PECET'V/ED A?
.kD FILED
CEN IFIEZI2LECoI7t
$.
'fl-rH TF1E
N'.J.EOAZD
' O F DENTISTRY
ON J'
'-// -r.
'57, ts'z.
sn
STA TE 0F NEW JERSEY
DEPARTMZ NT OF LAW & PUBL IC SAFETY
DIV ISION OF CON SUMER AFFAIRS
STATE BOARD 0F DENTISTRY
DOCKET NO .
In the Matter
or Revocation
the Suspension )
the License of
Administrativ e A ction
)
OPX ER OF
TEMPORARY SUSPENSION
JOHN DLTM S SKI, D .D .S .
To Fractice Den tistry
the
étate of New Jersey
This matter was open ed to the New Jersey State Board of
Dentistry upon the filing of a Notice of Motion for Temporary
Suspen sion of Licen se , a Notice of Hearing and Notice
Answer ,
an d a Verified Compla int w ith supporting certification by
Cary
Edw ards , A ttorn ey General cf New Jersey by Kathy Rohr , Deputy
Attorney General.
The Verified Complaint alleges that the pattern of conduct
of Dr . Dumanski (hereinafter , sometimes ''respondent'') since
approximately August of 1986 and con tinu ing to the present in
allow tn g his dental office
remain in an appallingly and
shocking ly filthy , unsan ftary and unhealthy con dition demonstrates
total disr egard
the public 's health , safety and welfar e and
demonstrates a total incapacity
respondent 's part
con du ct
his dental practice in a manner consisten t with the standards
requ ired of licensees in this State . The Verified Complaint
further alleges that this con tinu ing pattern of con duct con stitutes
t
oress
$
necli
::
p Fence ) &
cross malpractice
-
Cncomr
eten ce
.
*'
'zio1a'
tion of A
-1.J .S .A . Ze
'5 :l-21 r
& c)
r eo
. eate.
2
- acts o=
.
u netG:1ita
.w ence ,
.
.-e
malpractice or incomp etence in violation of N :J .S :A . 4.
5:1-21(d).k
professional m iseonduct in violation of N .J .S .A . 45:1-21(4);
.
and/or demonstrates that respondent
or any other good cause,
licen see
-
incapable, for medical
discharging the functions of a
a manner con sisten t with the pub lic 's hea1th ,
safety and welfare in V olation of N .J.S.A . Y5:1-21(i).
-
Dum an sk i, through his attorney , Douglas
Kinz , Esq . subm itted
certification in opposition to the State 's Notice of Mo tion
for Temporary Suspension of
license .
Hearings in this matter were held on April
April 20, 1988 and May
1988. Written sxm=ations were
submitted and closing arraments w ere made on June
The Board conducted its deliberations
June
1988 .
Session on June
1988,
1988 .*
Executive Session on
Board 's decision was announced in Public
1988 ; this Order memoralizes the Board 's
decisfon . The State pr esen ted the testimony of two witnesses :
Henry Mccafferty , Health Officer , City
Coyle , Chief Sanitary Inspector ,
Passaic ; an d John
of Passaic . Responden t
presen ted the testimony of four w itnesses : Wanda Andriko
(respondent's sister); John Dumanski (respondent's
Deborah Wacker, Special Investigator, Enforcement Bureau ,
Division
Consq
um er Affair s; an d John Dum anski , D .D .S .
(i.e. respondent). The following items were admitted into
ev r
J u2 en c e .
.
:2
.u-in.
=
'-DD
t.zis ezlt:-re pern-od (
.i .e . from M-ar eh l6 , l98t
: to
. s
- ursuant
.
o
resen*
u-), 7
zr . nt
manski 's off=4ce rerna.
1ned c1osed D
-'
A
+
c'
-'
.
2len t
- c,= H ea 1tx
!
>z (ar 8
..er .
.o '
wD
. as sa ic D eo
Q art
R-1
Report of H enry G . Mccafferty ,
Health Officer dated lu rch
18 , 1988 ,
Memorandum of Deborah A . Wacker
dated March 3, 1988.
R-3
Report of D eborah A . Wacker
dated MA rch 7, 1988.
80th Mr . Coy le and Mr . Mccafferty testified as to the
physical condition
Dumanski 's dental office as they
observed it on March l6, 1988 . In his repor t dated March 18 ,
1988 , Hea1th Officer Mccafferty found
be
Dumanski 's office
''gross unsanitary condition /'
Du=
manski's
office w as therefore closed and ordered to cease operations
Mccafferty . The March 18 , 1988
reN
. rt outlined the
There was no workable sanitary facilities present
in the office area for the den tist or his
pa tien ts .
Hot wa ter was shut off due to a plumbing problem
and no arr angem en ts had been m ade to correct
the problem leading to the inability of the den tist
to properly wash hands or wash and sanitize
equzpment .
Dental utensils w ere soiled w ith blood and other
m atter and pitted .
Dent is !: was observed with blood on hands and clothing
w =.
4th ne apparen t intent to wash them after patien t
care .
-
Protective gloves, goggles etc . not worn or observed
in operatino
c area of establish
-r ent .
-
Fcu7
- odor pr esen t throughout ar ea .
-
obv ious leak in ceiling cau sing falling tiles ,
open spaces and soiled tiles causin g a safety
threat to patients. Condition found in hallway
leading to operating rooms and room ?/1.
Hanging wires from light fixtures found in
examining room 4/2.
Office and exam ining rooms in need of washing ,
cleaning and dustin g . Dust and dirt caked on
walls , floor s and equipm en t .
Hou se and outside area in dire need of clean ing ,
removal of dog and ca: waste an d abatem ent of
odors . This condition because of odor has
seriously affected office and examining room
ar ea s .
officials described for the Board the condilions
ex is t
.
zin cr in Dr . Dum an ski 's office that caused
to be shu t
E a ch in spector emphasized the filthiness
high level
clutter therein.
the office
Botb Den
described the putrid and repugnan t odor , w hich they iden tified
as an imal feces and urin e , that permea ted
Dumanski 's
office and hom e .
Mccafferty and M= . Coyle also described
Board conditions ex isting in each
the room s
responden t 's
dental office t
op eratorx? N
kT1rrnber .
1
-
-
room 4
.n comp l. ete disarr av
G .
m at eria ls anc ins trlpmen ts stored in a
haohazard' manner ' azr rwher e ch
--ere was
room to DuZ an instrur enz , ther e
wa s on e . Mzr . Coy le es '
cimat ed '
che
n:'
.rnb er of instrumen ts to 7oe ''A co'
ao 1 e
A
.'ust lavinz a 1.
rr. ov er tz
,
.!
g,,.
,e 0.
'
'q
.
'q
,1lr
. a ce .
o-undr ed q
a
a
.
the instruments, which were inspected
at ran dom , w ere stained either with
-
blood or a white material (thought
to be cement).
den tal chair dirty and in need of
cleaning .
no hot water .
floor dirty .
ceiling stained and broken apart.
-
-
Fgrkrogm (c?ff Operytopry Ntplbe: 1)
un san itary .
dirty .
Operatory N:vnber 2
very dirty an d dusty ; looked lik e it
hadn 't been cleaned in a long tim e .
instrAr en ts strew n about .
hanging wires from ceiling; light fixture
did not work .
hanging ceiling tiles .
cluttered ; used to stor e equipm en t.
Bathroop
-
no hot water .
toilet did nct flush .
Office
-
-
desk cluttered w ith files and equipmen t .
hanging ceiling tiles .
W aiting Room
-
dusty ; visible dust on furnitur e.
Both Mr . Mccafferty and M= . Coyle testified th
.at cn the
date they conducted :he in spection of respondent 's office ,
Dlnmanski was treating a patient. T'
ney 50th stated that when
respondent joined them to do the inspection, his hands
were covered w ith blood ; Mr . Coyle described Dr . Dum anski
in this fashion ; ''His hands were covered with blood.
4
l
don 't mean fin gertips . The whole hand lik e he slaughter ed
an animal or something . Just covered with blood , and he had
accompan ied us on the inspection that tim e al1 the way .''
Mr. Mecafferty and Mr. Coyle returned to Dr . Dumanski's
office on March 23 , 1988 to check on responden t's progress
in cleaning his office . Though some attemp ts had been made
clean the office and some of the problems were corrected
(hot water fixed i'some ceiling tiles replaced; carpet in
home removed in an attempt to lessen the odor),
level of
clean liness of the office was about the sam e as it was during
the March
1988 inspection . The office was still
dusty and clu ttered , a repu lsiv e odor still p ermeated t'
ne
office , and there was no change in the conditian of Operatory
Number On e .
The Board
Coyle to
be credible witn esses . 80th of these officials hav e extensive
experience in the health and sanitation fields.
The Board
per suaded that M= . Mccafferty 's and Mr
, . Coyle 's testimony
presented an accurate description of the con dition
Dumanski's office .
..
?km-' r .
+
y
vc
.
q.o
(yu
ç, s.e t
'
%a
v'
4-'
r
n-e
cn
r,
:
3.r.S C.
t
*7
-t
'
r
.
ni
z
w
- Ou
-. x
6.
D=
w.=!. .
=$
w)y w
v.
=
.=
w
a>
x.
>
.d '
rpxcs
s
'
>c=ze =7/', =
7-7*rlil u7 .
.
Ln eS =-- uu
Respondent presented four witn esses . Wan da
Andriko testified as to the conditions in r esponden t's officè
on the day
the inspection, the assistance she pkovides to
i
respondent in clean ing
dental office , and the general
condition of responden t's office . Th e Boar d finds that Ms .
Andriko
not a credible w itness. Her testimony was largely
inconsistent w ith testimony offered by the ether witnesses.
Andriko 's ca tegoric denial that there w ere any problems
with Dr . Dumanski 's office, ev en
the face of adm issions
b0th her neph ew and Dr . Dumanski that there wer e som e
problems with th e clean liness of responden t 's office, removes
any shred
credibility from her testimony .
John Dmmanski, r espondent 's son , offered little
relevan t testimony .
was an odor present
He did, how ev er , ackm ow ledge that there
respondent 's house and office and
that the presence of animals
dogs and
cats)
respondent's home (basement) contributed to the odor. Mr .
Dumanski also acknowledged that there had been problems with
the maintenance of the house.
Next
testify was Deborah Wacker , Inv estigator
from the Div ision
Consl:m er Affair s Enforcem ent Bureau .
Investigator Wacker testified that she had been doing
investigations
one year as a r esult
Dumanski 's office for approximately
a prior Board order concerning Dr .
Dumanski and the condition s
his office.
Investigator
W acker testified
the con ditions existing in Dr . Dum anski 's
office on variou s dates throughout the past year when she
con ducted inspection s. lfhile Investigator Wacker testified
k
that the office was ''clean'' on several occasions , one as r ècently
as March 3 , 1988 , Investigator Wacker stated that ''clean
relative throughout this case'' (Transcript of April 2O, 1988
hearing, page 105, lines 20-21). In response to further
question ing, Investigator Wacker testified that Dr . D'lman ski 's
office was ''bottom-line clean . When I say his office
''Clean'',
qust passing clean liness .
When you say
w
''unclean''- .)
disgusting.'' (Transcript of April
1988
hearing, page 125, lines l1-1A). Investigator Wacker also
testified that when she would poin t
to
clutter or dirty areas
Dumanski and/or discuss these areas with him ,
Dumanski would state that he didn 't see the problem or thought
the area or item in question w as clean .
Board fin ds
Investigator Wacker to be a credible w itness .
Dr . Duranski testified on his o1m behalf . Respon den t
discussed
health problem s, which include surgery for
prostate cancer (about 2 years ago),
and angina (about 6 months ago).
has
slight limp in his left 1eg as
and canno t walk as fast as he used
he continues
stroke (about a year ago),
Dumanski admitted
he
result of the str ck e
hcw ever , he indicated that
these problem s .
o
:ice d en tis tr.qz d es4
a
z rac t
.
L i te
Dum an ski also detailed the procedures he uses to clean
office an d equipm ent and to clean and sterilize his instrumen ts .
Dum anski indicated that he followed this reg im en daily f
!.
mop a1l the floors in the dental office; wipe off a11 appliances;
clean patien ts ' bathroom ; clean sink s
C n a or .
operatories; clean dental
Dumanski stated that he cleans drawers and cabinets
tw ice a week . A dditionally ,
Dumanski testified that he w ipes
off his hand pieces between patien ts an d sterilizes one or tpzo
hand pieces a day ; that he rinses off his instruments betw een
patien ts and sterilizes his instr umen ts between five and six
times a daz .
Dum an ski indicated he u ses the following
procedur e to sterilize instrumen ts : when finished with patien t ,
rinse the instrum en ts
in th e sink in operatory num ber
then bring instrum en ts to sterilization room ; in sterilization
room , place the instruments in hot , soapy water , rm'rKe them off
leav e them
bow l; when he gets tim e , rinse them off again ,
p lace them in to a tray to dry an d then in to the Chem clave to be
sterilized . A s relates to clean ing up afzer his four dogs ,
D
'um anski testified that the dogs are now kept outside
during the day and in the garage or basem ent at night .
Dumanski testified that he cleans up after the dogs outside four
tim es a day . The dogs ar e pap er -trained and when they are
kep t inside, respcndent stated he cleans and remov es papers
three tLm es a day and washes th e floor once
Dum anski testified that he would
day . Dr .
this clean ing
after the dcgs
dur ing
lun ch breaks ,
'
during his dinner break , an d before bed . Dr . Dumanski
stated tha: he sees approximately seven patients a day , from
k
approximately 8:00 A .14. to 7:00 P .M ., w ith an av erage appbin tmen t
lasting one hour . Responden t testified that he also an swe'rs the
telephone , collects fees
his patients.
services an d makes appointm ents
The Board finds
Duman ski 's testimcny
difficult to believ e and place in con text with the other testimony .
First , if Dr . Duman ski w ere as diligent as he states he was in
maintaining his office, the Division of Consumer Affairs '
investigator and the Passaic Depar tmen t of H ealth offiaials
would not have found
office
horrendou sly dirty condition
te which they testified . Additi m ally , there are hardly enough
hours in the day for responden t, especially
condition ,
physical
all he testifies to doing , from clean ing the
office, equipm en t and instruments to cleaning up after the
animals
treating patients . K nile Dr . Dl= mnski may make efforts
clean and main tain his office , the Board does not believe
that he follow s the regim en
described at the hearing .
The Board is also troubled by other asp ects of
Dumanski 's testimony .
instance , respondent indicated t'
n at
in his den tal chair wh ich caused water to puddle
floor took one year
leaking ever the course
the
a roof/ceiling which had been
a year was fixed only after
Dumanski was ordered to
Health .
Dumanski 's
or unw illingn ess
immediately recognize an d rectify such obvious problem s
leads the Board to believe that Dr . Dum an sk i is incapable of
recognizlng and dealing with any sort of cleanliness or
maintenance problem .
Similar to the above concern , bu t much more troubling
the Board z are
perceive
D:r anski 's statements that he did not
odor in his office and that he did no t believe his
office was cluttered or dirty . Although Dr . Dumanski appearef
to acknow ledge,
response to
attorney 's questioning ,
that he has problems w h G the main tenance and cleanliness
dental office and that he needs help to clean and Daincain
his dental office, in response to questions by Deputy Attorney
Oeneral Rohr and members of the Board,
Dumanski stated:
With regard to the odor , you said that the odor
all , you say you don 't sm ell the odor ? A . No ,
smell the odor.'' (Transcript of May
lines 10-12);
Wefve heard a
there 's a mess in your offiee .
first
don 't
1988 hearing at page
of testimony that
through this time , hav e
felt that the office has been m essy ? A . No , sir . I have a
large amount of instr'
aments.- '' (Transcript of Mav
1988 hearing
at page 87 line 25 and page 88, lines 2-4). Such statements
lead the Bcard to believ e that Dr . Dnla an ski does net ev en
recognize that a problem relating
sanitaziness
the cleanliness and
office exists.
The Bcard finds that
Dl= anski 's office does
m eet , and falls far below , the acceptable stan dar ds
cleanliness
for a den tal office in New Jersey . Even though Dr . Dum anski
was under Board order
keep his dental office clean an d was
i
aware that his office was subg'ect to regular mon 1 1y inspeeiions
for clean liness, he allow ed his office to consistently be
ma intained in a dir ty and llnsan itary condition .
The Board finds that Dr . Dumanski reallv does not recognize
that a problem exists with the cleanlin ess and main tenance
office. Further , the Board is not persuaded that Dr . Ducanski
is able
take effective steps
ameliorate the problems that
do exist . The Board 'has serious concerns about
Duc anski 's
J'udgmen t and percep tion based on his inabilitv to recognize that
dental office is in an unsanitary condition and
a danger
i: poses
patien ts . Because of these grave concern s about Dr .
Dllmanski's judgment, the Board cannot allow him co centinue tc
practice in this fashion and does not trust his representaticns
that he can , in the future , prop erly maintain
office .
The Board haazing con sidered the State 's Notice of Motion
for Temporary Susp en sion of License, the V erified Complaint
(with accompanying certification and docên
=vtents), Dr . D'amansl
ni's
certification in opposition to
State 's motion
temperary
suspension , the testimcny presen ted at the hearings and the
exhibits in troduced into evidence, the Board finds tha t the
demonstrates a clear and imminen t
danger to
public
IT IS
Therefore ;
z'N w
.
6y<z.
'
1.
-.
..4fk *,:.-
ORDERED that the license of John Dumanski , D .D .S .,
practice dentistry in the State of New Jersey is hereby temporarijy
(
'
'
.
suspended p ending a p len ary hearing on the adm inistrative complaih t.
:
M>
,
'
.
;' .
,
/
..z
,
zv .
0z
2-f....+(
z
T
.F
m
:
.w.-.
kr. w ..
AX'TOLD GRAI
- =-, D .D.S.
.-
.....
.
PRESIDENT
STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY
.
xx
../o. f.,
/
,. . ,