- Report: #397540
Complaint Review: Dr Michael Bruce DDS - Santa Barbara California
-
Author Confirmed
Why?
Dr Michael Bruce DDS
1515 State St. Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
Phone:
805-9620221
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Dr Michael Bruce DDS Drilled 10 holes where there were no cavities and started ten more before he was caught. Santa Barbara California
Peer Review committee:
I would like to thank you for addressing my concerns regarding Dr. Bruce proposed treatment plan for my daughter Madeline. I have attempted to work this out with Dr. Bruce in an attempt to get a clear explanation of why he performed work based upon an egregious treatment plan. (22 shots and 22 fillings) He treated the matter with willful disregard for my concerns. I am concerned that Dr Bruce has taken advantage of the trust we as parents expected of him and have asked for full reimbursement for all fees incurred at Madeline's personal expense. Madeline is under the care of Dr. James Angelos for treatment of an anxiety disorder, is extremely uncomfortable with dental procedures, and has ostensibly fallen victim to a questionable agenda perpetrated by Dr. Bruce.
I called Dr Bruce on October 1, 2007, to question his treatment plan and he assured me that all of the work detailed in the treatment plan 7/25/2007 for a cost of $5,865.00 was necessary. Dr Bruce required 50% prepayment. He did not state that it was a probable diagnosis or that any of the work would not or could not be necessary. He performed eleven fillings on August 20th and had Madeline scheduled to come in for the remainder of the work specified in her treatment plan on October 17, 2007.
Synopsis:
On July 25, 2007, Madeline went to Dr. Bruce's office for a scheduled teeth cleaning, propalaxis. According to Madeline, She went to the office, had her teeth cleaned, and was then seen by Dr. Bruce for an oral exam. When I asked Madeline if it was possible that Dr. Bruce did his exam prior to the cleaning, she said no, she was sure that he examined her teeth after her teeth were clean. This seems to be standard and proper procedure. I have never seen it done any other way. Dr. Bruce made his diagnosis on clean teeth, free of tartar and stain.
On August 20, 2007, Madeline went in to begin treatment as proposed and scheduled. Again, Dr. Bruce had full access to Madeline's clean teeth and ostensibly had to examine them again to determine where to begin treatment. Keep in mind that this occurred before Bruce told me that the diagnosis was accurate and the work was necessary.
I was very concerned that there was a mistake because Madeline had made great strides in improving her dental Hygiene the past year. I decided that a second and even third opinion would be a prudent action. I took Madeline to see two dentists, Dr Lowry and Dr Walseth on October 17, 2007. Each Doctor provided me with a letter of comment following a full oral examination. These letters, as stated, were based upon the radiographs provided by Dr. Bruce, each dentist's professional experience, as well as a clinical evaluation. In one case, x-rays were also taken to verify the findings.
The results of these findings were troubling to me because they specifically state that the work that he proposed was unnecessary and uncalled for. I would like to add that the implication in the findings also stated that the majority of the work Dr. Bruce performed was uncalled for and could have been treated with fluoride paste to prevent the insipient decay from progressing to a cavity.
Each opinion rendered, concedes that tooth # 28 required work on two surfaces (not 3 as you had initially proposed). The opinions however did not concede to any required work beyond tooth # 28.
When I gave the letters to Dr Bruce, he suggested that I have the dentists come to his office to discuss their assessments. I stated that there is really no point in having these dentists to come to his office to advocate their position and prognosis. A peer review would likely be more appropriate. They stated clearly their opinions, independent of one another, that they would not have compromised Madeline's teeth by drilling and filling. Additionally, the front teeth are the most visible, and my personal belief is that due consideration would have resulted in bleaching the teeth to their natural color before choosing a color for the composite fillings.
The fees incurred are a serious concern to me. I have spent considerable time researching dentistry to understand it well enough to assess Dr. Bruce's treatment plan and the opinions of 2 other dentists. I could probably go to another 15 dentists, however, my desire was to end this dispute amicably, cut our losses of all forms, and seek full reimbursement. The additional work that Dr. Bruce had scheduled was canceled at my request based upon the true condition of her teeth.
One of the doctors stated that there was some incipient decay present on one tooth in particular, but that he would have treated it in a way as to Re-mineralize the tooth, an option that could stabilize the tooth without treating it as a cavity. The real issue here with fees, though, is that incipient decay that has the potential of becoming a cavity does not warrant a filling and this option was not communicated to either Madeline's Mother or myself prior to treatment of the first eleven fillings or during our discussion on October 1. The Mother told me that she never thought to question the treatment plan as she was told that the work was necessary.
The other issue that concerns me is that other children and adults may have suffered or will continue to suffer the same injustice if this matter is not brought before a peer Review.
I have included copies of correspondence with all professional Dentists, lacking a formal response from Dr. Bruce with the exception of a treatment plan, an invoice showing a zero balance, and her dental records of questionable merit. The Authorization form that I requested from Dr. Bruce's office in early October was never produced by his office. It contained no information other than my daughter's information and signature. The treatment record was either incomplete or altered. Today, I received a copy of an authorization form signed by Madeline's Mother dated October 31st 2007, more than two months after Madeline received treatment.
Please take the time to review all paperwork and letters, as some paragraphs from the following letters are included in this introduction.
Thank You
Tom
santa Barbara CA, California
U.S.A.
I would like to thank you for addressing my concerns regarding Dr. Bruce proposed treatment plan for my daughter Madeline. I have attempted to work this out with Dr. Bruce in an attempt to get a clear explanation of why he performed work based upon an egregious treatment plan. (22 shots and 22 fillings) He treated the matter with willful disregard for my concerns. I am concerned that Dr Bruce has taken advantage of the trust we as parents expected of him and have asked for full reimbursement for all fees incurred at Madeline's personal expense. Madeline is under the care of Dr. James Angelos for treatment of an anxiety disorder, is extremely uncomfortable with dental procedures, and has ostensibly fallen victim to a questionable agenda perpetrated by Dr. Bruce.
I called Dr Bruce on October 1, 2007, to question his treatment plan and he assured me that all of the work detailed in the treatment plan 7/25/2007 for a cost of $5,865.00 was necessary. Dr Bruce required 50% prepayment. He did not state that it was a probable diagnosis or that any of the work would not or could not be necessary. He performed eleven fillings on August 20th and had Madeline scheduled to come in for the remainder of the work specified in her treatment plan on October 17, 2007.
Synopsis:
On July 25, 2007, Madeline went to Dr. Bruce's office for a scheduled teeth cleaning, propalaxis. According to Madeline, She went to the office, had her teeth cleaned, and was then seen by Dr. Bruce for an oral exam. When I asked Madeline if it was possible that Dr. Bruce did his exam prior to the cleaning, she said no, she was sure that he examined her teeth after her teeth were clean. This seems to be standard and proper procedure. I have never seen it done any other way. Dr. Bruce made his diagnosis on clean teeth, free of tartar and stain.
On August 20, 2007, Madeline went in to begin treatment as proposed and scheduled. Again, Dr. Bruce had full access to Madeline's clean teeth and ostensibly had to examine them again to determine where to begin treatment. Keep in mind that this occurred before Bruce told me that the diagnosis was accurate and the work was necessary.
I was very concerned that there was a mistake because Madeline had made great strides in improving her dental Hygiene the past year. I decided that a second and even third opinion would be a prudent action. I took Madeline to see two dentists, Dr Lowry and Dr Walseth on October 17, 2007. Each Doctor provided me with a letter of comment following a full oral examination. These letters, as stated, were based upon the radiographs provided by Dr. Bruce, each dentist's professional experience, as well as a clinical evaluation. In one case, x-rays were also taken to verify the findings.
The results of these findings were troubling to me because they specifically state that the work that he proposed was unnecessary and uncalled for. I would like to add that the implication in the findings also stated that the majority of the work Dr. Bruce performed was uncalled for and could have been treated with fluoride paste to prevent the insipient decay from progressing to a cavity.
Each opinion rendered, concedes that tooth # 28 required work on two surfaces (not 3 as you had initially proposed). The opinions however did not concede to any required work beyond tooth # 28.
When I gave the letters to Dr Bruce, he suggested that I have the dentists come to his office to discuss their assessments. I stated that there is really no point in having these dentists to come to his office to advocate their position and prognosis. A peer review would likely be more appropriate. They stated clearly their opinions, independent of one another, that they would not have compromised Madeline's teeth by drilling and filling. Additionally, the front teeth are the most visible, and my personal belief is that due consideration would have resulted in bleaching the teeth to their natural color before choosing a color for the composite fillings.
The fees incurred are a serious concern to me. I have spent considerable time researching dentistry to understand it well enough to assess Dr. Bruce's treatment plan and the opinions of 2 other dentists. I could probably go to another 15 dentists, however, my desire was to end this dispute amicably, cut our losses of all forms, and seek full reimbursement. The additional work that Dr. Bruce had scheduled was canceled at my request based upon the true condition of her teeth.
One of the doctors stated that there was some incipient decay present on one tooth in particular, but that he would have treated it in a way as to Re-mineralize the tooth, an option that could stabilize the tooth without treating it as a cavity. The real issue here with fees, though, is that incipient decay that has the potential of becoming a cavity does not warrant a filling and this option was not communicated to either Madeline's Mother or myself prior to treatment of the first eleven fillings or during our discussion on October 1. The Mother told me that she never thought to question the treatment plan as she was told that the work was necessary.
The other issue that concerns me is that other children and adults may have suffered or will continue to suffer the same injustice if this matter is not brought before a peer Review.
I have included copies of correspondence with all professional Dentists, lacking a formal response from Dr. Bruce with the exception of a treatment plan, an invoice showing a zero balance, and her dental records of questionable merit. The Authorization form that I requested from Dr. Bruce's office in early October was never produced by his office. It contained no information other than my daughter's information and signature. The treatment record was either incomplete or altered. Today, I received a copy of an authorization form signed by Madeline's Mother dated October 31st 2007, more than two months after Madeline received treatment.
Please take the time to review all paperwork and letters, as some paragraphs from the following letters are included in this introduction.
Thank You
Tom
santa Barbara CA, California
U.S.A.
2 Updates & Rebuttals
Tom
santa Barbara CA,California,
Fathers Response
#2Author of original report
Tue, May 20, 2014
I am the father who submitted the original report some six years ago. I disagree with the mother's assertion that the Dentistry Peer Review Comittee found that Dr. Michael Bruce had "Done Nothing Wrong".
When I realized what Dr. Bruce had done to my daughter, I was prepared to report him to the police. I elected to submit the allegations to a Peer Review Committee to seek justice as was suggested by one of the Dentists who performed an evaluation of my daughter's medical records provided by Dr. Bruce. The items included x-rays of her upper and lower teeth, a fraudulent treatment plan, as well as the invoice for the treatment of 21 fillings.
Dr. Bruce was required to justify his decisions and actions in a Peer Review. The accusations were serious and could have led to criminal charges. The suggestion that this Peer Review was merely a “nuisance” mis-characterizes the gravity of Dr. Bruce’s actions.
The Peer Review Committee held the findings of its review until the statute of limitations for filing civil charges against Dr. Michael Bruce had expired. Contrary to the “Mothers” claim that the Peer Review Committee determined that he had “Absolutely done nothing Wrong”; the determination was and is as follows:
In regards to the 21 fillings that Dr. Bruce billed us in advance for, 11 of the fillings were never performed, as they were not required. The “Peer Review Committee” as well as Dr. Lowery and Dr. Walseth confirmed that there was no sign of decay present.. However, the Peer Review Committee found that because Dr. Bruce was not allowed by the father to follow through with the treatment of these 11 teeth as he intended, Dr. Bruce would not be disciplined for this regardless of his intentions.
In regards to the 10 fillings that Dr. Bruce did perform, the Peer Review Committee found that only one tooth showed evidence of Decay in the x-rays provided by Dr. Bruce. However, the oral examination performed by the Peer Review Committee determined that any hard evidence of foul play had been destroyed when Dr. Bruce had drilled for the fillings.
Thus the findings of the Peer Review Committee were inconclusive, and allowed Dr. Michael Bruce a reprieve, but in no way concluded that Dr. Bruce had done nothing wrong.
Dr. Lowery and Dr. Walseth are highly respected dentists within our community. Both concluded from the x-rays and their oral examination that Dr. Bruce performed work that they would not have recommended or performed, that his treatment was over aggressive, and egregious.
Dr Michael Bruce is prohibited by order of the Superior Court SBCA from treating our children.
I find it incomprehensible that Dr. Michael Bruce would take advantage of and violate the health and safety of a child in his care. The motivation for such child abuse would seem to go beyond mere financial exploitation, akin to a time and place where death camp doctors tortured children with pleasure and impunity.
The realization that the child’s mother condones Dr. Michael Bruce’s conduct is equally disturbing.
Pam
SANTA BARBARA,California,
Patient's Mother Tells the Real Truth about Dr. Bruce
#3REBUTTAL Individual responds
Tue, March 25, 2014
I am Madeline’s mother, and I am writing this in response to the above tirade waged against Dr. Bruce by my ex-husband. Since it seems that this misleading and twisted accounting of facts is going to remain on the internet for a long time, I feel I need to post a rebuttal. Dr. Bruce does not deserve this attack. He has been my dentist for over 30 years and has treated all three of our children after they grew out of their pediatric dentist. He has always done beautiful, high-quality work. Madeline does have problems with anxiety, particularly with dental work, and when younger was usually was put “out” with anesthesia in order to have her dental work performed by her pediatric dentist. Dr. Bruce performed a lot of work on Madeline without having to be put out, and she experienced no anxiety and no pain whatsoever. I later told Tom that even if he found a cheaper dentist, I would be willing to pay a little bit more to go with Dr. Bruce, just for the peace of mind in knowing that Madeline was comfortable with him.
Tom was usually not involved in the medical and dental care of our children. I saw that they had proper medical and dental care and then billed him for half as per the court order. The bill in this case was very high and was based on a worst-case scenario with payment required upfront. I had warned Tom that there would be a large dental bill coming, but I did not know how much at that point. When I took Madeline in for the dental work, I received the bill, paid it, and later sent it to Tom for reimbursement for his half of the payment. Quite simply, Tom wanted to find a way to get out of paying his half of the bill.
Tom refused to pay the bill, saying that I had not notified him in advance and did not let him get a second opinion. He accused me of being in a conspiracy with Dr. Bruce to overcharge him in order to get more money out of him, even going so far as to pretend that he had a recording of Dr. Bruce admitting to that.
Dr. Bruce jumped through hoops trying to explain the dental work to someone who knew nothing about dentistry. Tom and his girlfriend visited Dr. Bruce’s office, where Dr. Bruce spent considerable time trying to show them why it had been necessary to treat Madeline’s teeth as he had. I believe they were not there to try to understand, but rather to try to intimidate.
I agreed to get a second opinion from a dentist we could agree upon. The other dentist later told me he felt unduly pressured by Tom to formulate an opinion that the dentist felt was based on insufficient data and a bad copy of the negatives. When he did state his opinion, he clearly stated that it was based solely on what had been presented to him, which may not be representative of all the facts. Dr. Bruce offered to have the other dentist come over to his office where he could show him the original negatives and discuss his course of action. That meeting took place and the other dentist sent us each a letter stating that, after reviewing all the facts and looking at the original negatives, he concurred with Dr. Bruce’s approach to the matter.
Tom’s next course of action was to take the matter to the local Peer Review Committee, which required more time and energy on Dr. Bruce’s part - another hoop for Dr. Bruce to jump through. The Peer Review Committee, comprised of many local dentists, listened to my ex-husband’s side, Dr. Bruce’s side, and conducted a thorough examination and evaluation of Madeline. Their determination was that Dr. Bruce’s treatment was done well and within the standard of care for dentristry. According to this group of unbiased dentists who understand dentistry, Dr. Bruce had done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG.
I then had to take Tom to court to recoup his half of the bill he was refusing to pay. His argument was that I had not given him a chance to check out other dentists, etc., therefore he should not be responsible for any of the bill. I finally got the payment, but had to go through hell to get it.
As a final note, I find it might be worthwhile to mention that Tom has a history of threatening professional’s licenses. The behavior doctor caring for our middle child finally refused to deal with him because of his “devious” and “manipulating” behavior. Tom threatened her license. In another instance, Tom agreed to have Madeline see a psychologist at the recommendation of her pediatrician and then later claimed to not have given permission, so would not be paying for that bill. Fortunately, by then, I had learned to get everything in writing and forwarded a copy of his e-mail consent to him. Tom then contacted the psychologist and, in so many words, accused him of trying to “milk” Madeline’s treatment, saying that she was just fine and asking why was he continuing to have her come in, and wanted to know details of their sessions. So this letter is just par for the course.
I would recommend Dr. Bruce to anyone looking for an excellent, quality, caring, knowledgeable dentist. He is not the cheapest, nor the most expensive. But the quality is worth every penny.
