Idlibi v. Connecticut State Dental Commission

Full title: Ammar A. Idlibi v. Connecticut State Dental Commission

Court: Superior Court of Connecticut

Date published: Jan 7, 2020

CV185023867S (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 7, 2020)

Opinion

CV185023867S

01-07-2020

Ammar A. Idlibi v. Connecticut State Dental Commission

Cohn, JTR

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Cohn, Henry S., J.T.R.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Cohn, JTR

During the oral argument, the court raised an issue regarding the American Association of Pediatric Dentistry Standards (AAPD). The parties have now responded with supplemental briefs.

The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the dental board clearly reference the AAPD to decide the plaintiff’s decision to place the child under general anesthesia. Thus, the board has recognized that the AAPD has a role in this disciplinary proceeding.

The defendant board argues in its supplemental brief (pp. 3-4) that Dr. Federman testified, as seen in the record, that the AAPD standards are useful as a guide on the issue of too many crowns. The board further argues that its final decision was based on Dr. Federman’s analysis of the x-rays and other documents, Dr. Kohn’s reading of the AAPD and its own review of the evidence. The plaintiff argues in his supplemental brief (pp. 3-7) that he did not violate the AAPD.

The only statement in the final decision, citing the AAPD, relative to the charge of overuse of crowns, is that steel crowns are an appropriate treatment (Finding #26). The section of the final decision headed "Discussion and Conclusions of Law" does not reference the AAPD in concluding that the plaintiff violated the standard of care on placement of the crowns.

The board must elaborate on Finding #26, by issuing a revised final decision. It must address in such revision, based on the record, to what extent the AAPD was utilized by the board in developing a standard of care. In addition, it must address in the revision whether it concluded factually and/or legally, based on the record, that there was an exception to the use of crowns in the AAPD, thereby modifying Finding #26. The revised final decision will thereby answer whether the plaintiff’s treatment justified a finding of a violation of the AAPD standards.

The case is remanded to resolve this missing analysis in the final decision. The board may determine whether or not additional evidence is required, or if the record, as developed, is adequate.

So Ordered.