Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WILLIAM KUNDRAT v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (07/08/82)

decided: July 8, 1982.

WILLIAM KUNDRAT, D.D.S., PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE DENTAL COUNCIL AND EXAMINING BOARD, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the State Dental Council and Examining Board in the case of State Dental Council and Examining Board v. William Kundrat, D.D.S., No. 77-DE-769.

COUNSEL

Richard C. Snelbaker, Snelbaker, McCaleb & Elicker, for petitioner.

Michael J. McCaney, Jr., Assistant Counsel, with him James J. Kutz, Assistant Counsel, David F. Phifer, Chief Counsel, and Jay Waldman, General Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Rogers, Blatt and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr. Judges Mencer and Palladino did not participate in the decision in this case. Dissenting Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Williams

[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 342]

The instant matter comes before this Court on a Petition for Review filed by William Kundrat, D.D.S. Petitioner Kundrat appeals from an order of the State Dental Council and Examining Board (Board) finding him guilty of violating certain provisions of The Dental Law*fn1 and revoking his license to practice dentistry.

Petitioner, Dr. Kundrat, has been engaged in the practice of dentistry in the state of Pennsylvania since 1965. The incident which gave rise to the present controversy occurred in July, 1975. At that time, Mrs. Francis Pribulsky, a patient and personal friend of Dr. Kundrat's, experienced a problem with her teeth, for which she sought Dr. Kundrat's professional advice. Mrs. Pribulsky had cracked one of her four remaining lower teeth. The patient's other teeth had previously been extracted and she had worn a full

[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 343]

    upper denture for many years. Dr. Kundrat removed Mrs. Pribulsky's broken tooth, after which he discussed with her the possibility of constructing some type of device with artificial teeth to replace her missing lower teeth. There exists disagreement in the record as to the content of the conversation between Mrs. Pribulsky and Dr. Kundrat involving the replacement of Mrs. Pribulsky's teeth. Dr. Kundrat stated that he described to Mrs. Pribulsky three alternative procedures for the replacement of her missing teeth. The doctor declared that Mrs. Pribulsky selected the cantilever bridge, a ten unit fixed-tooth bridge. He further stated that based upon Mrs. Pribulsky's wishes, he constructed a cantilever bridge and placed it in her mouth.

Mrs. Pribulsky, on the other hand, testified that Dr. Kundrat recommended the cantilever bridge and in reliance on his advice she authorized him to proceed with its construction.

Dr. Kundrat built the cantilever bridge and installed it in Mrs. Pribulsky's mouth in November, 1975. Approximately eleven months later, Mrs. Pribulsky, after suffering from several infections and experiencing discomfort from the device, was advised that the bridge would not work successfully in her mouth. At that time, Dr. Kundrat suggested that Mrs. Pribulsky be fitted for a full lower denture.

In February, 1977, Mrs. Pribulsky filed a complaint against Dr. Kundrat with the Harrisburg Dental Society. A Citation and Notice of Hearing was issued by the Board in June, 1978, charging Dr. Kundrat with violating certain sections of The Dental Law.*fn2 Shortly thereafter, a formal hearing in the matter was conducted by the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.