OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETING - the Ohio State ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2009 PAGE 30 commented that the Bar Association is currently investigating into this exact issue for all regulatory Boards. That being said, Dr. Leffler commented that we should include in our testimony that this is something that should be addressed by the Ohio Supreme Court and the Bar Association. Dr. Armstrong recognized David Owsiany, Executive Director of the Ohio Dental Association. Mr. Owsiany stated that he wanted to make a general observation that may not be well received by the Board members. He stated that there is tenure in the General Assembly that the members should be made aware of regarding the Ohio State Dental Board. He stated that just going to the General Assembly and telling them to trust the Dental Board to put the language in question into rule and to take it out of statute would not be received well. He recommended that if there is language in the Bill that the Board cannot really live with, it would be received better if there is proposed alternate language for the General Assembly to consider. Mr. Owsiany explained that this Bill has passed one house of the General Assembly and it is highly unlikely that they are going to gut the Bill at this point and say that the other House is going to concur. He urged the Board to consider making specific alternate language and the legislators may then consider many of the Board’s recommendations as to how to improve the Bill over just telling the General Assembly that the Board will pursue regulation via rule. SUBPOENAS Dr. Kaye commented that there were two (2) issues regarding subpoenas. He stated that the first one was checking off the subpoena with the Assistant Attorney General. Mr. Yonadi explained the current process requires that either the Board Secretary or the Board Vice-Secretary are required to sign off on any investigative subpoenas. Ms. Bockbrader stated that currently most if not all of the other regulatory boards are required to request their investigative subpoenas through the Attorney General’s office. She stated that obtaining the subpoenas this way is not an issue. Dr. Kaye continued on by stating that the second issue regarding subpoenas was in the process. He stated that the current statute states that the Board requests the subpoena and new legislation stipulates that the Board Secretary or Vice-Secretary must request the subpoena. He suggested that this be recommended to be regulated by rule. Discussion followed wherein the decision of the Board was to follow the testimony provided previously by Dr. Armstrong. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Dr. Armstrong moved on to the language regarding the statute of limitations for investigation purposes. He stated that this issue clearly outlined the differing opinions of the Board members. Dr. Kyger stated that it was her understanding that some of the
OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 2009 PAGE 31 Board members felt that the statute of limitations should placed in the statute while some of the Board members felt that the language should be set forth in rule. Dr. Armstrong stated that he testified that the Board’s current procedures already reflect that every investigation is reviewed every ninety (90) days for status updates to ensure that an investigation is completed in a timely fashion. He stated that it is his understanding that it is the rare exception that any of the investigative cases go on past a year. Therefore, he stated that this is not an issue as to whether we stipulate time limits, excepting in the fact that there are no other regulatory boards with this language or similar limitations within their statutes. Mr. Yonadi expressed his concerns that the investigation would be required to be closed at the completion of two (2) years regardless of extenuating circumstances beyond the Board’s control. Specifically, he stated that currently the Board has experienced difficulties in obtaining records from dentists who refuse to provide subpoenaed patient records. He informed the Board members that there are a few attorneys that regularly defend dentists against the Board who deliberately stall the investigation. Ms. Bockbrader concurred with Mr. Yonadi’s statements in that no investigation should be closed if extenuating circumstances occurred. Mr. Owsiany suggested the use of tolling language. He then reiterated that the offering of constructive alternatives will be more readily accepted versus outright objections to the current language. The final position of the Board was to recommend no statute of limitations, as to do so would set the Board apart from all other regulatory boards. However, if there must be a statute of limitations then there should also be tolling language included. DISCLOSING INVESTIGATIVE FILE Dr. Armstrong stated that there was some questions as to why the Board does not disclose the complainant as the accuser. He then took a moment to clarify that he had the opportunity to explain to the Representatives that the Board is the accuser in regards to these investigations. Ms. Bockbrader commented that if this was one of the stipulations in the Bill wherein the Board could negotiate, she could offer guidance as to what is currently provided to the defendant once they are notified that a hearing has been scheduled. She then indicated that the following information is provided to the licensee and their attorney representation once it is determined that the case is going to hearing: • Patient records • The Complaint itself, once patient protection has been ensured (redacted)
Page 1 and 2: OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETI
Page 31: OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETI
Page 37: OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETI

OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD BOARD MEETING - the Ohio State ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?