Blazic v. Ohio State Dental Bd. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Whitten, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Blazic, Appellee, v. Ohio State Dental Board, Appellant.
[Cite as Blazic v. Ohio State Dental Bd. (1993), Ohio
St.3d .]
Dentists -- Violations of R.C. 4715.30(A)(2) and 2715.19 --
Sub-standard care in violation of R.C. 4715.30(A)(7) not
shown, when.
(No. 92-241 -- Submitted February 17, 1993 -- Decided May 19,
1993.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No.
C-900336.
This case began on August 16, 1988 when the Ohio State
Dental Board ("OSDB") issued a notice of opportunity for
hearing to John P. Blazic, D.D.S. In this notice, Blazic was
charged with a total of twenty-one counts of violating
provisions of R.C. Chapter 4715.
Blazic was charged in twenty counts with "obtaining or
attempting to obtain money or anything of value by intentional
misrepresentation or material deception in the course of
practice," in violation of R.C. 4715.30(A)(2). Three of these
counts also charged Blazic with employing a person to practice
dentistry who is not licensed to do so in the state of Ohio, in
violation of R.C. 4715.19 and 4715.30(A)(9). The final count
charged Blazic with "providing dental care that departs from
the accepted standards for the profession" in violation of R.C.
4715.30(A)(7).
Blazic requested that a hearing pursuant to R.C. 119.07 be
held in order to present his response to the allegations
against him.
On November 17, 1988, a hearing was held before the OSDB.
In an adjudication order dated November 30, 1988, the OSDB
found nineteen of the twenty-one counts directed against Blazic
to be true. As a result of its findings, the OSDB ordered that
Blazic's dental license be suspended for thirty days, that
Blazic be placed on probation for two years, and that Blazic be
required to perform two hundred hours of pro bono service
during his probationary period.
Pursuant to R.C. 119.12, Blazic appealed the OSDB
adjudication order to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton

County. The common pleas court affirmed the adjudication
order.
Blazic then appealed the holding of the common pleas court
to the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County. On December 11,
1991, in a two-page judgment entry, the court of appeals
reversed the OSDB's adjudication order. The court found that
there was no evidence in the record to indicate that Blazic had
violated R.C. 4715.30(A)(2) by obtaining or attempting to
obtain money or anything of value by intentional
misrepresentation or material deception in the course of
practice. The court of appeals further found that Blazic did
not violate R.C. 4715.19 because he was not a "manager,
proprietor, operator, or conductor of a place for performing
dental operations," and because the statute in question did not
forbid the employment of dentists not licensed in Ohio who were
licensed outside Ohio. Finally, the court of appeals found no
evidence in the record indicating that Blazic had violated R.C.
4715.30(A)(7) by providing dental care that departs from the
accepted standards for the profession.
On January 6, 1992, the OSDB filed a notice of appeal to
this court, and on May 13, 1992, this court granted the dental
board's motion in support of jurisdiction.

White, Getgey & Meyer Co., L.P.A., Frank R. Recker and
David I. Thompson, for appellee.
Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, Ava W. Serrano and Susan
C. Walker, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellant.

Pfeifer, J. The decision of the court of appeals is
reversed because the findings in the adjudication order of the
OSDB were based on a proper interpretation of Ohio law and were
supported by reliable and probative evidence, except for the
finding that Dr. Blazic provided dental care that departs from
the accepted standards for the profession as required by R.C.
4715.30(A)(7). The sanctions which the OSDB imposed against Dr.
Blazic are to remain in effect because they are reasonable,
even though there was no evidence to support the charge of
substandard dentistry.
I
The OSDB was presented with sufficient evidence to
conclude that Blazic had violated R.C. 4715.30(A)(2).
A
There is evidence in the record indicating that Dr. Blazic
violated R.C. 4715.30(A)(2). The statute provides:
"(A) The holder of a certificate or license issued under
this chapter is subject to disciplinary action by the state
dental board for any of the following reasons:
"***
"(2) Obtaining or attempting to obtain money or anything
of value by intentional misrepresentation or material deception
in the course of practice[.]"
The OSDB, in counts one to fourteen of its notice of an
opportunity for hearing, determined that Dr. Blazic had billed
Community Mutual Insurance Company on fourteen occasions for
the services of a surgical assistant when Dr. Blazic had
actually been assisted by a registered nurse ("RN"). Because
the board held that each of these billings was inappropriate,

it concluded that Blazic had attempted to obtain money by
intentional misrepresentation or by material deception.
The record indicates that the dental board's conclusion is
well supported by the evidence. There was testimony by several
witnesses well acquainted with insurance industry practices who
indicated that billing for the services of a "surgical
assistant" who is actually an RN is an inappropriate practice
in the medical insurance industry. Dr. Michael Barnes Lee, an
oral and maxillofacial surgeon, testified that it is improper
for dentists to bill for their surgical assistants who are
RNs. Because the evidence presented at the hearing
demonstrated that Blazic's billing practices directly
conflicted with the standards of the dental profession and the
medical insurance industry, the OSDB had a reasonable basis to
conclude that Dr. Blazic was attempting to obtain money through
material deception in violation of R.C. 4715.30(A)(2), as
alleged in counts one to fourteen of the notice of an
opportunity for hearing.
B
In counts fifteen and seventeen, the dental board found
that Dr. Blazic had also attempted to obtain money by
intentional misrepresentation or material deception by billing
for an assistant surgeon when no one fitting that description
appears on the hospital records. Dr. Blazic conceded that the
hospital records relevant to these to charges did not indicate
that Blazic had anyone accompany him into the operating room
other than his nurse and hospital employees. Under R.C.
4715.30(A)(2), billing for a nonexistent assistant constitutes,
at the very least, "material deception," if not intentional
misrepresentation. The OSDB's determination that Dr. Blazic
violated the statute on these two occasions was well supported
by the evidence.
II
In addition to violating R.C. 4715.30(A)(2), Dr. Blazic
violated R.C. 4715.19. The relevant portion of the statute
provides: "No person, being a manager, proprietor, operator,
or conductor of a place for performing dental operations, shall
employ a person who is not a licensed dentist to perform dental
operations or shall permit such person to practice dentistry in
his office." Dr. Blazic has admitted that he contacted Dr.
Vincent Edwin DiFabio, who is licensed to practice dentistry in
Maryland, but not in Ohio, and invited DiFabio to observe and
assist with an operation that Dr. Blazic was performing in an
Ohio hospital. Accepting Dr. Blazic's invitation, Dr. DiFabio
served as an assistant surgeon for Dr. Blazic during an
operation performed in Fairfield Hospital in Fairfield, Ohio.

A
The license required by R.C. 4715.19 is an Ohio license.
When this statute is read in conjunction with the other
sections in R.C. Chapter 4715, it is clear that the General
Assembly intended to prohibit anyone from practicing dentistry
in Ohio without first obtaining a license from the Ohio State
Dental Board. R.C. 4715.09(A) requires that "[n]o person shall
practice dentistry without a current license from the state
dental board." (Emphasis added.) A separate statute, R.C.
4715.15, provides the exclusive procedure by which a dentist

licensed in another state can obtain a dental license in Ohio.
This reciprocity statute prevents those dentists licensed in
other states from practicing in Ohio until the OSDB determines
that they possess the proper academic credentials, and are of
"good moral character." The statute at issue in this case,
R.C. 4715.19, complies with the purpose of R.C. Chapter 4715.
It requires Ohio's dentists, who are in the best position to
detect offenders, to refrain from employing dentists not
licensed in Ohio.
B
The OSDB determined that Blazic was "a manager,
proprietor, operator, or conductor of a place for performing
dental operations," and, thus, impermissibly employed an
unlicensed dentist. The operation in which the unlicensed
dentist, Dr. DiFabio, assisted Blazic occurred in a hospital
operating room.
The record of the administrative hearing contains enough
evidence to provide the state dental board with an reasonable
basis to conclude that Blazic was the manager, proprietor,
operator, or conductor of the hospital's operating room. Dr.
Blazic often brought his own nurse into the operating room, and
billed his patients for the services of his nurse and assistant
surgeon. The patients being treated there were Blazic's.
Additionally, Dr. DiFabio participated in the operations only
in response to Dr. Blazic's invitation. All of these facts
support one conclusion: Dr. Blazic was in control of the
hospital operating room. Therefore, Dr. Blazic qualifies as a
"manager, proprietor, operator, or conductor of a place for
performing dental operations," pursuant to R.C. 4715.19.
III
The OSDB's finding that Dr. Blazic violated R.C.
4715.30(A)(7) is not supported by the evidence on the record.
This statute allows disciplinary action against licensed
dentists for "[P]roviding *** dental care that departs from or
fails to conform to accepted standards for the profession,
whether or not injury to a patient results."
Appellant's sole basis for supporting this charge was the
expert testimony of Dr. Michael Barnes Lee. Dr. Lee testified
that, after reviewing the dental treatment records of a patient
of Dr. Blazic, he concluded that it was impossible for Dr.
Blazic to have performed, and to have properly billed for, the
same operation on a patient's jaw on two different occasions.
This evidence alone is simply not enough to conclude that
Dr. Blazic had provided substandard dental care. When Dr. Lee
was asked whether he had an opinion on the standard of care
provided to Blazic's patient, Dr. Lee explicitly stated that he
had none. In addition to an absence of expert testimony
regarding Dr. Blazic's standard of care, there was no testimony
from any of Blazic's patients, who were in the best position to
complain about their treatment. Instead, the scope of
testimony focussed on the billing practices of Dr. Blazic.
Accordingly, the OSDB could not properly conclude that Dr.
Blazic violated R.C. 4715.30(A)(7).
The record contains sufficient evidence that Dr. Blazic
violated R.C. 4715.30(A)(2) and 4715.19, but does not contain
enough evidence to support the OSDB's conclusion that he
violated R.C. 4715.30(A)(7). The sanctions imposed against Dr.

Blazic are reasonable, even though there was no supportable
finding of substandard care. Thus, they remain intact.
Judgment reversed.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Resnick and F.E.
Sweeney, JJ., concur.
Wright, J., concurs in judgment only.