ILNews

Court properly denied dentist’s petition for judicial review

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the denial of a dentist’s petition for judicial review of a decision by the State Board of Dentistry which found he violated Indiana Code after a patient’s wisdom teeth surgery.

The patient, referred to as Patient A in the court opinion, had her wisdom teeth removed by Dr. Donald Walker in 2008. When she woke after the surgery, she felt like she was gasping for air and was told to stop because she was scaring other patients. Walker then placed his hand over her mouth and held it there for a few seconds, which really scared her, according to the opinion.

The patient was taken to a recovery room by two hygienists, but was left alone for several minutes despite her drowsy state. She felt rushed out of the office and saw a different dentist for follow-up care.

Patient A filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division and a hearing before the dentistry board was held in October 2012. The board found Walker violated I.C. 25-1-9-4(a)(3) in that he violated 828 IAC 3-1-6.5(c)(10) by failing to provide continual and direct supervision of the patient by a person trained in basic cardiac life support. It also found Walker violated I.C. 25-1-9-4(a)(4)(B) in that he failed to keep abreast of current professional theory by using the “hand-over-mouth” technique on adult patients. The technique was taught in dental schools and accepted for pediatric patients up until the 1980s.

Walker claimed the board applied the wrong definition to the phrase “direct supervision,” which is not defined as used in 828 IAC 3-1-6.5(c)(10). The board concluded that “continual and direct supervision” was not being provided when the hygienist is in an adjacent room and providing treatment to another patient. The judges found this interpretation to be reasonable.

“The evidence established that Dr. Walker was aware that patients in the holding room were sometimes supervised by a hygienist who was across the hall treating another patient. Further, Patient A testified that she was left alone in the holding room, and the Board found her credible. We cannot reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. We conclude that the Board properly found that Dr. Walker violated 828 IAC 3-1-6.5(c)(10) by knowingly failing to provide ‘continual and direct supervision by a person trained in basic cardiac life support’ to a recovering patient,” wrote Judge Michael Barnes in Donald R. Walker, D.D.S. v. State Board of Dentistry, 49A02-1307-MI-593.

The judges also found the evidence presented supports the board’s findings that Walker violated I.C. 25-1-9-4(a)(4)(B) by using the hand-over-mouth technique on Patient A. The board relied on the testimony of several oral surgeons to hold that the technique is not current professional theory or practice for use on adult patients.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT