Mr. Marc Trudell

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted misconduct arising from unnecessary sedative and repeat restorations, improper in-office lab and emergency exam charges, and widespread recordkeeping deficiencies affecting multiple patients over many years.

The panel found the admitted facts substantiated professional misconduct under the governing dental regulations and the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Applying the usual public-protection rationale for accepting a joint penalty submission, the panel accepted a reprimand, a five-month suspension, extensive remediation and monitoring terms, and a costs order.

Because a publication restriction protected patient identities, the reasons were framed without identifying patients.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted multiple allegations involving deficient records, unsupported restorative claims, and billing orthodontic-related treatment as restorative treatment for insured patients.

The panel found professional misconduct proven on the admitted facts, including failures in record-keeping, false or misleading billing, and failure to take and maintain required clinical photographs.

Applying the public-interest approach to joint penalty submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed sanction consisting of a reprimand, a four-month suspension, remediation and mentoring terms, ongoing monitoring, and costs.

The reasons emphasized public protection, deterrence, remediation, and the aggravating feature that the misconduct occurred in the context of discounted Invisalign services and inflated insurer billings.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted misconduct arising from criminal convictions for impaired operation causing death, dangerous operation causing death, and breach of recognizance.

The panel held that the criminal conduct, although outside a clinical setting, was relevant to the provision of dental care to the public because it demonstrated a serious disregard for public safety and undermined fundamental public expectations of regulated health professionals.

The panel accepted a joint penalty submission imposing a reprimand, a six-month suspension, practice monitoring and treatment-related conditions, and costs.

A publication ban was made permanent over certain personal information in the member’s affidavit.

In a professional discipline hearing, the panel accepted the member’s admissions to multiple allegations arising from complex implant treatment, consent failures, disclosure of patient information, deficient records, and breach of a remediation and mentorship program.

The admitted facts included lengthy surgery on an elderly patient, treatment-planning inconsistencies, undocumented changes in implant number and prosthetic materials, inadequate informed consent, unauthorized distribution of patient photographs, and failure to follow a mentor’s recommendations in two implant cases.

The panel found all misconduct allegations proven and accepted a joint submission on penalty.

The sanction imposed a six-month suspension, reprimand, extensive remedial terms and monitoring, and costs of $10,000.