The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed a finding of professional misconduct against a dentist

Dr. William J. McDonald, a licensed dentist, appeals the superior court’s decision upholding a determination by the Board of Dental Examiners that his failure to obtain parental consent before extracting a minor’s tooth constituted unprofessional conduct subjecting him to sanctions by the Board. We affirm.

The basic underlying facts concerning the incident in question are undisputed. On September 4, 2013, the subject patient, who was two days short of her seventeenth birthday, arrived with her mother at Dr. McDonald’s office complaining of a toothache. Dr. McDonald had last seen the patient on April 3, 2012. Patient filled out an adult patient medical form that was given to her and then went into the examination room while her mother remained in the waiting room. Upon examining the patient, Dr. McDonald discovered an abscess of the gum at the third molar, which an April 2012 x-ray indicated was impacted. After obtaining the patient’s verbal consent, Dr. McDonald extracted the molar without taking any x-rays.

In proceedings below

The Board declined to find unprofessional conduct, however, in the manner of the extraction. As a sanction, the Board suspended Dr. McDonald’s license for six months and required him to complete a risk management course. Dr. McDonald appealed the Board’s decision to an appellate officer, who affirmed the decision in August 2015. Dr. McDonald then appealed to the superior court, which upheld the Board’s determination with regard to Dr. McDonald’s failure to obtain parental consent, but reversed the Board’s determination with regard to his failure to obtain a contemporaneous x-ray. The court remanded the matter for the Board to reconsider the sanction in light of its reversal of the determination regarding Dr. McDonald’s failure to obtain a contemporaneous x-ray.

On appeal to this Court, Dr. McDonald argues that the Board erred in failing to find that the incident in question constituted an emergency, that the emergency obviated the need to obtain parental consent, that he was not given adequate notice of the charge relating to parental consent, and that the Board’s decision was based on an unexpressed standard that was not supported by the evidence.

…Dr. McDonald argues that the Board improperly based its decision on his prior disciplinary record and its perception of his self-righteous attitude. The record reveals that the Board considered Dr. McDonald’s extensive prior disciplinary record, which was admitted in exhibits before the Board, and his attitude in this case only with regard to its sanction, which was proper, and not with regard to its conclusion that he engaged in unprofessional conduct.