November 2018 - Updated Dec 5/18, Dec 9/18.
Dear Dr. Croutze -Alberta Dental Association CEO, ADA&C Council & Complaints Department,
RE: Suspected ADA&C Misconduct of top officials of Alberta Health Authority
Double Standards for Alberta Dental Association & College 'Insiders' -violations of the tribunal members, council, former presidents, expert witnesses
According to ADA&C lawyer Mr. Greg Sim- "Every dentist needs to follow the rules" (quote in appeal tribunal December 7, 2018 in an advertising-only case where the recommended suspension was significantly higher than most terms for harming a patient). Is everyone -especially the insiders- really following the rules?
A) ADA&C advertising top adviser Katherine Gibson explains the basic rules for dentist advertising - https://youtu.be/X8JeTVIE7Kg (‘general dentist must appear on signage, all ads’)
B) ADA&C tribunal member Dr. Glen Zenith’s advertising ( on the jury of another dentist's disciplinary hearing-found the dentist GUILTY while doing the same thing- missing the term 'general dentist on his ads/signs- https://youtu.be/QCHI6VDuFO8
C) ADA&C appeal tribunal member and current ADA&C president Dr. Tony Odenbach’s advertising (on the appeal council in an advertising case- found the OTHER person guilty of doing what he was doing) - also seen below in photos is a testimonial/claim of superiority in his associate's youtube screenshot (incidentally selected as favorite dentist in local newspaper 2018 along with Dr. Odenbach).
Visit to his office finds a few signs/ads lacking 'general dentist' (including his business card)- https://youtu.be/64cyZaqqE8Y
D) ADA&C 'advertising enforcer/helper' – former ADA&C president and head of advertising committee- Dr. Robert Huff – admits in Calgary court he was caught violating the ADA&C advertising rules and avoided discipline simply by revising his advertising after receiving notice (see court transcripts if interested).
Now caught in violation a second time in December 2018 lacking 'general dentist' on signage and commentary stating (not implying) they are 'specialists':
(also see photo below- office signage lacks 'general dentist' and screenshot of claims of being oral care specialists.
E) Longest standing ADA&C tribunal member - Dr. John/Jack Scott - Unknown number of years as repeat 'juror' likely exceeds 2-4 TIMES term guide noted in HPA guide (the ADA&C has refused repeated requests for confirmation of this suspicion), close relationship with former executive director, background details as tribunal member not disclosed to opposing counsel, associated with highest cost investigations and tribunals. Recently the dentist's practice website was investigated with the following advertising which seems to violate many of the guidelines as discussed in this video:
(Possible violations include: lack of 'general dentist' designation, a whitening solicitation for new patients with restrictions, a claim that 'dental implants last a lifetime' and a description of orthodontic services without the clear statement that the provider is a general dentist- implying they are orthodontists?)
This second video investigates the 'special whitening offer' at his practice and asks when Dr. Scott retired (he was still practicing while judging another dentist's advertising) - https://youtu.be/94OOxeiFEeE
F) Former ADA&C president and expert witness- Dr. K Manning- website contains an 'ADA&C patient survey' which includes relative ratings suggesting superiority, testimonials (which are banned in the advertising guide) and other statements which may be considered claims of superiority as seen in this video:
(Note the ADA&C CEO has been informed of this suspected violation multiple times and in December 2018 the survey remained accessible online).
G) ADA&C member of council and appeal committee member (for an advertising violation case) - Dr. Randall Crowell - Participated in an appeal panel that recommended the largest fine and suspension in Canadian dental history for advertising violations (no patient harm) - now after the fact caught in violation himself with office and temporary street billboard signage:
H) A dental office located INSIDE THE SAME BUILDING as the new ADA&C office is found to be in violation of the ADA&C 'office name, general dentists and all dentists names' advertising rule. The ADA&C staff drive by the outside signs, wait for the elevator beside the dental office sign and may even go to this office for treatment...ever thought of 'helping' them be compliant?
This is evidence that the tribunal in my advertising review consisted of 100% of the dentists involved in the final decision were linked to similar ad violations (one dentist dropped out of the tribunal panel). My appeal to council included a dentist with a long list of advertising in violation of the guide. Please confirm your organization will investigate this complaint with an outside investigator to avoid risk of bias. As you may recall the ADA&C Complaint Director is suing me for defamation and this complaint reflects a concern with her department's vetting process for tribunal and appeal members ("Jurors"). Perhaps an experienced investigator from the BC college would be willing to provide a fair assessment of this situation or the Alberta Health Minister could decide to provide the same.
My request for a new 'jury' (appeal committee) was denied even though there was risk of bias and advertising violations rampant within the original tribunal and appeal committee members. Can Alberta dentists expect fairness when the jury itself is guilty and refuses to step down?
Michael Y Zuk DDS
Red Deer, AB
NOTE: All videos have been recorded Fall 2018.
cc Health Minister, Ombudsman of Alberta
Alberta Dentists' Association Lobby Group