Dr. Kate Towarnicki

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted misconduct arising from failure to refund a $1,600 deposit for dental treatment never performed, delay in producing patient records, breach of a prior discipline order, and failure to respond appropriately to the regulator’s inquiries.

The panel accepted the admissions and the agreed statement of facts, but made no finding on the allegation that the member was ungovernable.

The panel accepted a joint submission focused on remediation and public protection, emphasizing the absence of patient-care concerns, the member’s psychiatric treatment, mentoring, and monitoring history.

The member was reprimanded, made subject to detailed ongoing treatment, mentoring, and monitoring conditions, and ordered to pay $12,500 in costs.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the member admitted professional misconduct arising from diagnosing and providing unnecessary restorative treatment, failing to use appropriate radiographic technique, prescribing antibiotics without adequate diagnostic foundation, failing to identify substandard restorations performed under supervision, and deficient recordkeeping.

The panel found the admissions voluntary, informed and unequivocal, and was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the misconduct was established.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, emphasizing public protection, specific and general deterrence, and rehabilitation.

A one-month suspension, remedial coursework, practice monitoring, reprimand, and $3,000 in costs were ordered.

In a dental discipline proceeding, the panel accepted the member’s guilty plea and agreed statement of facts regarding cosmetic dental treatment in which crowns and a bridge were provided after discussions and documentation referring to veneers.

The panel found professional misconduct for over-preparing teeth, failing to obtain informed consent, charging excessive fees above recommended rates without explanation or consent, and providing inaccurate information to the regulator during the investigation.

The panel held that the patient had not consented to the actual treatment provided and that the member’s conduct caused significant clinical harm and raised serious integrity concerns.

A joint submission on penalty was accepted, resulting in an 18-month suspension, extensive remedial and practice restriction terms, and costs.