Peer Review committee:
I would like to thank you for addressing my concerns regarding Dr. Bruce proposed treatment plan for my daughter Madeline. I have attempted to work this out with Dr. Bruce in an attempt to get a clear explanation of why he performed work based upon an egregious treatment plan. (22 shots and 22 fillings) He treated the matter with willful disregard for my concerns. I am concerned that Dr Bruce has taken advantage of the trust we as parents expected of him and have asked for full reimbursement for all fees incurred at Madeline's personal expense. Madeline is under the care of Dr. James Angelos for treatment of an anxiety disorder, is extremely uncomfortable with dental procedures, and has ostensibly fallen victim to a questionable agenda perpetrated by Dr. Bruce.
I called Dr Bruce on October 1, to question his treatment plan and he assured me that all of the work detailed in the treatment plan 7/25 for a cost of $5,865.00 was necessary. Dr Bruce required 50% prepayment. He did not state that it was a probable diagnosis or that any of the work would not or could not be necessary. He performed eleven fillings on August 20th and had Madeline scheduled to come in for the remainder of the work specified in her treatment plan on October 17.
Synopsis:
On July 25, Madeline went to Dr. Bruce's office for a scheduled teeth cleaning, propalaxis. According to Madeline, She went to the office, had her teeth cleaned, and was then seen by Dr. Bruce for an oral exam. When I asked Madeline if it was possible that Dr. Bruce did his exam prior to the cleaning, she said no, she was sure that he examined her teeth after her teeth were clean. This seems to be standard and proper procedure. I have never seen it done any other way. Dr. Bruce made his diagnosis on clean teeth, free of tartar and stain.
On August 20, Madeline went in to begin treatment as proposed and scheduled. Again, Dr. Bruce had full access to Madeline's clean teeth and ostensibly had to examine them again to determine where to begin treatment. Keep in mind that this occurred before Bruce told me that the diagnosis was accurate and the work was necessary.
I was very concerned that there was a mistake because Madeline had made great strides in improving her dental Hygiene the past year. I decided that a second and even third opinion would be a prudent action. I took Madeline to see two dentists, Dr Lowry and Dr Walseth on October 17. Each Doctor provided me with a letter of comment following a full oral examination. These letters, as stated, were based upon the radiographs provided by Dr. Bruce, each dentist's professional experience, as well as a clinical evaluation.in one case, x-rays were also taken to verify the findings.
The results of these findings were troubling to me because they specifically state that the work that he proposed was unnecessary and uncalled for. I would like to add that the implication in the findings also stated that the majority of the work Dr. Bruce performed was uncalled for and could have been treated with fluoride paste to prevent the insipient decay from progressing to a cavity.
Each opinion rendered, concedes that tooth # 28 required work on two surfaces (not 3 as you had initially proposed). The opinions however did not concede to any required work beyond tooth # 28.
When I gave the letters to Dr Bruce, he suggested that I have the dentists come to his office to discuss their assessments. I stated that there is really no point in having these dentists to come to his office to advocate their position and prognosis. A peer review would likely be more appropriate. They stated clearly their opinions, independent of one another, that they would not have compromised Madeline's teeth by drilling and filling. Additionally, the front teeth are the most visible, and my personal belief is that due consideration would have resulted in bleaching the teeth to their natural color before choosing a color for the composite fillings.
The fees incurred are a serious concern to me. I have spent considerable time researching dentistry to understand it well enough to assess Dr. Bruce's treatment plan and the opinions of 2 other dentists. I could probably go to another 15 dentists, however, my desire was to end this dispute amicably, cut our losses of all forms, and seek full reimbursement. The additional work that Dr. Bruce had scheduled was canceled at my request based upon the true condition of her teeth.
One of the doctors stated that there was some incipient decay present on one tooth in particular, but that he would have treated it in a way as to Re-mineralize the tooth, an option that could stabilize the tooth without treating it as a cavity. The real issue here with fees, though, is that incipient decay that has the potential of becoming a cavity does not warrant a filling and this option was not communicated to either Madeline's Mother or myself prior to treatment of the first eleven fillings or during our discussion on October 1. The Mother told me that she never thought to question the treatment plan as she was told that the work was necessary.
The other issue that concerns me is that other children and adults may have suffered or will continue to suffer the same injustice if this matter is not brought before a peer Review.
I have included copies of correspondence with all professional Dentists, lacking a formal response from Dr. Bruce with the exception of a treatment plan, an invoice showing a zero balance, and her dental records of questionable merit. The Authorization form that I requested from Dr. Bruce's office in early October was never produced by his office. It contained no information other than my daughter's information and signature. The treatment record was either incomplete or altered. Today, I received a copy of an authorization form signed by Madeline's Mother dated October 31st more than two months after Madeline received treatment.
Please take the time to review all paperwork and letters, as some paragraphs from the following letters are included in this introduction.
Thank You
0 comments