Title: Braun v. Board of Dental Examiners

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Braun v. Board of Dental Examiners  (96-105); 167 Vt. 110; 702 A.2d 124

[Filed 5-Sep-1997]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                            No. 96-105

Peter L. Braun, D.D.S.                       Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Washington Superior Court

Board of Dental Examiners                    March Term, 1997

David A. Jenkins, J.

David A. Otterman of Otterman and Allen, P.C., Barre, for appellant.

Wendy A. Burroughs, Assistant Attorney General, Waterbury, for appellee.

PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., and Allen, C.J.
          (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       GIBSON, J.   Peter Braun, a licensed dentist, appeals the Washington
  Superior Court's order affirming disciplinary action imposed by the Vermont
  Board of Dental Examiners.  On appeal, Dr. Braun contends (1) that the
  evidence before the Board was insufficient to support its finding that his
  actions constituted a gross failure to uphold the standard of care, (2)
  that the actions for which he was disciplined were authorized by statute
  and regulation, (3) that he was given inadequate notice of the violations
  for which he was disciplined, and (4) that the statute is
  unconstitutionally vague.  We affirm.

       The basic facts are not in dispute.  Dr. Braun has a dental practice
  where he provides general dental care and runs a lab in which dentures are
  manufactured.  In July 1992, patient H.D. met with Dr. Braun to talk about
  having her remaining twenty-three teeth removed and replaced with dentures. 
  After examining the patient, Dr. Braun directed his dental assistant (a
  person authorized by statute to assist a licensed dentist) to take
  impressions of the patient's teeth to make temporary, or "immediate,"
  dentures.  Approximately one month later, all of H.D.'s

 

  teeth were removed by an oral and maxillofacial surgeon.  The surgeon
  inserted the immediate dentures from Dr. Braun on the day H.D.'s teeth were
  removed.

       On August 14, three days after the extraction of her teeth, H.D.
  returned to Dr. Braun's office, complaining of sore spots.  She was seen by
  the dental assistant, who removed her dentures and observed that her
  stitches had not yet been removed.  The assistant then discussed the
  situation with Dr. Braun separately, who examined the dentures and directed
  his assistant to make an alteration.  The assistant did so and returned the
  dentures to H.D.  H.D. left the office without being examined by Dr. Braun. 
  On August 26, one week after the oral surgeon removed her stitches, H.D.
  returned to Dr. Braun for another appointment.  Again the patient was seen
  only by the dental assistant.  The assistant conferred with Dr. Braun, who
  directed him to perform a soft-tissue relining.

       On September 15, more than one month after H.D.'s teeth were removed,
  she returned for another appointment, complaining of discomfort.  She was
  seen by Dr. Braun on this visit, who examined her and scheduled an
  additional relining.  H.D. returned on October 29, still complaining of
  discomfort.  She was seen by the dental assistant, and her dentures were
  again altered after the assistant consulted with Dr. Braun.  H.D. left
  without being examined by Dr. Braun.

       H.D. subsequently filed a complaint.  The State brought charges of
  unprofessional conduct, and following a hearing, the Board of Dental
  Examiners found that Dr. Braun had violated the statutory standard of care
  and ordered him to enroll in a continuing-education program.  See 26 V.S.A.
  §§ 767, 809(a) (authorizing Board to investigate complaints and discipline
  licensees).  Pursuant to 3 V.S.A. § 130a(a), (b), Dr. Braun appealed the
  Board's decision to the Director of the Office of Professional Regulation,
  which affirmed the order.  Dr. Braun then appealed to the Washington
  Superior Court, see 3 V.S.A. § 130a(c), which reviewed the case on the
  basis of the record created by the Board and affirmed the decision.  This
  appeal followed.

 

                                     I.

       Dr. Braun first argues that the evidence before the Board was
  insufficient to support its finding and conclusion that his treatment of
  H.D. constituted a gross failure to uphold the statutory standard of care. 
  That standard allows the Board to discipline a dentist for the:

     gross failure to use and exercise on a particular occasion or the
     failure to use and exercise on repeated occasions, that degree of
     care, skill and proficiency which is commonly exercised by the
     ordinary skillful, careful and prudent dentist . . . engaged in
     similar practice under the same or similar conditions, whether or
     not actual injury to a patient has occurred.

  26 V.S.A. § 809(a)(21).  We have stressed that grossly negligent conduct is
  more than a mere error of judgment, momentary inattention, or loss of
  presence of mind.  Hardingham v. United Counseling Serv. of Bennington
  County, Inc., 164 Vt. 478, 481,