RCDSO 2022

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.