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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT