Part 5.
STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS
Chapter 107.
DENTAL BOARD PROCEDURES
Subchapter B. PROCEDURES FOR INVESTIGATING COMPLAINTS
22 TAC §107.102
The State Board of Dental Examiners (Board) proposes amendments
to §107.102, concerning Procedures in Conduct of Investigation.
The Board proposes amendments in order to make the investigatory process
more efficient and to reduce the amount of staff resources required in completing
an investigation.
Changes proposed are at subsections (d) and (e), the word "undercover"
has been deleted in order to include any type of investigation.
Changes proposed at subsections (f) and (g) provide a more efficient review
process for each case, while ensuring that proper consideration is given to
each case.
Mr. Bobby Schmidt, Executive Director, State Board of Dental Examiners,
has determined for the first five-year period the amended rule is in effect,
there will be no fiscal implications for local or state government as a result
of enforcing or administering the rule.
Mr. Schmidt has also determined that for each year of the first five years
the amended rule is in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result
of enforcing the rule will be newly established procedures allowing for a
more efficient review process. There will be no adverse economic effect on
small businesses or micro-businesses as a result of enforcing this section.
Comments on the proposed amendments may be submitted to Mr. Bobby Schmidt,
Executive Director, State Board of Dental Examiners, 333 Guadalupe, Tower
1, Suite 800, Austin, Texas 78701. Comments must be received no later than
30 days from the date of publication in the
Texas
Register
.
The amended rule is proposed under the authority of the Texas
Government Code §2001.021 et seq; Texas Civil Statutes, the Occupations
Code §254.001 which provides the State Board of Dental Examiners with
the authority to adopt and enforce rules necessary for it to perform its duties,
and §255.006, which provides that the SBDE shall adopt rules concerning
procedures for investigations.
The following proposed amended rule does not affect other statutes, articles
or codes.
§107.102.Procedures in Conduct of Investigation.
(a)
An investigative file accounting for each complaint filed
with the Board shall be maintained under the supervision of the Director of
Enforcement.
(b)
Every complaint shall be reviewed by the Director of Enforcement
to determine jurisdiction. If jurisdiction exists, a complaint shall be investigated
to determine the facts concerning the complaint. All investigators shall be
state employees.
(c)
If, upon initial review, the complaint reveals a possible
threat to a person's welfare, the complaint shall be referred to the Board
or an executive committee of the Board, for consideration of temporary suspension,
pursuant to the Occupations Code, Chapter 263, Section 263.004.
(d)
During the course of an investigation, the complainant
shall be given an opportunity to explain or comment on the allegations made
in the complaint. At the initiation of the investigation, the respondent shall
be provided a copy of the complaint to facilitate a response, unless to do
so would jeopardize an [
(e)
The parties to the complaint shall receive notice of the
status of the complaint, at least quarterly, until final disposition of the
complaint, unless such notice would jeopardize an [
(f)
Upon completion of
the
[
(g)
If the
Director of Enforcement recommends
[
(h)
All jurisdictional cases shall be investigated. No case
will be dismissed without appropriate consideration. If a complaint is dismissed,
the Board shall notify the complainant within ten days of the date of the
Board action. The notice of dismissal must be in writing, include the reason(s)
for the dismissal and inform the complainant of the right to appeal the dismissal.
An appeal under this section shall be considered a request for reconsideration
of the dismissed case.
(i)
The Board may hear an appeal in a dismissed case only if:
(1)
New information or evidence is presented, the acceptance
of such, if taken as true supports the original complaint(s);
(2)
The complainant must, in writing, request reconsideration
of a dismissed case postmarked no later than twenty days from the date of
receipt of the Board's dismissal letter. The complainant(s) is presumed to
be in receipt of the dismissal letter on the third day after the date on which
the dismissal letter is mailed.
(3)
A request for reconsideration of a dismissed case(s) shall
not be considered by the Board unless it is timely submitted.
(4)
A request for reconsideration must contain the requirements
specified in this subsection. For purposes of this section, a complainant
is deemed to have received the dismissal letter three days from the date of
mailing by the Board.
(5)
Requests meeting this subsection shall be heard by the
Professional Evaluation Committee no later than sixty days after the date
the Board receives the request from the complainant requesting reconsideration.
This time frame may be extended upon good cause shown by the Board. If the
time for reconsideration occurs after this sixty day period, the Board shall
notify the complainant(s) in writing.
(6)
This subsection does not apply to cases dismissed by the
full Board by recommendation from an Informal Settlement Conference panel.
All cases dismissed by the full Board may be appealed in accordance with the
Government Code.
(j)
The Professional Evaluation Committee shall consist of
three board members appointed by the President of the Board, one of whom must
be a public member. Complaints referred to the Professional Evaluation Committee
by the Secretary or designee may be dismissed, referred to an informal settlement
conference or returned for further investigation. The Professional Evaluation
Committee may also propose an agreed Board Order imposing sanctions. All Board
Orders proposed by the Professional Evaluation Committee shall include a statement
that the Respondent should not agree to the Order if he or she wants to explain
any part of his or her conduct in connection with the complaint.
(1)
Meetings of the Professional Evaluation Committee are open
meetings as defined by the Open Meetings Act;
(2)
Only Professional Evaluation Committee members and SBDE
staff may participate in discussions concerning any complaint. The members
may review and consider all information in the investigative file.
(3)
All cases heard by the Professional Evaluation Committee
involving reconsideration of an earlier dismissal by the Board are final.
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority
to adopt.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on March 27, 2003.
TRD-200302067
Bobby Schmidt
Executive Director
State Board of Dental Examiners
Earliest possible date of adoption: May 11, 2003
For further information, please call: (512) 475-0972
Chapter 153.
RULES RELATING TO PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS APPRAISER LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION ACT
undercover
] investigation.
undercover
]
investigation.
an
] investigation
,
[
by
] the
Director of
Enforcement [
staff,
the Board Secretary or designee
] shall review the
case
[
investigative file
]. The
Director of Enforcement
[
Secretary,
or designee
] may
recommend dismissal of
[
: dismiss
]
the case
,
[
;
] refer the case to the State Office of
Administrative
Hearings,
[
Hearing;
] refer the case to
an informal settlement conference
, request that the legal division prepare
a proposed Board Order,
[
for the proposal of an agreed settlement
order imposing sanction(s);
] direct
the case to the Board or a
committee of the Board, direct
further investigation,
request the
case be reviewed by a Board member,
or other appropriate action or consideration
in accordance with Board rules
. The Director of Enforcement will not
make a recommendation of standard of care matters. Cases involving standard
of care matters will be reviewed by two Board members, one of those two must
be a dentist
[
, or refer it to the Professional Evaluation Committee
].
Board Secretary or designee dismisses a case, he or she shall state, with
specificity, the reason or reasons for the
] dismissal
of a
[
. A
] case
, he or she shall state, with specificity, the reason
or reasons for the recommended dismissal. A case recommended for dismissal
by the Director of Enforcement shall be reviewed by a member
[
dismissed by the Board Secretary or designee shall be reviewed by at least
two members
] of the Enforcement Committee. If
the committee member
does not agree with the dismissal, the case will be forwarded to an informal
settlement conference. If the committee member agrees that the case should
be dismissed
[
one reviewing member of the Enforcement Committee
does not agree with the Board Secretary or designee's decision to dismiss
the case, that case shall be forwarded to the Professional Evaluation Committee
for consideration. If both reviewing members of the Enforcement Committee
agree with the Board Secretary or designee's decision to dismiss the case
], the dismissal shall be final.
Part 8.
TEXAS APPRAISER LICENSING AND CERTIFICATION BOARD