how there have been delays in investigations, even recently, thatreally are not in the best interest of the public. She stated that she feels everyone wants

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESAPRIL 7, 2010 PAGE 18the Board to do their due diligence, however, it can create a huge problem when theBoard’s hands are tied. She stated that the Board does not want to have this become aroutine or process that becomes commonplace which then creates major barriers forissues of public protection.Ms. Reitz informed the Board members that she could give two (2) examples of caseswhere the investigation was hindered based on a licensees non-compliance with theBoard’s request for information. She stated that the first situation involved a subpoenathat was issued to the dentist requesting insurance billing documentation for a one yeartime frame. Ms. Reitz informed the Board that the licensee, through his attorney, feltthat was too broad a time frame so the Board reissued the subpoena requesting six (6)months, and the licensee still said it that was too much and did not comply. She statedthat the Board filed a Motion to Compel compliance with the subpoena and the licenseefiled a response to the court stating that the subpoena was over broad. Ms. Reitz statedthat ultimately the court ruled in the Board’s favor, finding that the subpoena was validand not over broad. The Court ordered the licensee o comply. She stated that after thedecision came from the court, the licensee requested a settlement of the case. Ms. Reitzindicated that the whole issue took about a year and a half to resolve and that licenseeblamed the Board for having caused him to spend a lot of money to defend himself.Continuing on, Ms. Reitz informed the Board members that in another case, one thatis currently pending, the Board again issued a subpoena for information. She stated thatthe licensee is not responding. Again, she stated, the Board has to file a Motion toCompel. She informed the Board that filing a Motion of this type is not a simpleprocess. Ms. Reitz informed the Board members that the Attorney General’s Office isnot allowed to initiate litigation on our behalf unless they get permission from their ownoffice. She stated that as in that previous case, the Board must request the AttorneyGeneral’s Office to file a Motion to Compel the licensee to comply with the subpoenarequest. Ms. Reitz stated that Ms. Bockbrader must then write a memo to someone inher office explaining to them why we want them to file this motion on our behalf. Shestated that the Board must then wait for approval for that to happen and once themotion is filed, the licensee has the opportunity to reply to that motion. Ms. Reitzstated that these procedures takes time.Ms. Reitz stated that in this case the licensee filed a response to that motion and Ms.Bockbrader must now get the information together for the court to look at to justify whythe Board is asking for the information. She stated that during all this time, the Boardcannot even get the information to do a preliminary investigation because the licenseewill not comply with the subpoena request for records. Therefore, she concluded, tosuggest that the Board have to complete an investigation in a certain amount of timewhen there are these obstacles to overcome is a huge problemMs. Reitz informed the Board members that these are the two most recent incidences,

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESAPRIL 7, 2010 PAGE 19however, she stated that she could relate more. She said that the prevailing thought thatit is the criminal cases pending that will toll this statute of limitations is not an issue.She informed the Board that has never held up an investigation unless the Board choseto hold up the investigation to await the results of the criminal trial. She state that theBoard then lets the criminal case play out and then responds.Ms. Reitz stated that in the most recent case she could think of, the Board worked inconjunction with law enforcement on the criminal case working hand in hand. Shestated that did not preclude the Board from completing its investigation. Therefore, shesaid it is not a criminal case that holds up an investigation, but rather non-complianceissues and the strategic legal maneuvering by attorneys to delay the investigative process.Dr. Kyger reiterated the Ms. Reitz had created a draft position wherein she addressedthis issue and a few others on Am.Sub.H.B. 215. She stated that she would like to openthis discussion because after the last Board meeting she felt that many of the Boardmembers were absolutely outraged about how the language regarding the statute oflimitations and tolling of investigations may affect the Board’s ability to protect thepublic. Therefore, she stated that she felt the Board could use some legal counsel andadvice. She stated that several members have discussed this issue with the Ohio DentalAssociation (ODA). She stated that the ODA had acknowledged the Board member’sconcerns and took it under advisement to discuss with their Executive Committee. Dr.Kyger stated that this appeared to be a major issue for all of the Board members and feltthat she would not be able to turn a blind eye on this topic.Continuing on, Dr. Kyger stated that she felt like this needed to be addressed beforeit is proposed in the Senate and that it is up to all of all of them as to how it is perceivedon this point. She stated that at least the Board has a foundation in this regard due tothe timing of the House Bill. Dr. Kyger stated that the Senate was currently in recessand asked Keith Kerns, Esq. of the ODA if he felt that introduction of the bill to theSenate would be postponed until the fall.Mr. Kerns stated that he thought that the Senate would be in session sporadicallybetween now and the middle of June. He stated that the committees would probablymeet more often than the full Senate. However, Mr. Kerns said that even with anaggressive schedule he could no foresee the bill getting a whole lot of action. He thenstated that the House of Representatives would probably be back in session for a little bitmore extended period, however, he also thought it possible that they might take not onlythe summer off but also the fall due to elections. He commented that they wouldprobably be back for a few weeks prior to the election and that he suspected that therewould be a very aggressive lame duck session after the election this year for about amonth as both sides of the isle would be trying to push their initiatives through.Ms. Reitz said that at the last Board meeting they had asked her to draft a position

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESAPRIL 7, 2010 PAGE 20statement based on the both versions of the bill. She indicated that what she had donewas to look at the Board’s position that had been approved when presenting to theHouse of Representatives and made modifications to that position based on any changesthat were made in that bill. For example, she stated that the Board had strenuouslyobjected to the language requiring the Board to develop a listing of felony convictionsthat were directly related to the practice for which the Board could pursue action againstthe licensee. She indicated that while that language is no longer in the bill, she had puttogether a more abbreviated version which simply states that the Board has continuedconcerns of the language regarding discovery of the investigative files, the statute oflimitations on the investigations, the hearing examiners, the inability consider priorboard action and some Quality Intervention Program (QUIP) issues such as only beingallowed to be in QUIP for thirty (30) days. She stated that she put it very briefly in aposition and if the board is comfortable with that then that can be their positionContinuing on, Ms. Reitz stated that H.B.190, which is the bill that creates the oralhealth access supervision program, passed in the House of Representatives and haspassed the Senate Health, Human Services and Aging Committee. She stated that thereare some issues in this bill and that one of the big concerns is that the renewal changes inH.B.190 do not mirror the renewal changes in Am.Sub.H.B. 215. Therefore, she statedthat she had put some comparison sheets together to show the differences between thetwo (2) bills.Ms. Reitz informed the Board members that in Am.Sub.H.B. 215:1. The automatic suspension language for failure to renew is removed for boththe dentists and the hygienists.2. The law requires that the board notify the dentists and the hygienists if theyhave not renewed3. That their license will remain in good standing for up to six months4. That they can renew up to June 1 with only the payment of the late fee5. If they try to renew after June 1 then an additional fee of $200 must bepaid to the Board6. Regarding education - If the dentist or the hygienist has not completed therequired CE the board must notify them that they haven’t submitted theirCE affidavit and they have until June 1 to submit (here again giving them 6months)7. Elimination of the language that states “failure to complete the CErequirement constitutes a failure to renew” and renews the licenseautomatically; and8. The minimum CE requirement for dental hygienists increases from twelve(12) hours to twenty-four (24) hours.Ms. Reitz informed the Board members that in H.B. 190:1. The automatic suspension language is retained for the dental hygienist but

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESAPRIL 7, 2010 PAGE 21removed for the dentist2. There are now provisions for temporary retirement of the dental hygienelicense3. The dentist and the dental hygienist must file an application and pay thelate fee to reinstate the license after it has been suspended with no referenceto any time frame (if the dental or dental hygiene license is suspended forfailure to renew and a year or two (2) later they wish to come back theyneed only file the reinstatement application and pay the $81/$25 late fee)4. Failure to complete the CE requirements constitutes a failure to renew andresults in an automatic suspension of the license for dental hygienistsONLY; and5. The minimum CE requirement for dental hygienists increases from twelve(12) hours to twenty-four (24) hours.Dr. Kyger then stated that at this point in time the Board members had Ms. Reitz’draft position and had opportunity to review and consider it. She indicated that onemember of the Board had written some formal recommendations, however, Ms. Reitzstated that those recommendations had not been included in this draft. Dr. Kyger statedthat she would like to open up for discussion the overall concepts of utilizing a draft atthis point in time. She stated that then if the Board so chose to move forward with adraft they could then discuss each area of issue.Motion by Dr. Kaye, second by Mr. Lawrence, that the Board expressesconcerns in certain areas of AmSub HB 215 these areas being; discovery of theinvestigatory file, statute of limitations without tolling language, hearingexaminers, prior actions, QUIP and the renewal process.Discussion followed wherein Dr. Wynn commented that the bill passed 97-0 in theHouse of Representatives, has sixty (60) sponsors and holds bipartisan support. Shestated that her position as to what the Board likes with the bill and what the Boarddislikes with the bill at this particular point should be that they need to pick a couple ofthings that they feel really need changed such as the statute of limitations oninvestigations tolling language or the discovery of the investigative files. She stated thatshe feels that the Board needs to focus on what they really think they could get changedand move forward. Dr. Wynn queried: “Out of all the things that are listed, do we thinkthat there are too many things to try to change, even though we may not like them?; and“Can we live with five (5) hearing officers, because it used to be ten (10) and we do nothave any hearings anyway?; and “ If they want us to live with encumbering $25,000rather than $10,000 for hearing examiners, to me that is one of those things the Boardcould give up and live with.” Dr. Wynn then stated that the tolling language wassomething that to her was something the Board really needed to work on to change.Ms. Reitz requested to add to the discussion and stated that she felt the Board could

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESAPRIL 7, 2010 PAGE 22make a statement that they still have concerns with these areas. However, she statedthat if the Board chooses one or two issues to concentrate on then the bottom line is thatthey had these same concerns in the House of Representatives and they still exist. Shestated that she was unsure that it would be wise to say that the Board is not concernedabout those other issues any more because they are still the same problems that Dr.Armstrong testified to the House of Representatives.Mr. Lawrence stated that he was unsure as to the effect the issues regarding thehearing examiners or how the QUIP issues relates to the Board. However, he stated thatthe rest of those areas mentioned are all directly related back to how the Board processesdisciplinary cases. He stated that it is his opinion that all of them are important to theBoard, all of them are interrelated and therefore, the Board should state that they are allimportant.Dr. Desai indicated that she did not understand the specific issue regarding the 30days limitation to complete the QUIP program. Dr. Kaye explained that at this point intime, it can take that much time to get a licensee to agree to and become established intothe program and the language in the bill requires that the whole process be completedwithin thirty (30) days thereby dropping the licensee out of the program just as they maybe getting started.Dr. Leffler stated that while he appreciates all the work that was put into the draftcomparison of these bills and that it has crystalized some of the issues that have evolved,he feels that until there is actually a target to address he cannot see any advantage ofdeveloping a position on something that is quite nebulous. He stated that it was likelythat the Board might not see any bill introduced in the Senate until the end of this yearor even the next year.Ms. Reitz explained that if the bill did not pass this year then it would need to bereintroduced next year. However, she stated that if Board representatives were going tobe meeting with legislators it would be nice to have all on the same page as to what theysupport and do not support.Dr. Leffler then stated that he was not opposed to speaking in favor of the motion,although just as a broad statement to the issues. Dr. Wallace agreed.Dr. Hanners expressed that he would like to have a clearer understanding of each ofthe issues in order that the Board members could approach it with intelligence whenspeaking to legislators.Ms. Reitz suggested that the Board could have the general motion by Dr. Kaye on therecord and then she could provide the members with a short version and a long versionwhich included as much information on the issues that she could share.

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESAPRIL 7, 2010 PAGE 23Ms. Naber stated that she agreed with one broad statement but thought that theBoard members needed to look at and prioritize what they were willing to and what wasworth fighting for. She stated that if the Board was going after four, five or six (4,5, or 6)different items, then they would not have a focus and would be just spinning theirwheels. She suggested that they get one or two things they could fight for and drop therest. She stated that this would be an evolving document which by the fall would havemore changes and therefore the Board’s statement may change also.Mr. Jones said that he was going to have to stick with his position in the beginningwith the introduction of H.B. 215. Unfortunately, he stated, what he was reallyconcerned about was that they hold themselves to a higher standard and beingresponsible. Mr. Jones stated that as you can see in H.B. 190 the dental hygienistsmaintain that if they are not responsible enough to get their application in on time forrenewal then that constitutes the means for automatic suspension. He stated that it isunlikely that if they don’t think more about our licenses than to produce a document ona timely basis to continue with the privilege and the right to practice in the state of Ohio,then something is wrong fundamentally. He concluded by stating that he was speakingin favor of this position statement, but he still want the other members to know where hestood.Dr. Hanners stated that he really appreciated Mr. Jones’ point because the EducationCommittee has been discussing for about a year about people that have no regard fortheir license to practice. He stated that the Board ends up spending half their time, effortand money dealing with these people. He stated that now all of a sudden the advocatesof this bill are now saying “No. Just let them go until June 1 and charge them $200". Dr.Hanners said that the Board is spending all this time and money and that it is crazy. Hecommented that the Board does not have enough funds to cover our office now, thatthey are cutting salaries, that they are cutting payrolls, paying our employees less and an$81 late fee is supposed to be sufficient repercussion. He stated that it is absolutelyludicrous that the Board is allowing a few bad eggs to run charge over the organizationand that he hopes that it is not what the ODA is backing by sponsoring this bill.Dr. Kyger informed the members that the ODA was not one of the sponsors of thisbill. Dr. Hanners commented that while they were not one of the sponsors they weredefinitely an advocate of the bill.Dr. Desai commented that it was outrageous that the licensee would be permitted twoand a half (2 ½) years to renew their license. She commented that it takes only ten (10)minutes to renew the license on-line and could not understand why they would evenconsider giving a licensee six (6) months additional time to renew.Dr. Kyger stated that she thought that they needed a basic background statement.

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESAPRIL 7, 2010 PAGE 24She stated that Ms. Reitz has worked on a draft position and Dr. Kaye has made amotion in this regard. She stated that Dr. Kaye’s motion basically summarized Ms. Reitzdraft. Dr. Kyger said that it was her opinion that the Board needs to pick their battles.She concluded by stating that she personally supports the tolling language as one of theprimary efforts of the Board when they are actually speaking in the future.Motion carried. Dr. Wallace abstained.GENERAL DISCUSSIONDr. Kyger then inquired as to whether any of the Board members had any other issuesthey would like to discuss on Am.Sub.H.B. 215.Ms. Reitz stated that from her perspective the discovery of the investigative file was ahuge issue. She stated that granted there was a provision added to the bill that said “ifthe disclosure of the investigative file discloses anyone who works in the dentalprofession” the Board would have the ability to redact that information. However, shestated that while that is a concern, it is the patients and colleagues that come forward.She commented that it would really chill the whole investigatory process if thecomplainant thought that the entire file was going to be turned over.Ms. Reitz stated that she could explain a case right now that the Board has aninvestigation where we ended up charging the licensee with only 30-40 complaints out ofover 70 available to use when charging the licensee. She stated that disclosing thatinvestigative file would also disclose the complainants of those cases that the Board didnot pursue because they did not want to “run up the score”. She said that is what theBoard does not want to allow to happen. She commented that no other board has that,that the Board shares the information that is going to be used to present their case, andthat information is shared before the hearing.Continuing on, Ms. Reitz asked the members how does disclosing the investigativefile protect the public? She stated that it is the Board’s job to protect the public, and shedoes not know how disclosing the investigatory file protects the public. She stated thatshe does not know how a statute of limitations protects the public, how not allowing theboard to consider the fact that they have repeat offender before them when consideringwhether to take disciplinary action against a licensee is protecting the public. She saidthat she did not know how these provisions do that or how requiring the Board toencumber $25K instead of $10K to have more hearing examiners protects the public.She said she did not know how putting a thirty (30) day time limit on a licensee whoneeds remediation protects the public or how allowing a dentist six (6) months extra torenew protects the public. She stated that she just did not understand how there couldbe sixty (60) sponsors to this bill.

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESAPRIL 7, 2010 PAGE 25Dr. Wynn questioned if HIPAA would come into play with regards to theinvestigatory file. She outlined a potential scenario as follows:“If a person, who is a staff member, calls in and complains about a standard of careissue, it ends up that the Board is going to go in and take a look at that and subpoena arecord.. But the Board is also going to want to figure out if this has been a singularinstance or maybe not so they are going to take ten (10) files.”Dr. Wynn stated that Number 1 the patient has not complained, the patient has notreleased the records, the patient has some health issues and the patient may not wanteveryone to see their records. She stated that now your issue is that the Board comes inand takes ten (10) records She stated that she could see this play out in two (2) ways; 1.The patient hasn’t complained but maybe staff or another dentist. has and so now youhave the patients health records out here that they want us to release to the dentistsattorney. She stated that it is now her understanding that once those records leave theDental Board office and is turned over to that attorney’s office it becomes public record.Ms. Bockbrader interjected that the Board would redact the patients name, butgenerally yes the record becomes public. However, she stated the names of the patientsare seen by the dentists and the dentist’s attorney. Ms. Reitz stated that therein lies theproblem because once the records leave the Dental Board office, the Board cannotguarantee the confidentiality of those records.Dr. Wynn then stated that on the flip side of this scenario would be that the Boardwould only use the one patient file and determine that in this one instance the dentalwork was below the standard of care when in reality it may have been a singular instance.Further discussion ensued wherein it was determined that Ms. Reitz would continueto work on word smithing the draft position in order to develop what the Board wantedconcerning the statute of limitations and tolling the investigation and discovery of theinvestigative file..H.B. 190Dr. Kyger informed the Board members that H.B. 190 has been through the House ofRepresentatives and the Senate Health, Human Services and Aging Committee and isawaiting approval from the full Senate. She stated that there were some changes thatcame out of the Senate Health, Human Services and Aging Committee, so it was herunderstanding that the House of Representatives will have to concur the changes that theSenate has made. She stated that this is all pending Senate action. Mr. Kerns statedthat he expects that there will be a major push to get this bill wrapped up in the Senateonce they are back in session.

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARDBOARD MEETING MINUTESAPRIL 7, 2010 PAGE 26BOARD MEMBER APPOINTMENTSDr. Kyger informed the Board members that pending the Governors appointment ofnew members, they would be having a new member orientation meeting on the afternoonof May 11, 2010. She stated that they would then have an informal dinner with the newmembers and invited all of the Board members to be present for dinner. She indicatedthat if the Governor did not make any appointments they would still consider having theinformal dinner.INSURANCE COMPANY TREATMENT OF DISCIPLINEDLICENSEESDr. Kaye stated that he thought it has become evident that the insurance companiesare unfairly handling Ohio’s licensees who have signed consent agreements wherein theyhave been given probationary terms. He stated that they are being unfairly treated,discriminated against, restricted financially and as such he wished to implore theprofessional organizations to put to the legislature to put forth legislation trying to getthe insurance companies to not be permitted to discriminate against these licensees. Hestated that he thought it would be helpful to do that. In addition, Dr. Kaye stated, theinsurance carriers should consider agreeing to it because it protects them in some ways inthat if a licensee has something on their record, they can say “well the law is requiring meto pay that person” thereby relieving them from responsibility when the patient comes tothe insurance company and asks why they still keep that licensee as part of theirorganization. He stated that In both ways it would help everyone out. He concludedby stating he would like to see someone challenge these insurance carriers for restraint oftrade issue or something like that.ADJOURNDr. Kyger adjourned the meeting at 3:58 p.m. She stated that the next meetingwould be on May 12, 2010. She stated that the Policy, Law and Rules Review, and AdHoc Board Operations committees would be meeting at that time.Billie Sue Kyger, D.D.S.PresidentWilliam G. Leffler, D.D.S.