Complaint Review: DR. AMY DUKOFF DMD - NEW YORK NEW YORK

 VIA EMAIL August 15, 2023 Peer Review Re: Ann Treboux and Dr. Amy Dukoff Dear Ms. Treboux and Dr. Dukoff: The Peer Review Committee conducted ahearing on Tuesday, August 8th 2023 toresolve a dispute between the patient, Ms. Ann Treboux and D.r Amy Dukoff. Specifically, the committee sought to evaluate the treatment performed by Dr. Dukoff for Ms. Treboux and to determinew h e t h e r that treatmentw a s performed tot h e standard of care. The treatment under review consisted of Endodontic therapy for teeth #'s 6, 9, and 10. The Peer Review Committee consisted of three Endodontists and myself as chair. Ms. Ingoglia, a member of the NYCDS staff was also present. Neither party objectedto the composition of the Committee. ,I as chair, explained to the group that Inever met either the patient orDoctor before this evening. The Committee has made a determination based on the testimony and physical examination ofthe patient, x-rays, and documentation presented at the hearing. Matters of credibility have been weighed and resolved by the committee with due regard and consideration for consistency, plausibility, accuracy, and other relevant factors. The committee members each examined the patient and the Doctor was given the opportunity to witness the examination of the patient. The Peer Review Committee evaluated the total care in terms of communication, documentation, quality of the x-rays, and financial structure and consent. Then the Committee evaluated each of the three individual root canal treatments on an individual basis. Tooth #10 had root canal performed to the standard of care and appeared well treated with no residual problem and x-rays appear to be of quality. This tooth was not contested by Ms. Treboux. Tooth# 6 wastreated and the Endodontic treatment has left her in constant pain at the apex where she points to the corner of her nose by the apex of the toot The Committee felt that this pain could have resulted from the open margins o fthe bridge and lack of coordination of an e w temp afterendodontic therapyw a s completed therefore allowing bacteria to enter and reinfect the tooth. Tooth #9 had apreviousRoot Canal and Dr. Dukoff appeared to clean out the crown portion of the #9 tempto "stabilize" the temporary with no discussion with thereferring Doctor and patient. None of the Committee members felt there was a need for cleaning out the #9 crown to stabilize the bridge. Therefore, based on all the above factors we have concluded: .1 2. 3. 4. Dr. Dukoff had poor record keeping and documentation with no written consent forms for treatment, no financial agreement forms, inaccurate notes of treatment, no written Endodontic diagnosis. The 3D x-rays were taken 3 times and not clear nor any written diagnosis of thex-rays. Poor communication and trust given to the patient from Dr. Dukoff. Lack of obvious clear financial records. Therefore, based on the above findings, the Doctor shall retain the $1,500 dollars paid fortooth #10. Ms. Treboux shall be refunded $1,850 dollars for the treatment of #6 which is still causing pain, the clean out of# 9 and fort h econsultation. The New York County Dental Society shall maintain the money in an escrow account pending the 30-day period for appeals, or until this matter is closed. Either party may appeal the decision of the peer review committee based upon procedural irregularity, ort h e discovery of significant newevidence that would materially affect the decision of the committee. Such an appeal must be made within 30 days of the date of this letter, and should be sent to the following address: Chairman, Council on Peer Review, and Quality Assurance The New York State dental association 20 Corporate Woods Blvd., Suite 602, Albany NY 12211 Please be sure to maintain a copy of the Agreement to Submit to Peer Review previously sent to you, along with this letter, for your records. Warm Regards, James Jacobs DMD Chair Peer Review and Quality Assurance Committee