Commission dismisses reciprocal-discipline consent order, approves separate consent order with penalty and probation

At its meeting the Connecticut Dental Commission considered two disciplinary matters and took opposing actions.

Dismissal of proposed consent order for Dr. Amir Gurgus: The department presented a proposed consent order based on an out-of-state administrative disposition in South Dakota and a subsequent late report to Connecticut. Department counsel summarized the matter, saying the respondent had an agreed disposition in South Dakota involving orthodontic approvals and had not reported the disposition to Connecticut within the 30-day window required by statute. Defense counsel, Attorney Agie Cahill, told the commission that Dr. Gurgus had voluntarily reported the South Dakota discipline on his renewal and had completed the required coursework; she urged that additional discipline in Connecticut would be unduly punitive. Commissioners questioned whether duplicative discipline was appropriate, noting that the discipline in South Dakota had been limited to an education requirement and that the respondent was not currently practicing in Connecticut. Commissioner Craig moved — and Mark seconded — a motion to dismiss or refuse to approve the proposed consent decree so the parties could renegotiate; the motion passed by voice vote and the proposed consent order for Dr. Gurgus was dismissed.

Acceptance of consent order for Dr. Ahmed: The commission then considered a separate consent order arising from a patient complaint about an endodontic procedure. Department counsel described allegations that, in approximately September 2022, respondent Dr. Ahmed perforated the pulpal floor during endodontic treatment, left a fragment of an instrument in the canal, failed to inform the patient and did not maintain adequate records. The proposed resolution included a reprimand, a $5,000 civil penalty, one year of probation and required coursework on documentation, informed consent and professional ethics, plus a practice supervisor to perform quarterly random reviews of 20% of patient records. Commissioners discussed whether Dr. Ahmed is an endodontist and whether 20% chart review was sufficient; after deliberation a motion to accept the consent order as written was moved and seconded and carried unanimously.

Why it matters: The two votes show the commission distinguishing between reciprocal discipline based on an out-of-state sanction and a patient-specific allegation of substandard clinical care. The Gurgus dismissal reflects commissioners’ reluctance to impose duplicative penalties for the same underlying event; the Ahmed order imposes monitoring and remediation tied to clinical deficiencies.

Next steps: The Gurgus matter will be returned to department counsel to consider a revised proposal; the Ahmed consent order will proceed under the terms approved by the commission.