1 DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General of the State of California

2 ERNEST MARTINEZ, Deputy Attorney General, State Bar No. 74752

3 Department of Justice 300 South Spring Street

4 Los Angeles, California 90013 Telephone: (213) 897-2544

5

6

7

8

9

10

Attorneys for Complainant

BEFORE THE BOARD OF DENT AL EXAMINERS

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Accusation ) NO. AGS #1994-61 11 Against: )

) L-9602083 12 MARTIN NEIL GORMAN, D.D.S . )

4910 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 210 ) STIPULATION IN SETTLEMENT AND DECISION 13 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 )

)

14 State Certificate No. 25713 ) )

1 5 Respondent. ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)

16 In the interest of a prompt and speedy settlement of

17 this matter, consistent with the public interest and the

18 responsibility of the Board of Dental Examiners, Department of

19 Consumer Affairs ( 11 Board 11

), the parties submit this Stipulation 20

and Decision to the Board for its approval and adoption as the 21

final disposition of the Accusation. 22

The parties stipulate the following is true: 23

1. An Accusation, No. AGS #1994-61, is currently 24

pending against Martin Neil Gorman, D.D.S. ("respondent"), before 25

the Board. The Accusation, together with all other statutorily 26

required documents, was duly served on the respondent on or about 27

1.

1 May 26, 1995, and respondent filed his Notice of Defense

2 (contesting the Accusation) on or about June 12, 1995. A copy of

3 Accusation No. AGS #1994-61 is attached as Attachment "A" and

4 incorporated by reference as if fully set forth.

5 2. At all times relevant herein, respondent has been

6 licensed by the Board of Dental Examiners under State Certificate

7 No. 25713.

8 3. Respondent is represented by counsel Martin B.

9 Snyder, Esq. in this matter. Respondent has fully and completely

10 discussed with his counsel the effects of this stipulation.

11 4. Respondent understands the nature of the charges

12 alleged in the Accusation and that the charges and allegations

13 constitute potential cause for imposing discipline upon his

14 license to practice. Respondent is fully aware of his right to a

15 hearing on the charges and allegations contained in said

16 Accusation, his right to reconsideration, appeal and all other

17 rights accorded pursuant to the California Business and

18 Professions Code and Government Code and freely and voluntarily

19 waives such rights.

20 5. For administrative purposes only, Respondent admits

21 the truth of each and every allegation of the Accusation No. AGS

22 #1994 -61, except for paragraphs 3a&c and 5a(2)&(3), and agrees

23 that respondent has thereby subjected his license to discipline.

24 Respondent agrees to the Board's imposition of penalty as set out

25 in the Order below.

26 6. Admissions made by respondent herein are for

27 purposes of this proceeding, for any other disciplinary

2.

1 proceedings by the Board, and for any petition for reinstatement,

2 reduction of penalty, or application for relicensure, and shall

3 have no force or effect in any other case or proceeding.

4 7. It is understood by respondent that, in deciding

5 whether to adopt this stipulation, the Board may receive oral and

6 written communications from its staff and the Attorney General's

7 office. Communications pursuant to this paragraph shall not

8 disqualify the Board or other persons from future participation

9 in this or any other matter affecting respondent. In the event

10 this settlement is not adopted by the Board, the stipulation will

11 not become effective and may not be used for any purpose, except

12 for this paragraph, which shall remain in effect.

13 8. In consideration of the foregoing admissions and

14 findings, the parties agree that the Board may, without further

15 notice of formal proceeding, issue and enter an Order as follows:

16 ORDER

17 A. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that State Certificate number

18 25713 issued to Martin Neil Gorman, D. D. S. is revoked. However,

19 the REVOCATION is STAYED and respondent is placed on PROBATION

20 for FIVE (5) YEARS on the following terms and conditions:

21 1. ACTUAL SUSPENSION

22 Commencing the effective date of this decision,

23 respondent shall be SUSPENDED from the practice of dentistry for

24 a period of TEN (10) DAYS. Respondent shall not mislead patients

25 regarding the reasons for suspension from practicing dentistry.

26 During the suspension, respondent shall not practice

27 dentistry directly or indirectly, including the supervision of

3 .

1 dental auxiliaries, nor shall respondent receive or have set

2 aside for future receipt, any new monies derived from the

3 practice of dentistry as defined by the provisions of Business

4 and Professions Code section 1625, which includes managing or

5 conducting as manager, proprietor, conductor, lessor, or

6 otherwise, a place where dental operations are performed.

7 If respondent operates his own office as a solo

8 practice or as a one person professional corporation, said off ice

9 is to be closed except for administrative purposes (making future

10 appointments when suspension is over, opening mail, referring

11 patients, accepting payments on accounts, and general office

12 administration) ; and respondent shall not lease the dental off ice

13 nor make any monetary gain from the practice earned during the

14 period of time that the office is closed.

15 It is understood, acknowledged, and agreed that

16 Respondent currently sub-leases space in his dental suite to a

17 licensed dentist, who conducts and operates a dental practice

18 independent from Respondent. It is agreed that said independent

19 dentist may continue to conduct and to operate his practice

20 during the period of respondent's actual suspension.

21 Moreover, it is further understood that pursuant to the

22 terms of this stipulation, neither lesee-independent dentist, nor

23 his employees, agents or representatives, shall provide any funds

24 to respondent during the actual suspension period, and includes

25 any funds that would normally be due and owing during this

26 period. Further, respondent may not charge lessee-independent

27 dentist retroactively or otherwise, for any offset of any unpaid

4.

1 balances that will accrue as a result of this financial

2 arrangement.

3 2 . REMEDIAL EDUCATION

4 At any time immediately after the date of adoption of

5 this decision but no later than 60 days of the effective date of

6 this decision, respondent shall submit to the Board staff for its

7 prior approval, an appropriate program of remedial education

8 related to crown and bridge work, oral diagnosis and root canal

9 treatment with evaluation or examination at the end of the

10 education program in an educational facility or program which

11 must also be approved by the Board staff. The remedial education

12 program shall consist of at least eight hours and shall be

13 completed within six (6) months of effective date of this

14 decision and commencement of probation. The remedial education

15 program shall be at respondent's expense. The period of probation

16 will be extended, if necessary, until such remedial education is

17 completed. Respondent is not required to commence or complete

18 the remedial education program approved by the Board staff as a

19 condition of resuming his dental pracitce after the completion of

20 his period of actual suspension. Continuing education courses,

21 used for the renewal of licensure, will not be credited or count

22 as credit for the remedial education requirements of this

23 stipulation and decision.

24 3. SALE OR CLOSURE OF AN OFFICE AND/OR PRACTICE

25 If respondent sells or closes his off ice after the

26 imposition of administrative discipline, respondent shall ensure

27 the continuity of patient care and the transfer of patient

5.

1 records. Respondent shall also ensure that patients are refunded

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

money for dental work not performed, and shall not misrepresent

the reason for the sale or closure of the office and/or practice.

The provisions of this condition in no way authorize the practice

of dentis t ry by the respondent during any period of license

suspension .

4. COST RECOVERY

Respondent agrees to pay the Board's actual and

reasonable costs of investigation and enforcement of this matter

in the amount of THREE THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS ($3,600 . 00).

Said amount shall be paid within three (3) years of the effective

date of this decision and order. Respondent may pay the above

mentioned sum in 36 equal monthly payments of $100.00 beginning

on the 1st of the month following the effective date of this

decision and continuing with the 1st of each following month for

the remainder 35 payments. Probation shall not terminate until

full payment has been made. Respondent's license shall not be

renewed until the cost recovery has been paid in full or

respondent is otherwise in compliance with a payment plan

approved by the Board.

5. COMMUNITY SERVICE

Within 60 days of the effective date of this decision,

respondent shall submit to the Board, for its prior approval, a

community service program, to be completed within the first three

years of probation, in which respondent shall provide volunteer

services on a regular basis to a non-profit community or

charitable facility or agency for at least 35 days for the first

6.

1 three year period of probation. Such community service shall not

2 be dentally related.

3 6. ETHICS

4 Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision,

5 respondent shall submit for prior Board approval a course in

6 ethics which will be completed within the first year of

7 probation. Units obtained for an approved course in ethics shall

8 not be used for continuing education units required for renewal

9 of licensu re.

10 7. OBEY ALL LAWS

11 Respondent shal l obey all federal, state, and local

12 laws, and all rules governing the practice of dentistry in

13 California.

14 8 . QUARTERLY DECLARATIONS

15 Respondent shall submit, quarterly, a declaration under

16 penalty o f perjury on forms provided by the Board, stating

17 whether there has been compliance with all the conditions of

18 probation .

19 9 . PROBATION SURVEILLANCE

20 Respondent shall comply with the Board's probation

21 surveillance program.

22 10. INTERVIEWS

23 Respondent shall appear in person for interviews with a

24 Board representative upon request at various intervals and with

25 reasonable notice.

26 II

27 II

7.

1 11. CHANGE OF PLACE OF PRACTICE

2 Respondent shall inform the Board in writing of any

3 change of place of practice and place of residence within fifteen

4 (15) days of any change.

5 12. ABSENCE FROM STATE/PRACTICE

6 In the event respondent should leave California to

7 reside or practice outside the State, respondent must provide

8 written certification to the Board of the dates of departure and

9 return . Periods of residency or practice outside California will

10 not apply to the reduction of this probationary period. In the

11 event respondent would cease to actively practice dentistry in

12 California, respondent must provide written notification of that

13 fact to the Board. The period when the dentist is not practicing

14 will not apply to the reduction of the probationary period.

15 13. CONTINUANCE OF PROBATIONARY TERM/COMPLETION OF

16 PROBATION

17 If respondent violates the terms of probation in any

18 respect, the Board, after giving respondent notice and the

19 opportunity to be heard, may set aside the stay order and impose

20 the revocation of the respondent's license. If during the period

21 of probation, an accusation is filed against respondent's license

22 or the Attorney General's Office has been requested to prepare an

23 accusation against respondent's license, the probation period

24 shall automatically be extended and shall not expire until the

25 accusation has been acted upon by the Board. Upon successful

26 completion of probation, respondent's license will be fully

27 restored.

8 .

1 B. Accusation No . AGS #1994-61 Paragraphs Numbers 1,

2 2, 3b.&d.,4, 5 a . (1), 6, and 7 (erroneously numbered paragraph 6

3 on page 8, of accusation) A. through K., inclusive, are admitted

4 for the adminsitrative and disciplinary purposes set forth in

5 paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Stipulation In Settlement and

6 Dedcision.

7 C. The within stipulation shall be subject to the

8 approval of the Board. If the Board fails to adopt this

9 stipulation as its Order, the stipulation shall be of no force or

10 effect for either party.

11 II

12 II

13 II

14 II

15 II

16 II

17 II

18 II

19 II

20 II

21 II

22 II

23 II

24 II

25 II

26 II

27 II

9.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

We concur in the stipulation and order.

DATED: //; r- ft

DATED:

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General of the State of California

Mart in B. snyd :/ESq. Goldfarb, Sturman, Averbach 15760 Ventura Boulevard, 19th Floor Encino, CA 91436-3012

Attorney for Respondent

I have carefully read and fully understand the

16 stipulation and order set forth in the previous nine pages. I

17 have discu ssed the terms and conditions set forth in the

18 stipulation and order with my attorney Martin B. Snyder, Esq. I

19 understand that in signing this stipulation I am waiving my right

20 to a hearing on the charges set forth in the Accusation on file

21 in this matter. I further understand that in signing this

22 stipulation the Board may enter the foregoing order placing

23 certain requirements, restrictions and limitations on my right to ;f

24

25

practice dentistry in the State ~I ! c~ . · i

26 DATED: \ \,, ~-CX)

27 MARTIN NE Respondent

10.

.s.

1 DECISION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS

2 The foregoing Stipulation and Order, in No. AGS

3 #1994-61, is hereby adopted as the Order of the California Board

4 of Dental Examiners, Department of Consumer Affairs. An

5 effective date of 24 April , 19~, has been assigned to this

6 Decision and Order.

7 I 1997 • -------Made this 24th day of March

8

9

10 FOR THE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS

11

12 03559110-LA93AD2372

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

11.

1 DANIEL E. LUNGREN, Attorney General of the State of California

2 ERNEST MARTINEZ, Deputy Attorney General, State Bar No. 74752

3 Department of Justice 300 South Spring Street, Suite 500

4 Los Angeles, California 90013 Telephone : (213) 897-2544

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 _ .. ~\

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Attorneys for Complainant

BEFORE THE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS

DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Accusation Against:

MARTIN NEIL GORMAN, D.D.S. 4910 Van Nuys Blvd., Suite 210 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

State Certificate No. 25713 Respondent.

NO. AGS 1994-61

ACCUSATION

COMES NOW Complainant Georgetta Coleman, who as cause

for disciplinary action, alleges:

1. Complainant is the Executive Officer of the California

State Board of Dental Examiners ( 11 Board") and maJ<e·s and files

this accusation solely in her official capacity.

LICENSE STATUS

2. On or about July 8, 1976, State Certificate No. 25713

was issued by the Board to Martin Neil Gorman, D.D.S.

( 11 respondent"), and at all times relevant herein, said State

Certificate was, and currently is, in full force and effect.

1.

1 STATUTES

2 3. This accusation is made in reference to the following

3 statutes of the California Business and Professions Code

4 ("Code"):

5 a. Section 810 provides in part;

6 " (a) It shall constitute unprofessional conduct

7 and grounds for disciplinary action, including suspension or

8 revocation of a license or certificate, for a health care

9 professional to do any of the following in connection with his

10 professional activities:

11 (1) Knowingly present or cause to be presented any

12 false or fraudulent claim for the payment of a

13 loss under a contract of insurance.

14 (2) Knowingly prepare, make, or subscribe any writing,

15 with intent to present or use the same, or to

16 allow it to be presented or used in support of any

17 such claim."

18

19 b. Section 1670 provides that any licentiate may have ..... _... ...

20 his license revoked or suspended or be repr1manded or be

21 placed on probation by the board for unprofessional conduct,

22 or incompetence, or · gross negligence, or repeated acts of

23 negligerce in his or her profession, or for the issuance of

24 a license by mistake, or for any other cause applicable to

25 the l i centiate provided in this chapter.

26 II

27 II

2.

1 c. Section 1680 provides in part:

2 "Unprofessional conduct by a person licensed under this

3 chapter is defined as, but not l imited to, the violation of any

4 of the following:

5

6

(a) The obtaining of any fee by fraud or

misrepresentation.

7 II

8

9 d. Section 125.3 provi des, in part, that the Board may

10 request the administrative law judge to direct any licentiate

11 found to have committed a violation or violations of the

12 licensing act, to pay the Board a sum not to exceed the

13 reasonable costs of the investigation and enforcement of the

14 case.

15

16 Patient Kay M.

17 4. Respondent is subject to discipline pursuant to section

18 1670 as follows:

19 A. From approximately July 17, 1990 through December

20 28, 1990, respondent provided dental care to patient Kay M. The

21 dental treatment included, among other things, preparing a

22 partial bridge, capping 21 teeth and performing five root canals.

23 B. On or about N~vernber 7, 1990, respondent performed

24 endodontic (root canal) treatment for teeth #'s 9, 23, 24, 25,

25 and 26. All of the root canals were single canal treatments.

26 Respondent did not employ rubber dam isolation of the endodontic

27 teeth.

3.

1 c. Despite the nonexistence of tooth #15 at the alleged

2 time of treatment thereon, Respondent caused to be presented a

3 billing for treatment of tooth #15 indicating a treatment date of

4 September 18, 1990, and October 18, 1990, for preparation of a

5 ceramco crown and delivery thereof on the above respective dates.

6 D. Approximately, two and one half years later, on or

7 about May 25, 1993, Kay M. presented herself to a subsequent

8 treating dentist with a complaint of a loose cap on tooth #7. The

9 subsequent treating dentist cemented the existing jacket crown

10 for #7 and apparently referred Kay M. to a periodontist for a

11 needed crown lengthening on tooth #7. The subsequent treating

12 dentist also recommended remaking of this crown.

13 E. Gross caries or gross decay was evident in teeth #'s

14 7 and 11 but not in #'s 8, 9, and 10. Although respondent's

15 clinical records for Kay M. did not indicate any pathologies for

16 these teeth, one of the insurance claim forms submitted by

17 respondent and date stamped as received August 21, 1990, noted

18 the patient had gross caries on teeth #'s 7 through 11.

19 ..,._._

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

F. Respondent's conduct constitutes gross negligence : · .. ..

and repeated acts of negligence as follows:

(1) Respondent, in his treatment of tooth #7

perforated the distal root aspect of tooth #7 with a pin in his

combination of pin and post augmentatio1. This resulted in a

vertical periodontal defect and loosening of the cap on tooth #7

as well as the need for the additional treatment of crown

lengthening by a periodontist. Respondent further failed to

discover this defect and failed to advise Kay M. about the defect

4 .

1 or corrective treatment.

2 (2) Respondent failed to employ rubber dam

3 isolation of endodontic treatment of #'s 9, 23, 24, 25, and 26.

4

5 5. Respondent's conduct constitutes unprofessional

6 conduct pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 1670

7 and 810(a) and 1680(a), as follows:

8 a. Complainant incorporates by reference, as

9 though fully set forth herein, paragraphs 4A. through 4E.

10 inclusive.

11 (1) Respondent excessively prescribed

12 treatment for "gross caries" when describing his clinical

13 findings for Kay M.'s pre-existing crowns on teeth #'s 8, 9, and

14 10.

15 (2) Respondent knowingly caused to be

16 presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment of a loss under

17 a contract of insurance regarding treatment of tooth #15 for a

18 crown when patient Kay M. did not have a tooth #15 at the time of

19 alleged treatment .

... -. 20 (3) Respondent obtained a fe~ by fraud or

21 misrepresentation when he received payment from Kay M.'s

22 insurance carrier for treatment of a crown on tooth #15 when

23 patient Kay M. did not have a tooth #15 at the time of alleged

24 treatment thereon.

25 II

26 II

27 II

5 .

1 Patient Najib K.

2 6. Respondent Gorman is subject to disciplinary action

3 pursuant to section 1670 as follows:

4 A. Approximately from June 12, 1991, through December

5 16, 1991, respondent provided dental care to patient Najib K. at

6 respondent's office in Van Nuys, California, for, among other

7 things, replacement of a bridge.

8 B. On or about October 23, 1991, respondent delivered

9 and fitted a #2-6 bridge on patient Najib K. However, Najib K.

10 felt the bridge to be very uncomfortable. Respondent attempted to

11 remedy the problem by grinding the bridge down and ordering Najib

12 K. to try using it for a "while."

13 E. Najib K. continued to experience extreme pain and

14 discomfort from the fitted bridge. Najib K. complained to

15 respondent that he could not bite or chew on the side with the

16 bridge. He also complained to respondent that the tooth and gum

17 area around tooth #6 was extremely sensitive to temperature.

18 F. Najib K. returned for further treatment by

19 respondent on or about October 28, 1991. Again, respondent

.,. --20 attempted to adjust the bridge fit by further grinding. Again,

21 respondent advised Najib K. to continue using the bridge for an

22 unspecified period longer. Respondent treated the area around

23 t0oth #6 only with fluoride.

24 G. On or about December 5, 1991, Najib K. returned to

25 respondent a final time for further adjustment and fitting.

26 Respondent continued with the treatment of grinding the bridge,

27 including smoothing of the buccal margin on #6. Again, respondent

6 .

1 gave Najib K. a treatment of fluoride for the sensitivity around

2 tooth area #6.

3 H. Najib K. continued to suffer discomfort and pain

4 from the bridge and local gum area. As a result, Najib K.

5 consulted with his previous dentist, Dr. Rothstein, who referred

6 him to a specialist.

7 I. Najib K. consulted with Dr. Daniel Nazarian D.M.D.,

8 a specialist in periodontics and implants, who confirmed that

9 Najib K. had been suffering from severe gum inflammation between

10 #'s 5 and 6, and a detached papilla. Subsequent treating dentist,

11 Dr. Nazarian, treated patient Najib K., on an emergency basis, by

12 scaling and root planing the area to reduce the swelling.

13 J. Respondent's conduct in the manufacture, delivery,

14 and pre- and post-delivery adjustment of the upper right fixed

15 #2-6 bridge constitutes gross negligence and repeated acts of

16 negligence as follows:

17 (1) His treatment by excessive grinding caused

18 fractured porcelain and mutilated occlusal table of a newly

19 fitted and adjusted bridge .

.,. --20 (2) His treatment of Najib K.'s gum· inflammation

21 and thermal sensitivity following the delivery and fitting of the

22 #2-6 bridge, with only fluoride applications and advice to

23 continue using the bridge, was inappropriate.

24 II

25 II

26 II

27 II

7 .

1 Patient Gregg.V.

2 6. Respondent is subject to discipline pursuant

3 to section 1670 as follows:

4 A. Respondent provided dental care for patient Gregg

5 V. from approximately January 22, 1992, through February 27,

6 1992. Gregg had chosen respondent's dental office in Van Nuys,

7 California, partly because of respondent's advertised use of

8 nitrous oxide gas and 24 hour emergency care.

9 B. Neither Gregg V., age 25 at the time, nor his

10 financially responsible mother, were ever provided with a

11 definitive treatment plan describing the nature of treatment and

12 the possible risks by respondent.

13 C. Nor did respondent at any time during his clinical

14 treatment or consultation with Gregg v., ever provide or obtain

15 written informed consent, provide alternate choices, or offer to

16 provide or obtain a second opinion for treatment.

17 D. On or about February 10, 1992, respondent provided

18 Gregg V. with endodontic (root canal) treatment of tooth #19.

19 Despite Gregg V.'s complaints of extreme pain throughout the ~~--

20 entire endodontic procedure, respondent did not ~dininister or

21 prescribe any antibiotics or any analgesics for Gregg V.

22 Respondent also refused to provide or administer nitrous oxide at

23 Gregg V.'s request.

24 E. On or about February 27, 1992, respondent

25 unsuccessfully attempted to extract tooth #19. Again, despite

26 Gregg V.'s extreme pain and discomfort, respondent refused his

27 request for nitrous oxide.

8.

1 F. On or about March 1, 1992, Gregg v. had been

2 suffering from severe pain due to the root canal work on tooth

3 #19 previously performed by respondent. Between the hours of

4 approximately 8:35 a.m. and 10:57 a.m., Gregg V. and his mother

5 made six unsuccessful attempts to contact respondent by telephone

6 during after hours on an emergency basis. Respondent did not

7 return Gregg V.'s earlier calls until approximately 5:00 p.m.

8 G. Eventually, Gregg V. obtained a referral and was

9 seen and treated by Dr. Kamran Sahabi, D.D.S., on an emergency

10 basis. Dr. Sahabi cleaned the root canal, left it open to drain

11 and prescribed antibiotics. On March 8, 1992, Gregg V. returned

12 to the subsequent treating dentist and requested extraction of

13 tooth #19 in lieu of further root canal completion and

14 restoration. Dr. Sahabi extracted tooth #19.

15 H. Respondent later refused to provide Gregg V.'s

16 x-rays to Gregg V. or his subsequent treating dentist, at Gregg

17 V.'s request, because of a fee dispute for services previously

18 rendered to Gregg V.

19 I. Respondent's conduct constitutes gross negligence :· ... ..

20 and repeated acts of negligence in his profession as follows:

21 (1) Respondent failed to provide and obtain

22 informed written consent as to a definitive treatment plan which

23 included alternate choices and an offer .o provide or obtain a

24 second opinion for treatment to patient, Gregg V.

25 (2) Respondent failed to take follow up x-rays of

26 tooth #19 after the onset of acute irreversible pulpititis.

27 (3) Although respondent opened tooth #19, and

9.

1 found hemorrhagic, vital pulp, respondent failed to file properly

2 the roots to an acceptable working length.

3 (4) Respondent left coagulum and decaying and

4 vital pulpal tissue in the roots of tooth 119.

5 (5) Despite patient Gregg V.'s complaints of

6 extreme pain throughout the entire endodontic procedure on tooth

7 #19, respondent failed to administer or prescribe any appropriate

8 antibiotics or analgesics for the patient.

9 (6) Despite patient Gregg V. 's complaints of pain

10 and discomfort, and his repeated request for nitrous oxide gas as

11 advertised by respondent, respondent refused to provide nitrous

12 oxide to his patient, Gregg V.

13 (7) Respondent's failed to respond to Gregg V.'s

14 repeated after hours emergency calls, until approximately 8 to 9

15 hours had passed from the time of the first call, and despite

16 respondent's advertisement that emergency care is available 24

17 hours a day.

18

1_9 ·-19 ~ ...

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

K. Respondent's refusal to transfer x-rays and

records to subsequent treating dentist, Dr. Sah~bi, upon patient ~ ' ..

Gregg V.'s request in March, 1992, because of an alleged

outstanding balance owing on Gregg V. 's account, constitutes

unprofessional conduct within the meaning of Business and

Professions Code section 1670 and constitutes a viola .ion of the

Dental Practices Act, Health and Safety Code section 1795.12(g).

II

II

II

10.

1 WHEREFORE, complainant requests that the Board hold a

2 hearing on the matters alleged herein, and that following said

3 hearing, the Board issue a decision:

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

1. Revoking or suspending State Certificate Number

25713, heretofore issued to respondent, Martin

Neil Gorman, D.D.S.;

2. Directing respondent Martin Neil Gorman to pay to

the Board a reasonable sum for its investigative

and enforcement costs of this action; and

3. Taking such other and further action as the Board

deems appropriate to protect the public health,

safety and welfare.

DATED:~~-)=---~_/--'~~--~'~J--~-

03559110-LA93AD2372

Geb~a~ ~----Executive Officer Board of Dental Examiners Department of Consumer Affairs State of California , ~ --

Complainant

11.