Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Professional Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dr. Dennis Flanagan testifies on qualifications, prior consent order and recordkeeping
Summary
Dr. Dennis Flanagan testified about his implant experience, continuing education, electronic records and a prior consent order during a Department of Public Health hearing; he said the consent order did not constitute an admission of guilt.
Dr. Dennis Flanagan testified before a State of Connecticut Department of Public Health hearing panel about his training, work history placing dental implants and a prior consent order that followed a patient complaint.
Flanagan, who was sworn and identified a curriculum vitae admitted into evidence as Exhibit B1, described board and academic credentials and said he had placed "about 13,000" implants by the time of the events at issue and that his total number since then was "about 15,000," testimony the panel accepted for his qualifications as an expert in implant dentistry.
When shown Department Exhibit 6, the consent order relating to a prior patient matter, Flanagan acknowledged the language in the document that states in part: "whereas respondent, in consideration of this consent order, while admitting no guilt or wrongdoing, has chosen not to contest this matter." He confirmed that he did not admit guilt in signing that consent order and that he completed the required coursework that the order required.
Respondent counsel offered multiple exhibits documenting Flanagan's continuing education and professional credentials, including an electronic recordkeeping sample identified as Exhibit K. Department counsel objected to portions of proposed record exhibits as not relevant to the specific period in the statement of charges; the panel admitted the electronic-record sample to show the respondent's current recordkeeping practices and compliance with documentation standards.
Flanagan described his continuing-education activity in recent years and identified lectures and professional recognitions included in the record. He also testified about a prior patient matter that resulted in a consent order; he said the case led him to complete additional continuing education. The panel permitted questioning from both sides and sustained limited objections on form when counsel objected to leading questions.
After this testimony the panel discussed and moved into executive session to review confidential patient records that contain identifying information and to consider whether those records should be shown to participants who were excluded from the executive session. The hearing then reconvened for further procedural handling.
