Disciplinary Actions against
Gerald H. Smith, D.D.S.
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
In 2006, Gerald H. Smith, D.D.S. signed a consent agreement and order which the Pennsylvania Board of Dentistry found him guilty of unprofessional conduct and suspended his license for 30 days. The document (shown below) indicates:
- Smith did not examine the patient's mouth but conducted a test in which he pressed down on her outstretched right arm while she held a closed vial of mercury against her abdomen with her left hand.
- When the patient's arm went downward, Smith interpreted the test to mean that she had mercury in her system and needed to take supplements for two years to clear her system of mercury.
- The board's consultant said that the test (referred to as "applied kinesiology" muscle-testing) failed to conform to acceptable dental practice.
In 2001, the board disciplined Smith for inserting his bare fingers into the mouth of two patients, one of whom he was treating with "osteopathic cranial manipulation." Noting that infection-control guidelines call for the use of gloves when examining the mouth, the board ordered Smith to (a) pay a $2,000 penalty plus $1,900 for-investigative costs, (b) take 6 hours of continuing education in infection control, and (c) serve on probation for 18 months.
In 2008, the board charged Smith with inappropriately treating two patients. One told the board that based on applied kinesiology testing, Smith advised her to take Nature Throid instead of medically prescribed thyroid medication. The other said Smith wrote a prescription for the same product when the patient's primary prescriber was unavailable. Smith denied doing these things and had not recorded them in his records. In 2011, the board ordered a 30-day license suspension and assessed a civil penalty of $4,000. However, a Commonwealth Court judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence that Smith had done what he was accused of and voided the board's order.
In 2015, Smith was reprimanded and ordered to pay a $3,000 civil fine for failing to maintain a dental record that accurately and completedly reflected his treatment of a patient.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY
|Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Bureau of Professional and
Gerald H. Smith, D.D.S.,
Docket No. 0324-46-06
CONSENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER
The Commonwealth and Respondent stipulate as follows in settlement of the abovecaptioned case.
1. This matter is before the State Board of Dentistry ("Board") pursuant to The Dental Law, Act of May 1, 1933, P.L. 216, No. 76, as amended ("Act"), 63 P.S. §120 et seq.
2. At all relevant and material times, Gerald H. Smith ("Respondent") held a license to practice dentistry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, license no. DS-017037-L.
3. The Respondent admits that the following facts are true:
a. Respondent's license is current through March 31, 2007, and may be renewed thereafter upon the filing of the appropriate documentation and payment of the necessary fees.
b. Respondent's last known address on file with the Board is Luxembourg Corporate Center, 303 Corporate Drive East, Langhorne, PA 19047.
c. During November 2003, patient A.W. telephoned the Respondent's dental office to schedule an appointment to have her teeth cleaned.
d. During the telephone call referenced in paragraph 3c, patient A. W. spoke directly with the Respondent.
e. During the telephone call referenced in paragraph 3c, patient A.W. told the Respondent that she had suffered from depression in the past, due to Seasonal Affective Disorder.
f. On or about December 1, 2003, patient A.W. presented for an appointment with the Respondent to have her teeth cleaned.
g. At the appointment referenced in paragraph 3f, the Respondent performed what he termed "Applied Kinesiology" testing on patient A.W.
h. At the appointment referenced in paragraph 3f, the Respondent gave a closed vial of mercury to patient A.W. and she was told to hold the vial in a standing position with her left hand against her stomach.
i. At the appointment referenced in paragraph 3f, the Respondent told patient A. W. to hold her right arm straight out, at a ninety degree angle, from the right side of her body.
j. At the appointment referenced in paragraph 3f, the Respondent exerted pressure on the right arm of patient A.W. in a downward direction.
k. At the appointment referenced in paragraph 3f, the Respondent told patient A.W. that if her arm dropped downward, it was a sign of mercury in her system.
1. At the appointment referenced in paragraph 3 f, the Respondent stated to patient A.W. that she needed to purchase $43.00 of "all natural supplements" from him in order to begin the process of clearing her system of mercury.
m. At the appointment referenced in paragraph 3f, the Respondent stated that the process of clearing her system of mercury would take approximately two years.
n. At the appointment referenced in paragraph 3f, the Respondent stated that the process of clearing her system of mercury would take an aggressive course of supplements.
o. At the appointment referenced in paragraph 3f, the Respondent told patient A.W. to schedule a follow up visit with the receptionist before leaving.
p. At the appointment referenced in paragraph 3f, patient A.W. did not have her teeth cleaned at the Respondent's office.
q. At the appointment referenced in paragraph 3f, the Respondent never looked into the mouth of patient A.W.
r. Pursuant to the appointment referenced in paragraph 3f, the Respondent charged a $175.00 consultation fee to patient A. W.
s. On or about December 5, 2005, dental records from the Respondent's office for patient A.W. and related information were sent for expert review by a dental consultant, Michael E. Pliskin, D.D.S., Ph.D., Associate Dean, Temple University School of Dentistry.
t. On or about February 7, 2006, Dr. Pliskin forwarded an expert report to the Commonwealth concerning his review of the information referenced in paragraph 3s.
u. Annotated in the summary/conclusions section of the expert report referenced in paragraph 3s is the following statement, "It was absolutely clear to me that Dr. Smith's dental care provided to Ms. W. grossly departed from and failed to conform to standards of acceptable and prevailing dental practice. This is my opinion to a reasonable degree of certainty in the practice of dentistry."
4. The actions of Respondent, described above, violated the Act at 63 P.S. §123.1(a)(8) in that Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct by departing from, or failing to conform to, standards of acceptable and prevailing dental practice in which proceeding actual injury to the patient need not be established.
5. Intending to be legally bound, the participants consent to issuance of the following Order in settlement of this matter:
a. Respondent violated the Act at 63 P.S. §123.1(a)(8) in that Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct by departing from, or failing to conform to, standards of acceptable and prevailing dental practice in which proceeding actual injury to the patient need not be established.
b. Respondent's license no. DS-017037-L is placed on active SUSPENSION for a period of thirty (30) days commencing on December 10, 2006 and ending on January 9, 2007. Respondent shall cease and desist from the practice of dentistry and shall not represent himself as a board licensee in any manner whatsoever during the period of active suspension. Respondent shall surrender his wall certificate, registration certificate and wallet card during the period of active suspension by mailing them to:
Keith E. Bashore, Prosecuting Attorney
Department of State
2601 North Third Street
P.O. Box 2649
Harrisburg, PA 17105
c. On January 9, 2007, the Commonwealth shall return to the Respondent by sending by overnight delivery the Respondent's wall certificate, registration certificate and wallet card to the Respondent at the address listed in paragraph 3b.
d. On January 10, 2007, Respondent may resume the active practice of dentistry.
6. Respondent acknowledges receipt of an Order to Show Cause in this matter. Respondent knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to an administrative hearing in this matter, and to the following rights related to that hearing: to be represented by counsel at the hearing; to present witnesses and testimony in defense or in mitigation of any sanction that may be imposed for a violation; to cross-examine witnesses and to challenge evidence presented by the Commonwealth; to present legal arguments by means of a brief; and to take an appeal from any final adverse decision.
7. This Consent Agreement is between the Commonwealth and Respondent only. Except as otherwise noted, this Agreement is to have no legal effect unless and until the Office of General Counsel approves the contents as to form and legality and the Board issues the stipulated Order.
8. Should the Board not approve this Consent Agreement, presentation to and consideration of this Consent Agreement and other documents and matters by the Board shall not prejudice the Board or any of its members from further participation in the adjudication of this matter. This paragraph is binding on the participants even if the Board does not approve this Consent Agreement.
9. Respondent agrees, as a condition of entering into this Consent Agreement, not to seek modification at a later date of the stipulated Order adopting and implementing this Consent Agreement without first obtaining the express written concurrence of the Prosecution Division.
10. This Agreement contains the whole agreement between the participants. There are no other terms, obligations, covenants, representations, statements or conditions, or otherwise, of any kind whatsoever, concerning this Agreement.
11. Respondent verifies that the facts and statements set forth in this Agreement are true and correct to the best of Respondent's knowledge, information and belief. Respondent understands that statements in this Agreement are made subject to the criminal penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Gerald H. Smith
|DATED: 9/15/06||DATED: Sept 12, 2006|
Neil E. Jokelson, Esq.
Attorney for Respondent
AND NOW, this 20th day of October, 2006, the State Board of Dentistry adopts and approves the foregoing Consent Agreement and incorporates the terms of paragraph 5, which shall constitute the Board's Order and is now issued in resolution of this matter.
This Order shall take effect immediately.
BUREAU OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL AFFAIRS
|STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY|
Basil L. Merenda
Susan E. Calderbank, D.M.D.
Date of mailing:
|October 24, 2006|
For the Commonwealth:
File No. 04-46-07535
|Keith E. Bashore, Esquire
P. O. Box 2649
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2649
|Neil E. Jokelson, Esquire
Neil E. Jokelson & Associates
230 South Broad Street, 8th Floor
Philadelphia, P A 19102
This page was revised on October 16, 2016.