The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Executive Office of Health and Human Services

Department of Public Health
239 Causeway St. Boston, MA 02114
617-973-0971
DEVALL PATRICK
TTY 617-973-0895
GOVERNOR

TIMOTHYP. MURRAY
UEUTENANT GOVERNOR

JUOYANN BIGBY, i'D

SECRETARY

JOHN AUERBACH
coilt lssroNER

April 13,2010

Lee Gosciminski, Esq.

Gervais & Davenport
200 Boston Ave.
Medford, MA 02155

RE: Dr. Renato Carpinito, D. M. D.

Docket No. DN-08-117

Dear Atlorney Gosciminski:

Enclosed please find a fully executed Consent Agreement, etlective as of April t3, 2010. A copy
of this letter and the Agreement will remain in the complaint file of the above-referenced docket
number. The file will be retained for no less than three (3) years in accordance with state public
record larvs. The Board now regards this matter as closed.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

1YP^o
Marsha Bird, Counsel
Board of Registration in Dentistry
617-973-0989
2008@,21-DN -117
Carpinito, R

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACIIUSBTTS

STIFFOLK COI.INTY BOARD OF REGISTRATION

IN DENTISTRY

In the Matter of: )

) Docket No. DN 08-ll7
Dr. Renato Carpinito )
)
License No. 17577 )

CONSENT AGREEMET.{T FOR REPRIMAND

The Massachusetts Board of Registration in Dentistry ("Board") and Renate Carpinito,

D.M.D. ("Licensee"), License No.17577 do hereby stipulate and agree that the following
information shall be entered into and become a perrnanent part of the Licensee's record
maintained by the Board:

1. The Licensee hereby states that he/she voluntarily enters into this Consent
Agreement ("Agreement") in resolution of the matters set forth in Docket No. DN
08-1 17.

2. The Licensee acknowledges that there may exist, sufficient facts to support the
Complaint set forth in docket numb6r DN 08-117 which the Board could concludo
constitute sufficient grounds for disciplinary action under Massachusetts General
Laws (M.(i.L.) c.1L2, s. 61 and Board regulations.

3. The Licensee and the Boad stipulate and agree that this matter has been resolved
without any fiUdin&s, and by agreement, in order to resolve a diipute between the
parties wrthout having to proceed to a formal adjudicatory hearing on the
allegations as follows:

(a) From on or about June 12, 2007 until February 29, 2A08, Licensee treatecl
Patient "A" performing endodontic therapy and fabricating crowns for a
number of Patient "A's" teeth.

(b) Subsequent to Licensee's. treatment, Patient "A" experienced gfgl.tnfgglions

and pain, re$ulting in subsequent and extensive endodontic anil prosthodontic
retreatment 6y anothei endodontist and prosthodontist.

3. In order to resolve this matter without further proceedings before the Board, the
Licensee agrees that the Board hereby imposes a Reprimand on his/trer license
20080221-DN -r l7
Carpinito, R

pursuant to234 Code of Massachusetts Regulations ("CMR") 2.01(11)(a) which is

effective as of the date on which this Consent Agreement is signed by the Board
("Effective Date").

4. Within one year from the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Licensee,shall
provide written proof satisfactory to the Board that he/she has taken and
successfully completed Board approved continuing education courses in the
following areas:

Full Day: Risk Management

Full Day: Record Keeping
Full Day: Endodontics for the General Practitioner

(a) The course description(s) shall be submitted to the Board for pre-
approval prior to taking the course.

(b) All courses must be attended and shall not be self-study and/or taken
through a computer based on-line program.

(c) The Board approved continuing education courses shall be taken in

' addition to the continuing education courses required to maintain his/her
license to practice dentistry pursuant to234 CMR 5.01(1);

(c) The burden of proof of compliance with the requirements of the Probation.is on
the Licensee.

5. The Licensee understands that his/her action in entering into this Agreement is a
fihal act and not subject to reconsideration, collateral attack or judicial review in
any form or forum.

6. The Licensee acknowledges.and understands that this Consent Agreement is a

public record within the meahing of M.G.L. c. 4, $ 7 and as such may be
disseminated to the public. l

7. The Board agrees that, in return for the Licensee's entering into this Agreement, the
Board will not conduct any further prosecution of the allegations contained in the
docket number DN 08-117.

8. The.Liceus.ee-states.that hdshe enters thisAgreement of his/her own-free.rvjll. The

Licensee further states that helshe is aware that he/she has a right to counsel in this
matter and either has conferred with counsel prior to signing this Agreement or
waives his/her right to have counsel.

9. A waiver by the Board of any provisions of this Agreement at any time shall not
I

I,
20080221-DN -117
Carpinito, R

constitute a waiver of any other provision of this Agreement, nor shall it constitute
a waiver by the Board of its rights to enforce such provision at any future time.

10. The Licensee certifies that he/she has read this document entitled "Consent
Agreement for Reprimand." The Licensee understands that he/she has the right to a
formal adjudicatory hearing concerning the complaint contained in, Docket No. 08-
117, and that at said hearing helshe would havo the right to confront and cross-
examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to present evidence, to testify on his/her own
behalf, to contest the allegations, to present oral argument, to appeal to the courts,
and all olher iights set forth in the State Administrative Procedure Act (M.G.L. c.
30A), and 801 CMR 1.00 et seq. The Licensee further understands and agrees that,
by executing this "Consent Agreement," he/she is knowingly and voluntarily
waiving hiVtrer right to such a formal hearing, and to all of the above-listed rights
attendant thereto.

LicEnsee: @r. Renato Carpinito)

Board of Registration in Dentistry

Dare signe o, / //3 " '

EFF.ECTIYE DATE: "effective date" ?/, 3/ra

 A The Gommonwealth of Massachusetts

@
Executive Office of Health and Human Services
Department of Public Health
Division of Health Professions Licensure
DEVAL L. PATRICK
GovER,.lOR Board of Registration in Dentistry
TIUOTHY P. IIIURRAY
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
239 Causeway Street, Suite 2AO,Znd Floor
JUDYANN BIGBY, MD Boston, MA 02114
SECRETARY
617-973-0971
PAULJ. COTE, JR.
couLrssloNER

February 26,2OO7

BY FIRST CLASS AND CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN

RECEIPT REQUESTEp NO. 7005 1J60 0001 3500 2247
Thomas Grossman, Esq.
40 Babcock Street
P.O. Box 201
Boston, MA 02446

RE: ln the Matter of Renato Garpinito, DN License No. 17577

Board of Reoistration in Dentistrv Docket Nos. DN-03-266 & DN-04-011

Dear Mr. Carpinito:

Enclosed is the Frnal Decision and Order ("FinalOrdef) issued by the Board of
Registration in Dentistry (Board) in connection with the above-referenced matter. The
effective date of the Board's Order appears on page 18 of the Final Order ("Date
lssued"). Your appeal rights are noted on page 18 of the Final Order.

All documentation required by the Order/Agreement should be submitted to

Karen Fishman, Probation Monitor, 239 Causeway St, Boston, MA 021 14- lf you have
any questions concerning compliance with the OrderiAgreement, you can contact Ms.
Fishman at 617-973-0951.

Slncerely,
-_)
r1;1
t I lg/-11'
Marsha Bird
Board Counsel
Board of Registration in Dentistry

Enc.

cc: Eugene Langner, Prosecuting Counsel

 COLIMONWE*\ L'I'H OF MASS..\CIIUSIITTS
SUFFOLK COUN'I'Y BOARD OF REGIST'R,,ITION IN
DENTISTRY

)
ln the Matter of )
Renato Carpinito, DIVID ) DOCKET NOS. DN-03-266 &
DN License No. 17577 ) DN-04-01I
License Expiration Date 3/31108 )
)
FINAL DECISION AND ORDE,R
I. Introduction
This matter came before the Board of Registration in Dentistry ("Board") fbr
determination ol rvhether the Board should not suspend, revoke or othenvise take actiorr

against Respondent's license to practice as a dentist in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

DN License No. 17577, or right to renew such license, pursuant to ir{assachusetts Ceneral
l,arvs ("G.L.") Chaptcr 112, $ 61, and Board regulations at 231 C\,IR 2.0-t- bascd on rhe
record in this case- including rvritten submissions presented to tlie Board, exhibits introduced
into evidence, and testimony given at a hearing.
il. Progedural Background
On April 29,2004, the Board commenced disciplinary proceedings against thc license
of Respondent to practice as a dentist in the Commonwealth of ivlassachusctts by issrring an
Order to Shorv Cause (Exhibit I ). It alleged as follows:
l. On or about October 17, 1989, the Board issued you a license to practicc as a dentist in
the Comnronwealth ol Massachusetts, License No. 175777. Your license is current and
expires on March 31 , 2006, unless renerved.

I
Docket No. DN-03-2[6 [6

2. OnoraboutDeccmber24,2004,vousa\\'apatient("patientr\")fr-rrerrractiorlolatootlr
that rvas causittg hcr pain. ancl for fabrication of a lower partial dcrrturc.

3. \'ou ttlok alt irrtprcssiort ol paticrrt i|s lorvcr platc rrsing a rrrrlirl lllatc llral telt lur.qc to
patierrt A.

-l'he
' Ortter to Sho* ('ause in tltis case crrorrsouslv lisrcrl thr l)ockct Nrurrbr:r us l)N-{)-i )l(r. t lte corrrcr
Docket Nurnbcr is DN-01-266.
l. l'uticttt .\ t'cvisitcd yorrr of'licc on Januur-\' lo, llX).1. irt nlriclr tirnc: rorr trskt-'rl hcr i['sirc
\\'iultc(l )'ou trl llltricatc i.ul uPpcr pirrtiirl th:rittrrc. \\'lrcrr l)lrtiunt,.\ irskttl nhr virrr h;.rrl
askctl. yott sttttctl thltt u Ircrr trnl)cr purtiul tlt:nlurc rr.otrLi l'it be'tter uilh llrc rtcu'lout:r
piirtial tlctttttrt. l)itlicttl .-\ ltgrectl lo lutrc,\ou l'uhricate illl rrppcr Plrrli,rl tlentrrrc lirr lrer.
attd y'trtt took an impressiott r)l'hcr top plate. I)alicrrt :\ thurr le li y'oLrr rrl'lice uitlr lrcr nc*
Itrncr partilrl rlcrrtrrrc anti hcr old Lrplter pitrtill denturc.

Latcr lh:rt tlit\'. uhctt paticnt;\ hit into sorne fi.rotl. hcr nc*'lorvcr llafliill rlcrrturc poJlJlctl
out ol'ltur ntoutlt. Paticnt r\ also expcricncccl pain in thc'right sitlc oi-lrcr rrrouth. untl lhc
glanrls in lrcl neck bcgnu to srvell. Shc retumecl ttl vour ot'llcu. rrlrcre -r'orr utll'iserl [rt'r
lltat lrcr svrllptorl.rs \\cre nr)t rclatccl tcr hcr ncu lorr.cr purtilrl rlcntrrrc. \-trrr utlirrstcrl lrer
tlcttlurc itrttl rlischarscd hcr li'orn _vrrur o['[icc. u'itlr sores irr hcr rnorrtli.

(r. [)iiticnt A rctrrrnetl to ]'orlrolllce on.liuluarv 20. l()()i. I)urilrrl thrrt risit. tt,ti tlr,rPpe',1 un.l
brokc lter lowcr partiitl dcttturc. Pirtierrt ,\, trclieving tlrat you httl lrnrrrsctl to ljrbriclLtc a
ttcn' Iow'cr parlial tlcnlurc 1tr rcplacc t]rc trrtrkcn orrc. lrrcrk the rcst trl-tlr;rt .llrr ofJ'lirrnr
ivork irnd rr'aited 1rl \1rur rlf'ljcc.

'l'ltc-
ttcrt rllr'. uhilc tlclttirt-g thc lorver pilrlial tlcnture. palient .,\ tlisr'r'r.crcil ir picr:c trf'
u ire in it. l'aticrrt ..\ rctrrrncrl to \orrr ol'lice. rrltcrc -vriu rrrucle a liu'tltcr urljrrstruerrl lo lrcr
Iou'cr partiul tlcrttrrre, elrl tlclivcrcrl ltcr nu\\ ui)J)cr partiirl (lcllturu. l)irtir'nt ..\ crprt'ssetl
c()lrc!)rn lilt,tttl lltc lrtrvcr' llirrtirrl tlctttrtrc. htrt 1'orr irrlr isc:rl l)lltiunt ..\ tlllrt t()rr ilcerlutl t0
cnsurL: thc pnrpcr plirccnrcrrl trl'thc irpl)cr pilrtiul (lcnlurc bclirre :rtltlrcssing tlrc lr)\\er
partial tlettttrrc.

ti. I)aticttt A coutirtucd tti corttplairt lo you tll'puin cxuscd bv thc lor','cr prrriial tletttutc. \'trrr
irtlrisctl ltcr thut vorr ciltrle[ llllrcrc u cushion in tlrr.: lr'rncr'gllrrlial tlt'rr1rrru, rrhit'lr paticnt .-\
irtrlicatcd shc coultl not al-lorrl.

9. On \larch 6, l()().]. you tlclivcrcd a ncw lorrcr lrurliul tlcrrture to plrtierrt ..\. Slrorrlr irller
lcar,ing ytlur oflicc that tlay rvith thc rrevv lorvcr purtiill denturc: ur placc. paticnt A
e\pcriL:nccrl ss'cllirtc in the glantls ol ltcr ncck. Pltir:lrt ..\ callcd rotrr ol'tlcc l:rlcr lliat
dar'. l{icr sccilrs }ter tlu'n doctor. but n'as told t}rltt volr \r'oul(l rrot bc irblc to scc hcr uniil
t he cntl o t' ,\pri l .

l(). ()rr lrlirreh 7. l(X)1. prrticrrt ..\ s()ttgltt trcirtllrr:nt li()lrl iln()lhcr tlr:rrtisl . ,\li()}' lclrr irrg thut
tlr'tttirt's ol'lir't' lrrt.l rttLrtrritr.l ttl rtotk. |lrticrtt -\ r.cceiruil i.r nrt'..lr,.rr'il,rrn \r)ut rrllicc
lttir i.irts hcr lltlrt slre liirrl lur It1'rpoittttttCttt 'll li) ll() it.tll. lllitt lll(ttlli!l:r. I'liti,-'ttt .\ r'ttlletl
\ ()ur' () l l'icc turtl sllrturl tlr:rt slrr: u ottltl siek lrclrtrrre rrt ulse u lr.'1.'

I l. l'lrti.'trt .\ rlrllt'tl \.t)tlt r)l'lir.'t lrr:lritt irlt \l;tlt']t i l. '{',1-1. i;.trtitr irr. ti i;it.ririi tp .Ir[.ritt
Itrrthcr truittlllct)l li()lt'l ittl()lllcr tlcttlist. lrttrl rrlrs lrtlr isctl liurl rt'tr rrrrslrl h..' ut tltr olfj,.'t'tlrc
lilllrruittg tlirr. lrl,tltt'ttl ..\ ctrllt'tl vrrtrl ol'ljcr.'iullrilr ort \lirrclt l.i. -)trt ll. .rr:il rr;rs l1rl,l 111.11
ttrtt rrtrttltl r'till lrcr l.lrck tlrt'rrerl tlar'. hrrt rtrtr tiitl nt,t.
12. Patient A revisited your oflice on March 28. 2003, when you made some further
adjustments and discharged her from your office.

13. Shortly after leaving your office, patientA again experienced swollen glands. She callcd
your office and rvas given an appointment for 7:30 a.m. the following morning.

14. When patiant A arrived for her appointment on March 79,2003, y'ou advised her that you
could frnd nothing wrong with her dentures, and advised her to wear them constantly to
eliminate the glandular swelling.

15. Patient A has made numerous subsequent attempts to contact you, but has not spoken
with you.

Docket No. DN-04-0l l

16. On June 24, 20O2, a parient ("patient B") visited your off-rce tirr a cleaning- Dtrring this
visit, without obtaining patient B's inltrrmecl consent, you alsr: perlbrmed tw'o (2)
periodontal scalings and root planings.

17. When the prgcrdures were conrpleted, patient B rvas brought to the front desk, where he
,u"" pr.r"nted *'ith a bill for 5291.00, as opposed to the S27.0O he lrad expected to pay
for the cleuring. Upon inquiring about tlrese charges, which were llot covered by patient
B's insurance, patie;t B {irst learned of your having perfonned the scalings and planings.
** 'l

18. Your conduct as alleged above warrants clisciplinary action by the Board against your
licensetopracticeasaclentistpursuanttoG.L.c. 112$6l,ltrrdeceit,malpractice,gross
misconduct in the practice of dentistry and offbnses against ttre laws of the
Commonrvealth relati ng thereto.

19. Your conduct, as {escribed above" also constitutes unprofessional conduct and conduct
which undermines public conlidence in the integrity of the profession; see Sugarman v.
Boarcl af Registraiion in lv{edicine,422 Mass. 338, 342 (1996); Kvitka "'. Board af
Registrition in Metticine,407 Mass. 140, cert. denietl,498 I.l.S. 823 (1990); Ruvmond v.
Boartl of Registration in Medicine,387 Mass. 708' 713 {1982)'

Respgnclent tileel a Hearing Rcquest ancl an i\usrvcr (Exhibit 2) in a tirnely tnanner. l-hc

Ansrvcr c6ntairrecl :xlnrissiorrs (ltems l. 2 4. 8 ancl pans ()l'othcr ltcnls). tlenials and

staterncnts that Respondcnt \\'as s.ithout inftrnrtittiotl or bcliel' ;rs to the lrullt tll' certltin
allcgati,crts.
*crc: held on Decentber l7 antl 2i. l()U4 attrl Jarttrarv "l and lli. 2()()5.
Hearin-qs

Adrninistrative Hearings C'ounsel lvlitchell (loldstein presiderl at the hcaring. Ettgettc

Langner, Esq.. was Prosecuting Counsel. Respondent rvas preserrt and represented by
Thomas Grossman, Esq. A Tentative Decision rvas issued for rcview by the parties on
October 20, 2006. The parties filed objections in a timely manner, and Prosecuting Counsel
filed a response to the objections. The Board notes the objections and makes no changes,
except to correct the Docket Number for one of the cases, and to cite a prior Board Decision,
ln the Matter of Charles Badaoui - Docket Nos. DN-99-236, DN-00-017 & DN-01-235
(2005). The Board adopts the rosulting document as its Final Decision.
III. Witnesses
The following w'itnesses testified in the hearing:
A. For the Prosecution
l. Robert Chapman, DMD
2. Ms. Carnpbell (Patient A)
3. Patient B

B. For Respondent
1. Joya Johnson
2. Glenn Ward
3. Renato Carpinito, DMD

IV. Exhibits
Exhibit l: The original Show Cause Order, dated April 29,2OO4

Exhibit 2: Respondent's Answer and Hearing Request, dated May 21,2004

Exhibit 3: Complaint by Patient A, dated June 8, 2003 and received by the

Board on June 10,2003

Exhibit 4: Respondent's Response to Patient A's Complaint, dated July 29,

2003

Exhibit 5: Patient A's Progress Notes tiorn f)r. Walter Bt'rne. tlatcd .lulv 2.1 and
i l. 200i

Exhibit (r: C'ontplainl bv Paticnt []. tlatcd Junc 16.20()i anrl rcceived bv thc
Boarrl tln Jrrnc 19. 2(X)-r

Exhibit 7: Respondent's Response to ['}atiurt B's ('onrplaint. dated Ausust l.

2{)03 and received by the Board on August :1. 2(X)i

Exhibit 8: Letter from Patient B to Respondcnt. dated August 21, 2()02

 Exhibit 9: Letter from Patient B to Fallon Community l{ealth Plan, Inc., dated
November 15,2002

Exhibit l0: Invoice from Respondent to Patient B, dated Septernber 9,2007

Exhibit l1: Invoice from Respondent to Patient B, dated November 19,2W2

Exhibit 12: Invoice from Respondent to Patient B, dated December 14.2002

Exhibit l3: Invoice from Respondent to Patient B, dated March 25,2003

Exhibit 14: Invoice tiom Respondent to Patient Ei, dated April 15, 2003

Exhibit l5: Clurriculum Vitae of Robcrt Clraprnarr. DMD

Exhibit l6: Letter from Robert Chapnran. DMD to Prosecuting Counsel Eugene
Langner, dated October 12, 200.1

Exhibit l7: Letter from Patient B to Respondent. dated Septenrber I 7.2A02

Exhibit l8: Final Surgical Report for Respondcnt, from Lahey Clinic, dated

a Exhibit l9:
March 13, 2003

Invoice from Lahey Clinic, dated August 12, 2003, reflecting

services from March 7-10, 2003

V. Findines of Fact
Based on its consideration of all the evidence, the Board finds the following facts
established by a preponderance of the evidence. Matters not specilically discussed in these
findings do not justify a change in the restrlt.
A. Iudsljslar
l. On October 17, I989, the Board issued to Resprudent a license to engage irr
the practice of dentistry, DN License No. 17577. Respontlent's Iicense is
cument and $,ill expirc on iv{arclr 3t.20Ct(r ilnrit rcncu'cd. (Exhibits I and
2)

B. Dockct No. DN-03-2(r6 - l'atient .\

2. Paticnt A tirst visitcd Rcsponclcnt on l)ccunbcr 24, l()()? fbr extraction ola
tooth and fabrication ol a lou'er partial tlenturc. (Exhibits 3 and ;l;
Testimony'of Patient A antl Rcspondcnt)
3, Patient A visited Respondent's oflice to have her trite checked on January 2
and 7,2003. (Exhibits 3 and 4; Testimony of Patient A and Respondent)

4. Respondent delivered a new lower partial denture to Patient A on the

morning of January 10,2003. (Exhibit 3; Testimony of Patient A)

5. Alter leaving Respondent's office on January 10, 2003, Patient A

experienced swelling in the glands' of her mouth, and the denture
Respontlent had delivered to her came out rvhile she was eating. (Exhibit 3;
Testimony of Patient A)

6. Patient A retunred to Respondent's ofl.tce on the afternoon of January 10,

2003, at which time Respondent adjusted Patient A's lower partial denture.
(Exhibits 3 and 4; Testimony of Patient A)

7. Patient A continued to experience swelling in the glands of her mouth, and

returned to Respondent's olfice at 7:30 A.M. on January I l, 2003. (Exhibit
3; Testimony of Patient A)

8. Respondent rvas unable to explain the swelling in Patient A's glands when
she visited him on January I l, 2003. At that visit, the swelling had gone
down, and Respondent was unable to see any swelling. (Testimony of
Patient A)

9. Patient A continued to experience discomfort and inability to eat with the

Iower partial denture Respondent had made for her. @xhibit 3; Testimony
of Patient A)

10. On January 20, 2003, Patient A returned to Respondent's office. (Exhibits

3 and 4; Testirnony of Patient A and Respondent)

I l. Respondent dropped and broke Patient A's lorver partial denture on January
20, 2003. (Exhibits 3 and 4; Testimony of Patient A and Respondent)

12. Respondent informed Patient A that he r,r,ould have the lorver partial denture
repaired rvhile Paticnt A rvaited in Respondent's office on January 20, 2003.
(Exhibits 3 ancl 4l -l'estinrony of Patient A and Respondent)

13. Patient A u'aitecl in Respontlent's olfice fcrr thrce hours on January 20, 2003
before Respondent retunred her lorver partial denture to her, requiring
Patient A to take January 20, 2003 ofl'fronr her rvork. (Exhibits 3 and 4;
Testinrouy of Paticnt .,\ anel Respondcnt)

14.The lo*'er partial denture uas repaired rvith a metal bar on January 20,
2003. ('Iestirnony of Clenn Ward and Respondent)
15. On January 21,?0Q3, while cleaning the lower partial denture that had been
repaired on January 20, 2A03, Patient A discovered a piece of metal in the
lower partial denture. (Exhibit 3; Testimony of Patient A)

16. On January 2l or 22,2003, Patient A saw Respondent and complained that

the lower partial denture was repaired rather than replaced, as evidenced by
the metal piece in it. Respondent agreed to replace the lower partial
denture. (Exhibit 3; Testimony of Patient A and Respondent)

17. At the visit on January 21 or 22,2003, when Patient A asked Respondent

whether the sorcness in her mouth could be arldressed, he aclvised her that
he could place a cushion in her mouth, rvhich Patient A said she could not
afford. (Exhibit 3;I'estimony of Patient A)

lS.Patient A visited Respondent's office on March 6, 2003, for delivery of a

new lower partial dsnture. (Exhibit 3; Testimony of Patient A)

19. From January 10, 2003 until March 6, 2003; Patient's A mouth had sores.
Patient A went in for adjustments on January 30 and February 28, 2003, on
the denture that Respondent had repaired on January 20,2AA3, and they fit
pretty well afterwards- (Exhibits 3 and 4; Testimony of Patimt A)

20. Through March 6,2003, except for the dropping of the denture, there was
not a big problem with Patient A's dentures. (Testimony of Patient A)

21. After leaving Respondent's office on March 6, 2003, Patient A again

experienced swelling in the glands of her mouth, severe enough to prompt
her to visit her physician, who found no evidence of infection in her mouth.
(Exhibit 3; Testimony of Patient A)

2?- Patient A called Respondent's office after visiting her physician on March
6, 2003, and was informed that Respondent would not be able to see any
patients until April- (Exhibit 3; Testimony of Patient A)

23. Patient A was not told the reason for Respondent's unavailability when she
called on March 6.2003. (Testimony of Patient A)

?4.\n February 2003 Rcspondent experic'nced excruciating pain in his back

abdomen area. After seeing a doctor and l'raving CT scans and MRIs done,
he was told to e.xpect to go in for emergency surgery as soon as an opening
occuncd. (Testilnony of Respondent)

25. Prior to 8 P.M. on March 6, 2003 Respondent received a call at his office
saying his surgery rvas scheduled lbr March 7. (Exhibits 18 and 19;
Testi mony o f Responderrt)
26. Aller Patient A was told by Respondent's office late in the day on N{arch 6
that she could not sec him on March 7, Respondent's staff fit her in ior an
appointrnent on N'larch 7, and called her at her ofhce to leave a message that
she had an appointment at l0 A.M. All his other appointments for March 7
were cancellcd. (Testimony of Respondent)

27. Patient A did not get the message about her l0 A.M. appointment on March
7 until she arrived in her oIlice at 9:30 A.N'I. on March 7 and heard the
message. (Testimony of Patient A)

28. Paticnt A then called Respondent's office to say she couldn't make the l0
A.M. appointment, but could come in alter u,ork that day. She rvas told that
Respondent would not be there. (Testimony of Patient A)

29. Patient A then saw a denlist in her building on the allemoon of lvlarch 7.
That dentist advised her that he would nr:t interfere rvith Respondent's
rvork. (Exhibit 3; Testimony of Patient A)

30. On March 7, during her conversation rvith Respondent's office, Patient A

asked if Respondent had arranged lor another dentist to care for his patients
in his absence, and u,as told that he had not. (Exhibit 3; Testimony of
Patient A)

31. Respondent had successful surgery on March 7. He did not have cancer,
but a benign tumor lrom his urnbilical cord, *'hich rvas then removed.
(Exhibit l8; Testimony of Respondent)

32. Patient A called Respondent's office on March I l, 2003, and was advised
that Respondent might be in his office the next day or the day after that.
(Exhibit 3;Testimony of Patient A)

33. Patient A received no call fionr Respondent on March I l, 12 or 13, 2003.

(I'estimony of Patient A)

34. Patient A called Respondent's olfice on lvlzrch 13, 2003, advising

Respondent's staiTthat she r,vas continuing to experience soreness and pain
in her mouth. and rvas told that Respondent was only coming in to his office
for emergcncies. (F,rhihit 3: 'Iestimony of Patient A)

35. Respondent resLlmcd seeing patients orl an emergerrcy basis on or aboul

iVlarch I I or 12. ltt0i. (Tcrstimony of Respondent)

36. During her tclephone conversation with Respondent's staff on March 13.
200i. Patient A agairr asked il'Responclent hatl arranged for another dentist
to carc tbr his paticnts in his absence, and rvas told that hc had not.
(Testimonl' of Paticnt A)
37. On IV{arch 14,2A03, Patient A called the Board to file a conrplaint against
Respondent. (Exhibit 3; Testirnony of Patient A)

38. Patient Avisited Respondent's office again on March 28, 2003 for
adjustments to her dentures. (Exhibits 3 and 4; Testimorry of Patient A arrd
Respondent)

39. After visiting Respondent's o{fice on March 28, 2003, Patient A again
experienced swelling in the glands of her mouth. (Exhibit 3; Testimony of
Patient A)

40. Patient A rerurned to Respondent's offrce at 7:30 A.M. on March 29,2003

for further adjustments. (Exhibits 3 and 4; Testinrony of Patient A)

4i- At the visit on March 29, 2A03, Patient A asked Respondent why she
continued to experience pain and srvelling in her mouth. (Exhibit 3;
Testimony of Patient A)

42. In response to Patiertt A's inquirydescribed in!!41. suprA, Respondent said

he did not know, suggesting that Patient A's problem ntight be in her head,
and instructing her to wear her nerv dentures continuously to reduce the
swclling. (Exhibit 3; Testinrony of Patient A)

43. Patient A triecl to wear her nerv dentures continuously during April 2003.
but did not wear them continuously. She continued to experience pain and
sw'elling in her mouth throughout April 2003. (Exhibit 3; Testimony of
Patient A)

44. Patient A called Respondent's oflice on or abr:ut May 12, May ?7 and June
2,2003, according to notes she kept from that time. (Testintony of Patient
A)

45. Respondent did not respond to Patient A's phone calls of lv1ay 12, May 27
or June 2, 2003. (Exhibit 3; Testimony of Patient A).

46. Respontlent testifiecl that Patient A nright have callecl his oflice aftcr he saw
her on N'larch ]8. 1003, but if she did he rvas rtot inlomred of this by his
stafi. (Testirnonl' of Respondent)

-17. I'he lhct that Respondenl did not provide Patierrt A rvith the name ol a
rh:utist firr lrcr [(] scc irr lris abscnue on lr{arc}r 7 alrd ll.2tl0i, and tlrs tac:t
thal Rcsponclcnt did not rcsponcl to Patient A's pltorre calls olMay 12, N'tay
27 and Junc 2,20tll rcflected an abandonment by Responrlent ot'Patient A.
(Exhibit l6)
48. By abandorting Patient A, ResJronrlent failed to conrpl,"- w,ith the standards
of care for the practice of clerrtistrl in the Comnronrvealth.

49. Patient A s:ru, a second dL.ntist. Dr. Byrne. on or ahout July 24, 2f)03 fbr
adjustment olher dentrres. (Exhibit 5; 'l'estimony of Dr. Robert Chapman,
Tr. Dec. 17,2004, pp. 70 and 82; Testimony of Respondent)

50. At the visit described in '!f 49, supra, Dr. Byme noted in his treatment
records of Patient A that he observetl Patient A to be experiencing pain in
her dentures. (Exhibit 5; Testimony of Dr. Robert Chapman, Tr. Dec. 17,
2A04, p.76)

5l . At no time after the extraction on December 24, 2002 did Respondent note
in his treatment records of Patient A rvhether Patient A experienced pain.
(Exhibit 4; Testimony of Respondent)

52. Patient A visited Dr. Byrne aqain on or about.luly 31,2003 lor adjustment
of her dcntures. (Exhibit 5; 'Iestimony of Dr. Robert Chapman, Tr. Dec. 17.
2004, pp. 70, 83 and 84; Testinrony of Patient A)

53. Patient A has been able to wear the most recent set ol'dentures Respondent
made firr her comf,ortably ont.v since Dr. Byrne's adjustments. (Testimony
ofl Patient A).

54. Dr. Robert Chapman is an expert in the area of prosthodontics. (Exhibit l5;
Testimony of Dr. Robert Chapman, Tr. Dec. 17,2004,p.17")

55. Dr. Chapnran reviewed Respondent's records of his treatment of Patient A.

(Testimony of Dr. Robert Chapman, Tr. Dec. 17, ZN)4, pp. l8 and 32-34)

56. Dr. Chapman examined Patient A in September, 2004. (Exhibit l6;

Testimony of Dr. Robert Chapman, Tr. Dec. 17,2004, pp. 18 and 33;
Testimony of Patient A)

57. Dr. Chapnran opined that the lower denture Respondent provided to Patienr
A in March 2003 extended too far into the floor of Patient A's nrouth on
hoth sictes. (Exhibit l(r: Testirnony of Dr. Robert Chapman, Tr. Dec. 17.
200.1. pp. l1)-20 and 69).

-58. Dr. Chapnran opinetl thlt thc exlension of the denture described in tl 57.
,s!pta. blocketl lhc glands on either side of Paticnt A's lorvcr jau,. causipil
srrcllilrS ol- thuse' rllrrrtis arril disconrlirn lrorn thc srvelliug. as rr.cll ars
catrsing tlre dcnlurc to pop out ol Patient A's rrtr:uth. (Exhibit t(r;
-l-cstiruonv
ol'Dr. Robert ( haprnan. 'l'r. Dec. 1 7, 100.+. pp. 2Lr-21 )

l0
 59. Dr. Chapman opined that the process by rvhich Patient A's dentures lvcre
nrade and subsequently viewed by Respondent did not nreet an appropriate
standard of care. (Testimony of Dr. Robert Chapnran. Tr. Dec. 17, 200.1. p.
(r8)

60. Dr. Chapman opined that Respondent failed to appropriately diagnose the
overextension of
Patient A's
dentures, rendering him unable to
appropriately adjust the dentures to comfort Patient A. (Exhibit 16;
Testimony of Dr. Robert Chapman, Tr. Dec. 17,2AA4, pp.23-24,63-64 and
68)

61'. A reasonably prudent dentist presented rvith Patient A's history and
complaint would have diagnosed the overextension of Patient A's denture.
(Testimony of Dr. Robert Chapman, Tr. Dec. 17,}A{J/, pp. 25, 69 and 78)

62.Dr. Chapman opined that it was possible that Respondent had the correct
diagnosis of Patient A's problems, given his attempts to make adjustments.
(Testimony of Dr. Robert Chapman, Tr. Dec. 17, 2004, pp. 72-731

(i3. Respondent was never given an opportunity, except for tw'o visits on lvfarch
28 and 29. 2003, to mal,ie appropriate adjustments to Patient A's lower
denture l'irst provided to her on March 6, 2003, because his offtce never
responded to subsequent phone calls made to it by Patient A on lvlay 12.
May ?7 and June 2,2003.

64. Patient A's dentures, originally installed by Respondent on March 6, 2003

and as modified by Dr. Byrne on July 24 and,31, 2003, were appropriately
made, and relieved Patient A's difficulty. (Testirnony of Dr. Robert
Chapman, Tr. Dec. 17,2004,pp. 55-56 and 87)

C. Docket No. DN-04-0.1 I - Patient B

65. Patient B visited Respondent's office on June 24, 2002 to have his teeth
cleaned. (Exhibits 6, 8, and 9, Testimony of Patient B)

(16. Prior to .Iune 24, 2AO2. Patient B lrad not been to a dentist for a while,
u'hich could have heen more tlran a )'ear or nlany years. (Testimony of
Patient [3 arrd Respondent)

(r7- [)lticnt l] hatl previonsly becrr infonnetl try lris insurance conrpany. Fa[on
('onrrnunitl' Health Plan ("Fallon"), that a cleaning rvould cost $27.
([:rlrihits (r. S and 9: l-cstirrrt-rrrv of'Paticnt B)

68. Patient B testitled that dr"rring tlris visit, Respolrlcnt clid not discuss rvith
hirrr lris periodontal contlition, or the possible necd lor treatrnent be-v-ond a
cleaning. (Exhibits (r, 8 and 9; Testimony of Patient B)

u
69. Respondent testified that after he examined Patient B and took X-rays, he
explained to Patient B that he had periodontal disease that required a root
planing and scaling, and that Patient B wanted to continue the treatment.
(Testimony of Respondent)

70. Joya Johnson worked as an assisant in Respondent's office in June ?002,

and was present during Patient B's visit. (Testimony of Joya Johnson)

Tl.Joya Johnson testified that Respondent informed Patient B that he had

periodontal disease and needed a root planing and scaling, prior to the
procedure being done. (Testimony of Joya Jofu:son)

72. Patient B was informed by Respondent that he hzrd periodontal disease and
needed a root planing and scaling, and gave his consent to such a procedure
being done.

73. Respondent performed a root planing and scaling on Patient B on June 24,
2002. (Exhibits 6, 8 and 9; Testimony of Patient B and Respondent)

74. T'here is no evidence in the record that Patient B did not require a root
planing and scaling on June 24,200?.

75. There is no evidence in the record that the root planing and scaling
performed on Patient B on June 24,?0A2 was not done correctly.

76. Respondent's records of his treatment of Patient B do not reflect that he

obtained Patient B's informed consent for the treaunent he performed on
June 24, 2004, nor do the treatrnent records reflect any discussion between
Respondent and Patient B of Patient B's dental condition prior to said
treatment. (Exhibit 7; Testimony of Respondent)

77. Respondent testified that from his notes in the record for Patient B, which
describe the periodontal disease and the root planing and scaling, he
this. (Testimony of
concludes that he had a discussion with Patient B about
Respondent)

7ii. Pirtient B u'as never infonncd prior to the root planing and scaling u'hat thr;
cost ol it rvould be to him. (Exhibits 6. 8 and 9; Testirnon-v of Patient B and
Rcspondent)

79..\licr tlrc root planing antl scaling was dorrs. Paticnt [] rvas inlbnncd tr1'
Respondcnt that the cost of tlre root planing and scaling u,as $291. 'l'his
rellected the fact that Fallon covered the procedure by having the patient be
rcsponsible lor $291, rvith no additional contribution by Fallon. (Exhibits 6.
' 8 and 9: Testimony of Patient B and Respondent)

l2
 80. Respondent's usual charge for root planing and scaling was as much as
S I,000 or nlore in 2002. (Testimony of Respondent and Joya Johnson)

81. Patient B has paid Respondent $308 forthe treatment Respondent rendered
to Patient B on June 24, 2AAZ, for which he was charged 5318 ($27 for the
cleaning and X-rays and $291 fbr the root planing and scaling). (Exhibit 7;
Testimony of Patient B and Respondent)

82. By not informing Patient B of the cost of the root planing and scaling prior
to its being done, Respondent has violated the standards of care for the
practice of dentistry in the Comrnonwealth.

D. Credibilitvof Witnesses

t. Dr. Robert Chapman was a credible e.xpert rvitness. However, the

atrthoritativeness of his opinion as to the poor rvork clone by Respondent
on Patient A's denture is limited by the qualitic-d nature of his orvn
opinion. That opinion, stated in Exhibit 16, rcfers to the "likely" reason
for Patient A's difficulty being, "in all probability", failures of
craftsmanship by Respondent. FIe also states that these errors "may also
have contributed to the denture 'popping' out when eating." These
opinions were given without the benefit of having examined Patient A and
her denture until September 2004, a year and a half after the denture was
first installed by Respondent. Dr. Chapman also did not examine Patient
A before Dr. Byrne made his adustments, and did not have the benefit of
photographs or X-rays. Therefore, Dr. Chapman's opinions must be
considered as tentative and not authoritative.

2. Patient A's testimony was credible. She was consistent in her story, and
referred to a brief diary-like account that she kept at the time of the events,
including her record of having called Respondent numerous times after
Miuch 29,2003.

,- Patient B's testinrony was credible, e.xcept that since lre had not been to a
dentist for a long period of tirne. he might nol have understood that his
teeth had cleterioratecl lrom lack of maintenartce and that the kind of
clcaning he needed was a root 1:laning and scaling rather than onlv a
cleaning and X-rays.

Re'spondent's testimony u'as cretlible.

5. Jcr!'a Jolrnson's testimc'rny was credible.

13
VI. Conclusions of Larv

l. Based on Findings of Fact at fln 47, 48 and 82, the Board tinds that
Respondent's conduct violates M. G. L. c. I l2 $ 6l and that his treatment

of Patients A and B falls below the standard of practice for dentists in

Massachusetts.

2. Based on Findings of Fact at 1[1J 47, 48 and 82. the Board finds that
Respondent's conduct constitutes unprofessional conduct and conduct
rvhich undennines public confidence in the integrity of the clental
prolbssion. Sugarmun v. Board of Registration in lVledic'ine,422 Mass.
338, 342 (1996); Kvitka v. Bourd of Registruri<.tn in lledicinc; -107 Ma-ss.

140. cert. denied, 498 U.S. 823 (1990): Raynnnd v. Board oJ'Registration
in li{edicine,387 Mass. 708,713 (1982).
VIL Discussion
The essence of these cases is about a failure of communication, between
Respondent and Patients A and B. In the first case, involving Patient A, this failure
to properly communicate with the patient resulted in her abandorunent. The first
new denture Respondent provided to Patient A wai adequate for her, once

adjustments by Respondeflt were made. The only reason that denture was replaced
was because Patient A did not like the fact that the derture had been accidentally
broken and repaired rvith a piece of metal. By Patient A's orvn statement, however,
that denture fit adequately in her mouth after adjustments were made. The second
nerv denture, rvhich is the cause of the complaint in this case, was first put in Patient
A's mouth on the very day that Respondent was ordered to repon to the hospital the
next day for surgcrry. Needless to say, communication u,ith Patient A rvas disnrptcd
b.v this event. antl it was never comrnunicatecl sullicientlv to her u'hat the reason
ivas for Respondent's sudden inability to see her. She cornplainctl lo the Floarrl a

r.r,eek later. and. after seeing Respondent tlvo successive davs lrvo weeks later.

Rcspondent llc\rcr sa\\'Patient A again.

'[he lailure of Resporrdent's ol-fice to ellectively conrnrunicate with Patient

A {blls belorv the standard of care. Respondent trvice failetl to givc Patient A the
nanre ol'a replacement dentist to see her when he rvas unahle to. on March 7 and 13,

l.l
/
A The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Health and Human Services

@DEVAL L PATRICK
Department of Public Health

Division of Health Professions Licensure

239 Causeway Street, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA 02114
GOVERNOR

TIMOTHY P. MURRAY
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
(617) e73-0951
JUDYANN BIGBY, tt{D
(617) 973-08e5 TTY
SECRETARY

JOHN AUERBACH
commlsstot{ER

April23.2008

Renato Carpinito, DMD

38 High Street
Medford MA 02155

Re: Bqard of Registration in Dentistn,

Docket no(s). : DN-03-266 et al
Llcence No.: DN ffi l"l 517
Termination of Probation

Dear Dr. Carpinito:

Please be advised that effective today the Probation status on your license to practice dentistry has
been lifted, due to your compliance with the terms and conditions of the Final Decision and Orde:r
(Order), effective February 26,2007 and issued by the Board of Rcgistration in Dentistry (Board) in
resolution to the above-referenced cornplai nt.

Tlre Board now considers this matter as closed. Please allow up to fivc (5) business days for
thc administrative processing of the license status change to appear on the Board's u,cbsite.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. The Board anticipates that you will continue to
provide safe and eflective dcntal treatment to your patients. Feel free to contact me directly with
any further questions regarding this matter.

Sincerely,
{<a,rh,,/ gaA^-r;
Karen L. Fishman
Probation Mottilor

cc: Kathy Atkinson, Executivc Director, Boarti of Registration in Dentistry

?003, and on three separate dates in May and June 2003, Respondent's office ditl
not retum phone ealls made by Patient A- Patient A, with her written recolds, wa$
credible on these poinls. Respondent's failure to adequately communicate rvith
Patient A at the time of his surgery and recovery highlights his o{Iice"s poor
communicatisn methods. As Dr. Chaprnan stated in Hxhibit 16, "[tJhere...seemed
to be a communication problem betrveen fPatient A] and Dr. Carpinito that
exacerbated the problems she had with Dr. Carpinitio." In effect, Respondent

abandoned Patient A.

The second case, involving Patient B, is similarly about a iack of

cor.nmunication. No o*e disputes the necessity' of the root plirning ancl scaling tlone
on Patient B, or that it was done in a proper manner by Responder"rt. The dispute
cflrters amund communicetian: whether Respondent obtained infonned consent to
do the procedure, and whether Patient B was informed of the cost of the procedure
before it rvag done. The preponderance sf the evid,ence indicates that Palient B was
inforrned about the root planing and scaling before it was done. 'Iwo witnesses
testified that Patient B was informed, contrary to his teslimony, and Respondent
testified that Patient B agreed to continue the treatment, and that his rvritten records
mean, to him, that he did obtain infi:rmed consrnt from Patient B. As to the cost of
the procedure, both parties agreed that Patient B was not told w'hat the cost would
be trefcrre the proeedure was done. After the procedure, Respondent infrrrnred
Patient B what the cost to him would be. The price should have been disclosed to

Patient B before the prcrcedure. The Board has decided a similar matter, In the
Matter of Charles Badaoui * Docket Nos. DN-990-236, DN-00-017 & DN-01-235
(2005), wherein it states on p. 34 that'iRespondent's conduct, in failing to initiaill'
apprise Patient A and Patient C of the total costs of the proposed treatment ancl
subsequently assessing them additional charges, constitutes tleceit in the practice ot'
dc:ntistry in violation of G,[.- c. 1 I2. $ 6l ."
In rnaking its dccision as .to sanction, the lloartl has the autheiritv and

$tatutory mamlate 1o discipline Respondent in onler to protect the public healtli.

salety, and lveifare. The Board's mission is not to punish elentists. bul to pr*tect the
public health, sa{btv, antl welfare. In acldition, "[t]he board has broad discretiein to

l5
determine the proper sanctions for nrisconduct...." Sugannan l,'. Board of
Registration in lvledicine, 422 Mass. 338, 347-8 (1996); Kvirfut v. Boarel of
Registration in lv{edicine,407 lv{ass. I40, 143 (1990). Having considered all of the
evidence presentcd to it, ttre Board issues the following Order:

ORDER
Based on the Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law set fbrth above. the Board

places Respondent's license to practice dentistry in the Commonu,calth on

Probation for a period of one year, commencing the Effective Date of this Order.

The issuance of this Order by the Board resolves all issues pending before

the Board in the Matters of DN-06-021 and DN-06-172.

Respondent shall petition the Board for reinstatement of his license to good

standing upon demonstration that he has fullilleil the following terms and

conditions:

(l) Respondent shall successfully complete the lollorving continuing

education courses:

Full Day: Diagnosis & Treatment

Planning
Full Day: Treatment of the lvledically
Compromised Patient
Full Day: Informed Consent
Full Day: Patient Communication
liDay: Record Keeping
2 Hours: Risk lv{anagement

(a) The course description(s) shall bc submittccl to the Board lor prc-
approval prior to taking the course.

(b) All courses must be attended and shall not be scll:stutl.v andior
taken tltrough a computer based on-line prognun.

(c) The Board pre-approved continuing education r()urscs shall hc

taken in addition to thc continuing education courses required
to nraintain his Iicense to practice dentistrl, purslrant to 23.1
cMR 5.01(r);

r6
 (d) The burden of proof of compliance with the requirenrents of
Probation is on the Licensee-

(2) Respondent shall completo thirteen (13) continuing educttion units

required for license renewal for the renewal cycle ending March 31.

2006. Said continuing education units shall be laken in cornpliance

with Board regulations at234 CMR 5.00

(3) During the Probationary Period, the Licensee further agrees that he

shall comply with all of the following recluirements to tht: Board's

satisfaction:

(a) The Licensee shall notifii the Board in writing of any change in
his current address of record g,ithin seven (7) calendar days of
such changes.

(b) During the Protration Period, the Licensee shall not:

i. violate any law or regulation (state or lederal) relating to

the practice of dentistry;

ii. comnrit any act that constitutes cleceit, malpractice, gross

misconduct in the practice of dentistry offenscs against larvs
or regulations relating to the practice of dentistry,
unprofessional conduct, or conduct which undermines public
confidence in the integrity of the profussion;

iii.violate any regulations pronrulgated bv the Board set forth

in 234 CMR 1.00 et. seq.

(c) The Licensee agrees to fully cooperate and responcl to any

inquiry or request made by the Board during tltc Protration
Period.

Il, ilLrrint, thc I)rohationarv Pcriocl. thc Rcsporrclcrrt irils to currtplv riitlr tlre

tenrts and con<litions ot'paragraphs I *3 ahore, the Respondcrrt shall be cntitled to a

hearing as to rvhether he violated the tcnns :rnd conrlitions ol Probation. I'his

17
hearing may be conducted in accordance with the State Adrninistrative Procedure

Act, GL. ch.30A. $$ l0 and ll- and the Stanclard Adjudicatory Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 801 CMR 1.01 et. seq. A{ler a hearing, if the Board determines that

a violation did occur during the Probationary Period, it will impose a further
sanction, deemed appropriate in its discretion. Such sanction may include

Suspension or Revocation of Respondent's license to practice dentistry in the

Commonwealth.

The Board voted unanimously in lavor of a motion to adopt Lhe Proposed

Final Decision and Order as follows: Dr. Lawrence DiBona, Chairperson; Dr. Paul

Levy, Secretary, Dr. Robert DeFrancesco, Dr. David Russell, Dr. John Favaloro,

and Dr. Mina Paul and Ms. Jan Dibble, R.D.H. Absent: Non-voting member, Ms.

Diane Crondin and Dr. Ward Cromer, PhD.

Iil. EFFECTIVE DATE

The Order of the Board shall be effective as of February 26, ZQ07 .

rV. RIGHT OF APPEAL

Respondent is hereby notified of his (her) right to appeal this Final Decision
and Orderpursuant to G.L. c. 30A, ss. l4 and 15 within thirty days of receipt of this

Final Decision aad Order.

Dated: February 26,2007

f)r.'Larvrence f)ifJona. D.M D.
Clrairntan

Notify:

l8
By First Class lllail and Certified Mail Return Recelpt Requested No. 7005
r160 0001 3500 2247

Thomas Grossman, Esq.

40 Babeock Street
P.O. Box 2Sl l
Boston, MA.02446

By Hand

Prosecuting Counsel, Eugene Langner

Departrnent of Public Health
239 Causeway Street
Boston. MA. 02114