Ms. Emily Lawrence

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.

Professional discipline decision arising from a member's admissions that she performed or billed for fixed prosthodontic treatment despite an undertaking and remediation order restricting that work, and that she used a business name inconsistent with the register.

The panel held that the agreed facts substantiated all allegations of professional misconduct on a balance of probabilities and emphasized the member's disregard for patient protection and regulatory obligations.

Applying the public-interest standard for joint submissions, the panel accepted a jointly proposed sanction consisting of a reprimand, an eight-month suspension, extensive practice conditions, mentoring, monitoring, and costs.

A publication ban protected the identity of patients named in the notice of hearing and agreed statement of facts.

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.

A dental discipline panel found professional misconduct where the registrant planned and performed unnecessary oral surgery on a minor under general anaesthesia after reviewing another patient's CBCT scan and failing to review the patient chart.

The panel also found that informed consent was not obtained because the discussion of the procedure was insufficient, the written consent referred to the wrong tooth, and consent was not re-confirmed on the day of surgery.

Accepting a joint submission, the panel ordered a reprimand, completion of an informed-consent course, practice monitoring, and costs.

A publication ban protected the identity of patients named in the notice of hearing and agreed statement of facts.

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.