Kundrat v. Com., State Dental Council and Examining Bd.

• Decision Date: 18 July 1982
• Citation: 67 Pa.Cmwlth. 341,447 A.2d 355
• Parties: William KUNDRAT, D. D. S., Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania STATE DENTAL COUNCIL AND EXAMINING BOARD, Respondent.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

447 A.2d 355

67 Pa.Cmwlth. 341

William KUNDRAT, D. D. S., Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania STATE DENTAL COUNCIL AND EXAMINING BOARD, Respondent.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

July 18, 1982

Argued Dec. 18, 1981.

Richard D. Snelbaker, Snelbaker, McCaleb &amp Elicker, Mechanicsburg, for petitioner.

Michael J. McCaney, Jr., John J. Flynn, William H. Andring Harrisburg, for respondent.

Before ROGERS, BLATT and WILLIAMS, JJ.

WILLIAMS, Judge.

The instant matter comes before this Court on a Petition for Review filed by William Kundrat, D.D.S. Petitioner Kundrat appeals from an order of the State Dental Council and Examining Board (Board) finding him guilty of violating certain provisions of The Dental Law ^[1] and revoking his license to practice dentistry.

Petitioner Dr. Kundrat, has been engaged in the practice of dentistry in the state of Pennsylvania since 1965. The incident which gave rise to the present controversy occurred in July, 1975. At that time, Mrs. Francis Pribulsky, a patient and personal friend of Dr. Kundrat's, experienced a problem with her teeth, for which she sought Dr. Kundrat's professional advice. Mrs. Pribulsky had cracked one of her four remaining lower teeth. The patient's other teeth had previously been extracted and she had worn a full upper denture for many years. Dr. Kundrat removed Mrs. Pribulsky's broken tooth, after which he discussed with her the possibility of constructing some type of device with artificial teeth to replace her missing lower teeth. There exists disagreement in the record as to the content of the conversation between Mrs. Pribulsky and Dr. Kundrat involving the replacement of Mrs. Pribulsky's teeth. Dr. Kundrat stated that he described to Mrs. Pribulsky three alternative procedures for the replacement of her missing teeth. The doctor declared that Mrs. Pribulsky selected the cantilever bridge, a ten unit fixed-tooth bridge. He further stated that based upon Mrs. Pribulsky's wishes, he constructed a cantilever bridge and placed it in her mouth.

Mrs. Pribulsky, on the other hand, testified that Dr. Kundrat recommended the cantilever bridge and in reliance on his advice she authorized him to proceed with its construction.

Dr. Kundrat built the cantilever bridge and installed it in Mrs. Pribulsky's mouth in November, 1975. Approximately eleven months later, Mrs. Pribulsky, after suffering from several infections and experiencing discomfort from the device, was advised that the bridge would not work successfully in her mouth. At that time, Dr. Kundrat suggested that Mrs. Pribulsky be fitted for a full lower denture.

In February, 1977, Mrs. Pribulsky filed a complaint against Dr. Kundrat with the Harrisburg Dental Society. A Citation and Notice of Hearing was issued by the Board in June, 1978, charging Dr. Kundrat with violating certain sections of The Dental Law. ^[2] Shortly thereafter, a formal hearing in the matter was conducted by the Board. Following the hearing, an adjudication and order was issued by the Board finding Dr. Kundrat guilty of the charges filed and revoking his license to practice dentistry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Subsequent to the revocation order, Dr. Kundrat filed a Petition for Rehearing and Reconsideration with the Board. A second hearing was held and the Board issued a determination affirming its previous order of revocation. The Board, after considering the evidence found "(a) that [Dr. Kundrat] made misleading and deceptive representations to Mrs. Pribulsky in connection with the dental treatment that he provided to her; and (b) that he engaged in both gross malpractice and unprofessional conduct ^[3] detrimental to the public health in connection with said dental treatment." In that regard, the Board concluded that Dr. Kundrat wrongly gave Mrs. Pribulsky substantial reason to believe that the cantilever bridge would work successfully in her mouth. Additionally the Board determined that, given the condition of Mrs. Pribulsky's mouth, treating it with a ten-tooth cantilever bridge amounted to improper dentistry: "Support for the bridge would have had to have come from Mrs. Pribulsky's three remaining teeth. Given the fact that all three were anterior teeth, it would have been highly unreasonable to expect that, with their insufficient roots and bone structure, they would have been capable of providing such support. The failure of the procedure was all but inevitable." It is from that adjudication that Petitioner now appeals.

Petitioner presents to this Court three arguments in support of his appeal. First, Petitioner alleges that there exists no evidence on the record to establish that he engaged in gross malpractice and unprofessional conduct. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that there was no expert testimony before the Board as to the proper use of the cantilever bridge or as to its appropriateness in the instant case.

In addressing Petitioner's first contention, we must briefly discuss the function of expert testimony and the circumstances under which its use is required. Expert testimony is utilized to assist a trier of fact to understand the evidence presented or to determine a fact in issue. It is appropriately employed in situations where the subject matter of the inquiry is one involving special skills, knowledge, and training which are normally beyond the experience of the factfinder. Weisman v. Sauder Chevrolet Co., 402 Pa. 272, 167 A.2d 308 (1961); Lebesco v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 251 Pa.Superior Ct. 415, 380 A.2d 848 (1977). However, if all of the pertinent facts can be accurately described to the factfinder and the factfinder is capable of comprehending such facts and drawing the proper conclusions, then the testimony of an expert witness is not needed. Reardon v. Meehan, 424 Pa. 460, 227 A.2d 667 (1967).

The Supreme Court of this Commonwealth has recognized the special skills and expertise possessed of those people comprising the membership of its various administrative agencies. In Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Sand's Restaurant Corp., 429 Pa. 479, 240 A.2d 801 (1968), the Supreme Court stated: "An administrative agency with power after hearings to determine on the evidence in adversary proceedings whether violations of statutory commands have occurred may infer within the limits of the inquiry from the proven facts such conclusions as reasonably may be based upon the facts proven. One of the purposes which lead to the creation of such boards is to have decisions based upon evidential facts under the particular statute made by experienced officials with an adequate appreciation of the complexities of the subject which is entrusted to their administration... In these cases, we but restated a rule familiar to the law and followed by all fact-finding tribunals--that it is permissible to draw on experience in factual inquiries." Id. at 486, 240 A.2d at 805 (quoting in part from Republic Aviation Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 324 U.S. 793, 800, 65 S.Ct. 982, 986, 89 L.Ed. 1372 (1945)).

The membership of the State Dental Council and Examining Board includes the president of the Pennsylvania State Dental Society, the Commissioner of Professional and Occupational Affairs, and a number of dentists who have been engaged in the practice of dentistry in this Commonwealth for at least ten years. ^[4] We can logically assume that the dentists sitting on the Board which heard the case are knowledgeable and experienced in the field of dental medicine and the procedures connected therewith. As such, they are permitted to draw on their expertise in ruling on matters which come before them.

Furthermore, the Board is as competent in ruling on the propriety of dental practices as any other dentist who might be called upon to testify as an expert witness.

In the case at bar, the Board examined x-rays of Mrs. Pribulsky's mouth which were taken and submitted into evidence by the Petitioner. The members of the Board were extremely familiar with the cantilever bridge itself and with the procedure involved in its insertion. Based upon their knowledge of the use of the cantilever bridge and their study of the complainant's mouth, the Board determined that the device in question could not have been successful in her mouth. We conclude that the Board was quite capable of resolving this matter...