William K. Nabors, D.D.S., who practices in Candler, North Carolina, has been ordered to attend a hearing that will examine his management of a female patient who consulted him in 2004 because of discomfort in a tooth that occurred after biting an olive pit. The hearing notice (shown below) alleges:
- Over a two-year period, Nabors failed to make an appropriate diagnosis and subjected the woman to an array of inappropriate procedures that included applied kinesiology and injections of sanum remedies.
- Nabors also told the woman that she might have NICO and referred her to two dentists, one of whom extracted two teeth.
- Nabors’ failure to promptly and accurately diagnose and appropriately treat the patient’s problem
- Nabors committed misleading acts by performing procedures that are unsubstantiated and outside the scope of dentistry.
In April 2010, the board ruled that Nabors had violated the state’s standards of care by (a) failing to adequately diagnose the patient’s condition (b) negligently referring her to NICO advocates, and (c) subjecting her to sanum therapy, applied kinesiology, and unwarranted long-term antibiotic therapy. Throughout his probationary period, he must obey all laws and regulations and permit agents of the board to monitor his practice. During the first year of probation, he must take comprehensive, remedial courses in treatment planning, pharmacology, record keeping, diagnosing, oral medicine, and ethics.
BEFORE THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS
|In The Matter Of:
WILLIAM K. NABORS, D.D.S.
|NOTICE OF HEARING|
TO: William K. Nabors, D.D.S
25 Norton Court
Candler, NC 28715
TAKE NOTICE that on November 6, 2009 beginning at 1 p.m., the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners (the Board), pursuant to G.S. §§ 90-41.1 and 150B-38, and the Board’s Rules and Regulations, 21 N.C.A.C. 16N.0504, will conduct a hearing at the offices of the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners located at 507 Airport Boulevard, Suite 105, Morrisville, North Carolina, to determine whether you violated G.S. §§ 90-41(a)(6), 90-41(a)(12) and/or 90-41(a)(17), which provide that the Board may revoke or suspend a license to practice dentistry and invoke such other disciplinary measures, censure, or probative terms against a licensee as it deems fit and proper if such licensee:
. . .
(6) Has engaged in any act or practice violative of any of the provisions of this Article or violative of any of the rules and regulations promulgated and adopted by the Board, or has aided, abetted or assisted any other person or entity in the violation of the same;
. . .
(12) Has been negligent in the practice of dentistry.
. . .
(17) Has committed any fraudulent or misleading acts in the practice of dentistry.
The specific factual allegations are:
NOTICE OF FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
1. The North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners is a body duly organized under the laws of North Carolina and is the proper party to bring this proceeding under the authority granted it in Chapter 90 of the North Carolina General Statutes (the Dental Practice Act).
2. William K. Nabors, D.D.S., (Respondent), was licensed to practice dentistry in North Carolina on June 29, 1981 and holds license number 4932.
3. Respondent has remained licensed to practice dentistry in North Carolina and was subject to the Dental Practice Act and the Board’s Rules and Regulations at all times relevant hereto.
4. At all relevant times, Respondent was engaged in the practice of general dentistry in Candler, North Carolina.
5. On June 3, 2004, Deborah Stapf (Ms. Stapf) presented to the Respondent’s office with complaints of discomfort with tooth number 14 after biting an olive pit.
6. Respondent took a radiograph of tooth number 14, but observed nothing remarkable. He scaled between teeth numbers 14 and 15 but provided no further treatment on that date.
7. In July 2004, Ms. Stapf returned to the practice with continued pain in tooth number 14. Respondent injected anesthetic into the lingual aspect of the tooth and performed applied kinesiology. He also referred Ms. Stapf to an area endodontist, who examined Ms. Stapf in July 2004, but did not recommend any treatment.
8. On July 19, 2004, Ms. Stapf returned to Respondent’s practice for a re-evaluation, at which time Respondent performed trigger point injections.
9. Also at the July 19, 2004 appointment, Respondent’s partner took impressions for the fabrication of a soft appliance.
10. On August 20, 2004, Ms. Stapf returned to the Respondent’s office with continued symptoms of pain in tooth number 14. On that date and several other appointments over the next several weeks, Respondent or his partner performed trigger point injections, deep temporal nerve injections with Marcain, and prolotherapy injections. Respondent also prescribed analgesics, muscle relaxers and antibiotics.
11. On October 27, 2004, Respondent referred Ms. Stapf to a physician, who was unable to diagnose the cause of Ms. Stapf’s pain.
12. In early November 2004, Respondent told Ms. Stapf that she might have osteomyelitis or a NICO (osteonecrotic) lesion and advised her to undergo a CT scan. The scan, which was performed on November 10, 2004, revealed nothing significant.
13. After the CT scan, Respondent advised Ms. Stapf to undergo electro-acupuncture treatments.
14. In December 2004, Respondent referred Ms. Stapf to Dr. John Tate (Dr. Tate), a South Carolina dentist, for Cavitat testing. Dr. Tate diagnosed problems with teeth numbers 14 – 16 and 17 – 18.
15. Respondent then referred Ms. Stapf to Dr. Wesley Shankland (Dr. Shankland), an Ohio dentist, who diagnosed a NICO lesion from teeth numbers 13 to 16 and from 17 – 19. He recommended the extraction of teeth numbers 14, 15, 18 and 19.
16. Ms. Stapf agreed only to the extractions of teeth numbers 14 and 15, which Dr. Shankland completed in January 2005.
17. In early 2005, when Ms. Stapf reported continued discomfort with tooth number 17 as well as at the extraction sites of teeth numbers 14 and 15, Respondent prescribed Cipro and Difulcan. He also recommended that Ms. Stapf return to Dr. Shankland for possible NICO surgery on tooth number 17 and have additional Cavitat testing by Dr. Tate.
18. Between April 2005 and November 2006, Respondent treated Ms. Stapf’s complaints of further discomfort with applied kinesiology and Sanum injections. He also adjusted the partial that he had delivered in April 2005 and prescribed additional antibiotics.
19. Meanwhile, in June 2006, when Ms. Stapf presented with discomfort in tooth number 13, Respondent restored the tooth and performed a root canal.
20. At his last appointment with Ms. Stapf, on November 28, 2006, Respondent proposed additional Cavitat testing, EAV, more CT scans, Tech 99 bone scans and ozone injections. Ms. Stapf declined these recommendations.
21. On December 6, 2006, Ms. Stapf presented to the office of Dr. Matthew Parker with complaints of discomfort with tooth number 3. Dr. Parker extracted the tooth on December 12, 2006.
22. When Ms. Stapf later presented with pain in the area of tooth number 13, Dr. Parker referred her to a local endodontist, who re-treated the root canal.
23. Ms. Stapf’s dental symptoms and pain were resolved within a few months after she transferred to Dr. Parker’s care.
24. By failing to promptly and accurately diagnose the cause of Ms. Stapf’s dental problems, Respondent engaged in negligence in the practice of dentistry in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 90-41(a)(12).
25. By recommending that Ms. Stapf undergo unnecessary procedures and procedures that have not been demonstrated by objective, peer reviewed sources to provide any dental benefit, and by performing inappropriate antibiotic therapy, Respondent engaged in negligence in the practice of dentistry in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 90-41(a)(12).
26. By performing procedures that are outside the scope of dentistry and that have not been demonstrated by objective, peer reviewed sources to provide any medical benefit, Respondent committed misleading acts in the practice of dentistry in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 90-41(a)(17).
NOTICE OF PROCEDURAL MATTERS
At the formal hearing of this case, you will be given an opportunity to appear and be heard in person and by counsel, to confront the witnesses appearing for the Board, to cross-examine them, and to offer evidence in your defense as you see fit.
You are entitled to be represented by counsel at the hearing or you may appear on your own behalf without counsel. Continuances will be granted only for good cause. Failure to retain counsel will not be considered as a basis to grant a continuance on the day of the hearing.
You may contact Terry W. Friddle, Deputy Operations Officer, at the Board’s office, 507 Airport Blvd., Ste 105, Morrisville NC 27560, telephone number (919) 678-8223, for further information.
This the __________ day of ___________________, 2008.
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE
BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS
Terry W. Friddle
Deputy Operations Officer