{ "id": 8520667, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: DR. J. EVERETTE CAMERON, JR., Petitioner-Appellant v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS, Respondent-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Cameron v. North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners", "decision_date": "1989-09-05", "docket_number": "No. 884SC1380", "first_page": "332", "last_page": "339", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "95 N.C. App. 332" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "376 S.E.2d 8", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 105", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2485268 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0105-01" ] }, { "cite": "242 S.E.2d 829", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "838" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 528", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574056 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "543" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0528-01" ] }, { "cite": "306 S.E.2d 534", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "536" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "64 N.C. App. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526180 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "68-69" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/64/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "315 S.E.2d 537", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "538-39" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "68 N.C. App. 752", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527943 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "754" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/68/0752-01" ] }, { "cite": "269 S.E.2d 137", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "141" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 68", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561139 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "74" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0068-01" ] }, { "cite": "346 S.E.2d 430", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 N.C. 437", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4772767 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/317/0437-01" ] }, { "cite": "324 S.E.2d 33", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "42" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 N.C. App. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526494 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "218" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/72/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "311 S.E.2d 291", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "310 N.C. 153", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2393218, 2403470, 2399152, 2393109, 2404438 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/310/0153-05", "/nc/310/0153-01", "/nc/310/0153-04", "/nc/310/0153-03", "/nc/310/0153-02" ] }, { "cite": "304 S.E.2d 619", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "623" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "63 N.C. App. 106", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524169 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "112" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/63/0106-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 724, "char_count": 15925, "ocr_confidence": 0.758, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.6922169990516086e-08, "percentile": 0.2945874450595382 }, "sha256": "1e0f090ee4170cab981f3bffd0b0a0470f12172d7b17b7ab16b06d74236b80c5", "simhash": "1:11ecc14655092cf9", "word_count": 2596 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:25:49.576177+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges PARKER and Orr concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF: DR. J. EVERETTE CAMERON, JR., Petitioner-Appellant v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS, Respondent-Appellee" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "EAGLES, Judge.\nAppellant contends the trial court erred in the following respects: the trial court used the wrong standard of review; appellant was not given adequate notice of his hearing before the Board; there was not substantial evidence to support the Board\u2019s findings and conclusions; and appellant\u2019s five year suspension is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. We disagree and affirm the court below.\nI\nDr. Cameron contends the trial court erred by failing to review the entire record as submitted as required by G.S. 150B-51. The judgment here clearly states that the court \u201cconsidered the arguments and briefs of counsel and the entire record of proceedings before the Board as submitted. . . .\u201d Further, there is no evidence to the contrary in the record. Even where it is only implicit in the judgment that the superior court considered and ruled on all matters presented by the petitioner, we do not disturb the judgment. See House of Raeford Farms, Inc. v. Brooks, 63 N.C. App. 106, 112, 304 S.E.2d 619, 623 (1983), rev. denied, 310 N.C. 153, 311 S.E.2d 291 (1984). Where the judgment explicitly states that the court considered the entire record and no basis exists for a contrary conclusion, we will not disturb the judgment. Accordingly, this assignment is overruled.\nII\nDr. Cameron also contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the Board complied with the notice requirements set but in G.S. 150B-38(b). We disagree. G.S. 150B-38(b) in relevant part provides:\nPrior to any agency action in a contested case, the agency shall give the parties in the case an opportunity for a hearing without undue delay and notice not less than 15 days before the hearing. Notice to the parties shall include:\n(1) A statement of the date, hour, place, and nature of the hearing. . . .\nIn the instant case, Dr. Cameron was given written notice on 26 June 1987 that his hearing was being continued until 16 August 1987. Dr. Cameron had 51 days notice, ample notice to facilitate his preparation.\nAdditionally, while appellant asserts in his brief that he was twice contacted by telephone that the hearing date was changed, there is nothing in the record to support his argument except an unsworn assertion in a motion for continuance. Additionally, appellant does not include the written notice he allegedly was given on 7 August 1987 directing him to appear for a hearing on 9 August 1987. It is the appellant\u2019s responsibility to insure that the record on appeal is properly prepared. Loeb v. Loeb, 72 N.C. App. 205, 218, 324 S.E.2d 33, 42 (1985), reversed on other grounds, Johnson v. Johnson, 317 N.C. 437, 346 S.E.2d 430 (1986). On appeal this court is \u201cbound by the record as certified and [we] can judicially know only what appears of record.\u201d Vassey v. Burch, 301 N.C. 68, 74, 269 S.E.2d 137, 141 (1980). The appellant here failed to include in the appellate record evidence necessary to support this assignment of error. Because of these deficiencies in the appellate record, this assignment of error is deemed abandoned. See Fortis Corp. v. Northeast Forest Products, 68 N.C. App. 752, 754, 315 S.E.2d 537, 538-39 (1984).\nIll\nDr. Cameron next contends the Board\u2019s findings regarding the termination of Cindy\u2019s treatments were not supported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted. This Court aptly stated the standard of our review in Little v. Board of Dental Examiners, 64 N.C. App. 67, 68-69, 306 S.E.2d 534, 536 (1983):\nThe standard of our review is chartered by G.S. 150[B]-51(5) which requires us to determine whether the findings and conclusions are supported \u201cby substantial evidence ... in view of the entire record as submitted.\u201d By case law an insignificant variation of the words \u201centire record\u201d has become \u201cwhole record,\u201d and this is the test we must apply.\n* * *\nThe \u201cwhole record\u201d test demands that \u201c[i]f, after all of the record has been reviewed, substantial competent evidence is found which would support the agency ruling, the ruling must stand.\u201d In this context substantial evidence has been held to mean \u201csuch relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.\u201d Therefore, in reaching its decision, the reviewing court is prohibited from replacing the Agency\u2019s findings of fact with its own judgment of how credible, or incredible, the testimony appears to them to be, so long as substantial evidence of those findings exist in the whole record. [Citations omitted.]\nA.\nDr. Cameron first contends that there was not substantial evidence to support the Board\u2019s finding that he terminated Cindy\u2019s treatment. We disagree.\nDr. Cameron and Shandra Kirby, Dr. Cameron\u2019s dental assistant, testified that Cindy\u2019s treatment was terminated at her insistence. However, Cindy testified:\nQ: When Dr. Cameron took your bands off, had you demanded that he do it?\nA: Every time I saw him, I wanted them off. \u201cWhen can we get them off? When can we get them off?\u201d In May of 1986, we decided we would take them off the next month. So I knew I was going to have them off.\nQ: Did you think they were coming off because you had insisted or because they were ready to come off?\nA: Because they were ready. [Emphasis added.]\nThe Board\u2019s finding is further substantiated by Dr. Miller\u2019s testimony. Dr. Miller\u2019s deposition testimony reads in part as follows:\nQ: You mentioned that when you called Doctor Cameron to discuss Cindy Morton\u2019s case, that you discussed he had taken her out of bands prematurely because of her insistence. Did you ask her about that?\nA: She just laughed when I said that. She discounted that as being factual. She said, \u201cNo, maybe I did want to get out of orthodontics, but I wanted my teeth straight.\u201d I think that was about how she put it. . . .\nB.\nSecond, Dr. Cameron contends there is not substantial evidence to support the Board\u2019s finding that he failed to undertake necessary restorative work on Cindy\u2019s teeth. Dr. Cameron claims that the day after Dr. Cameron removed her brackets and bands, Cindy told his office that she would let Dr. Miller perform the necessary restoration. However, Cindy testified that she did not tell Dr. Cameron\u2019s staff that she would see Dr. Miller for treatment in the future until January 1987 \u2014 seven months after the bands and brackets were removed.\nC.\nFinally, appellant argues there is not substantial evidence to support the Board\u2019s finding that Dr. Cameron stripped \u201cinterprox-imate enamel from virtually all of [Cindy\u2019s] posterior teeth.\u201d Dr. Cameron testified that he only stripped 8 posterior teeth. However, Dr. Reid testified, and Dr. Ipock agreed, that 15 of Cindy\u2019s teeth had been stripped, while Dr. Miller testified that 14 of Cindy\u2019s teeth were stripped.\nUpon review of the whole record, though there is some evidence to the contrary, we find substantial competent evidence to support each of the agency\u2019s findings. Appellant\u2019s assignments of error are without merit and the agency findings must stand.\nIV\nFinally, appellant contends that the order of the Board suspending appellant\u2019s license for a period of five years is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. We disagree.\nG.S. 90-41 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:\n(a) The North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners shall have the power and authority to\n* * *\n(3) Revoke or suspend a license to practice dentistry; and\n(4) Invoke such other disciplinary measures, censure, or probative terms against a licensee as it deems fit and proper;\nin any instance or instances in which the Board is satisfied that such applicant or licensee:\n* * *\n(12) Has been negligent in the practice of dentistry;\n* * *\n(14) Is incompetent in the practice of dentistry;\n* * *\n(19) Has, in the practice of dentistry, committed an act or acts constituting malpractice. . . .\nThe Board was clearly acting within its statutory authority when it suspended Dr. Cameron\u2019s license after making the necessary findings. This court and the superior court m\u00e1y reverse or modify the decisions of the Board if they are arbitrary or capricious. See In re Wilkins, 294 N.C. 528, 543, 242 S.E.2d 829, 838 (1978), abrogated on other grounds, In re Guess, 324 N.C. 105, 376 S.E.2d 8 (1989). Here, we find the Board\u2019s suspension of Dr. Cameron\u2019s license was neither arbitrary nor capricious.\nThe order below is\nAffirmed.\nJudges PARKER and Orr concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "EAGLES, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Gray Woods & Cooper, by M. Kevin Lett, and Lanier & Fountain, by Keith E. Fountain, for petitioner-appellant.", "Bailey & Dixon, by Patricia P. Kemer, for respondent-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: DR. J. EVERETTE CAMERON, JR., Petitioner-Appellant v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS, Respondent-Appellee\nNo. 884SC1380\n(Filed 5 September 1989)\n1. Administrative Law \u00a7 8\u2014 review of dental board \u2014consideration of record \u2014no error\nThe trial court did not err when reviewing an action by the State Board of Dental Examiners, despite Dr. Cameron\u2019s contention that the trial court failed to review the entire record, where the judgment clearly stated that the court \u201cconsidered the arguments and briefs of counsel and the entire record of proceedings before the Board as submitted . . and there was no evidence to the contrary in the record. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-51.\n2. Administrative Law \u00a7 4; Appeal and Error \u00a7 40\u2014 Board of Dental Examiners \u2014 notice of hearing \u2014 supporting evidence not in record \u2014assignment of error deemed abandoned\nAn assignment of error to the notice given appellant of a hearing before the Board of Dental Examiners was deemed abandoned where appellant was given 51 days notice of the hearing and, while appellant asserts that he was twice informed by telephone that the hearing date was changed, there is nothing in the record to support his argument except an unsworn assertion and a motion for continuance. Furthermore, appellant did not include in the record the written notice he was allegedly given on 7 August directing him to appear for a hearing on 9 August. Because appellant failed to include in the appellate record evidence necessary to support the assignment of error, it was deemed abandoned.\n3. Physicians, Surgeons and Allied Professions \u00a7 5; Administrative Law \u00a7 8\u2014 Board of Dental Examiners \u2014 findings regarding patient treatments \u2014supported by evidence\nIn an action before the Board of Dental Examiners which resulted in a suspension of appellant\u2019s license to practice dentistry, there was sufficient evidence in view of the entire record as submitted to support the Board\u2019s findings regarding termination of the patient\u2019s treatment, the failure to undertake necessary restorative work, and the stripping of interprox-imate enamel from the patient\u2019s teeth.\n4. Physicians, Surgeons and Allied Professions \u00a7 5; Administrative Law \u00a7 8\u2014 Board of Dental Examiners \u2014 suspension of license\u2014 not arbitrary, capricious or abuse of discretion\nThe action of the Board of Dental Examiners in suspending appellant\u2019s license for a period of five years was not arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion where the Board was clearly acting within its statutory authority after making the necessary findings. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 90-41.\nAPPEAL by petitioner from Reid, Judge. Judgment entered 22 July 1988 in Superior Court, ONSLOW County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 May 1989.\nThis is a civil case in which Dr. J. Everette Cameron, Jr. (Dr. Cameron) seeks appellate review of the trial court\u2019s order affirming the final agency decision of the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners (the Board). Based upon findings and conclusions that Dr. Cameron had committed acts constituting negligence and demonstrating incompetence, the Board issued its final agency decision suspending Dr. Cameron\u2019s license to practice dentistry for five years. The trial court affirmed the Board\u2019s decision and we affirm the trial court\u2019s judgment.\nDr. Cameron is licensed to practice dentistry in North Carolina. He has an orthodontic practice in Richlands and at the time of his hearing before the Board had approximately 200 orthodontic patients. On 19 February 1985 Dr. Cameron conducted an orthodontic consultation with Cindy Morton (Cindy) and diagnosed her as having slight anterior crowding and rotated upper lateral incisors.\nDr. Cameron testified that he began treatment for Cindy\u2019s condition by placing her in brackets and bands. Subsequently, he began a procedure referred to as \u201cstripping.\u201d Stripping is a process where enamel is irreversibly removed from teeth using a diamond-flexy disk. Dr. Cameron testified that extraction of the bicuspids, a procedure he would not perform on a patient of Cindy\u2019s age, was an alternative to stripping. Dr. Cameron also testified that he stripped eight of Cindy\u2019s posterior teeth in the lower arch, recontoured her lower front teeth with sandpaper, and may have stripped two upper teeth.\nThree general dentists, Dr. Miller, Dr. Ipock, and Dr. Reid, along with two orthodontists, Dr. Gorman and Dr. Willis, and a professor of orthodontics at the University of North Carolina School of Dentistry, Dr. Proffit, also testified concerning Cindy\u2019s condition after examining her and reviewing her dental records. Each practitioner agreed that Cindy had slight anterior crowding but believed stripping of her posterior teeth was both inappropriate and a violation of the standard of practice of dentistry in North Carolina. Dr. Reid also testified, and Dr. Ipock agreed, that 15 of Cindy\u2019s teeth had been stripped. Dr. Miller testified correct treatment would have involved a fixed orthodontic appliance or \u201cremovable appliances\u201d that would have expanded the arches of Cindy\u2019s mouth.\nDr. Cline, a dentist not licensed to practice in North Carolina, testified that posterior stripping was acceptable. He testified that posterior stripping was appropriate in this case, even though he had never examined Cindy.\nDr. Cameron testified that he removed Cindy\u2019s brackets and bands on 26 June 1986 before he thought it was appropriate because Cindy insisted. Dr. Cameron planned to recontour her teeth after he removed her brackets and bands. Dr. Cameron also alleges in his brief that he was prevented from doing the necessary reconstructive work because Cindy was then living in New Bern and because she had told his office that she would have Dr. Miller of New Bern perform the needed treatment.\nCindy testified that' she thought Dr. Cameron took off the bands \u201c[b]ecause they were ready.\u201d\nCindy alleges that as a result of Dr. Cameron\u2019s treatment her teeth became sensitive to temperature making it difficult for her to eat and causing her to lose approximately 15 pounds. In addition, Dr. Cameron\u2019s treatment allowed food to pack between her teeth which caused tooth decay. Dr. Miller testified that he placed 18 crowns on Cindy\u2019s teeth in an attempt to reconstruct her mouth. However, Dr. Proffit testified that contacts between her teeth would never be fully restored. Cindy\u2019s parents paid Dr. Cameron\u2019s $1,200 fee.\nOn 18 March 1987 Cindy filed a complaint with the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners. On 18 May 1987 the Board gave Dr. Cameron written notice that it would conduct a hearing on 5 June 1987 to determine whether he had violated various provisions of G.S. 90-41(a). On 26 May 1987 Dr. Cameron was given written notice that the hearing would be continued until 25 July 1987. On 26 June 1987 Dr. Cameron was given another written notice of continuance until 16 August 1987.\nDr. Cameron alleges in his brief that he was notified by the Board during a telephone conversation that his hearing would be continued until 23 August 1987. He also alleges that during another telephone conversation on 4 August 1987 the Board advised him that the hearing would be advanced to 16 August 1987. Finally, Dr. Cameron\u2019s brief points out that on 7 August 1987 he \u201cwas served with a written notice directing him to appear for the hearing on August 9, 1987.\u201d The hearing was conducted on 16 August 1987.\nGray Woods & Cooper, by M. Kevin Lett, and Lanier & Fountain, by Keith E. Fountain, for petitioner-appellant.\nBailey & Dixon, by Patricia P. Kemer, for respondent-appellee." }, "file_name": "0332-01", "first_page_order": 360, "last_page_order": 367 }