Quackwatch Home Page

Anthony G. Roeder, D.D.S.
Charged with Unprofessional Conduct

Stephen Barrett, M.D.


The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has ordered Anthony G. Roeder, D.D.S., of Paoli, Pennsylvania, to show cause why his license should not be revoked or restricted. The order, which appears below, alleges that Roeder:

  • Replaced a patient's amalgam fillings, without justification, causing pain. Then inappropriately referred the patient to a nutritionist who used electrodermal screening (EDS) (a bogus diagnostic test)
  • Extracted four allegedly infected wisdom teeth of another patient based on EDS findings; and failed to prevent or adequately treat a severe postoperative infection.
  • Injected homeopathic remedies directly into the jaw of a third patient. Then then removed an alleged cyst from the jaw of a third patient who subsequently required hospitalization for a spinal disc infection.

Roeder is part of a small network of "biological dentists" who diagnose and treat neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO), a condition said to involve "cavities" or cysts within the jaw. There is no scientific evidence or plausible reason to believe that NICO exists.


COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Bureau of Professional and
Occupational Affairs

vs.

Anthony C. Roeder, D.D.S.,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:

:
:
Docket No. 1222-46-02
File No, 00-46-03465

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

AND NOW, this 23 day of September 2002, Anthony G. Roeder (Respondent) is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the State Board of Dentistry (Board), upon consideration of the Factual Allegations and the applicable law, should not suspend, revoke or otherwise restrict Respondent's license, certificate, registration or permit, or impose a civil penalty. This action is brought pursuant to The Dental Law, Act of May 1, 1933, PL. 216, No. 76, as amended, (Act), 63 P.S. §120 ,, and will be conducted in accordance with the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §5Ol-5O8, 701-704, 63 P.S. §220l-2207; and the General Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure, I Pa. Code §3 1.1-35.251

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent file an Answer to this Order to Show Cause in writing within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order stated above, in accordance with 1 Pa. Code §35.37.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Respondent holds a license to practice dentistry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, license no. DS-016 523-L.

2. Respondent's license no. DS-0 16523-L is active through March 31, 2003, and may be renewed thereafter upon the filing of the appropriate documentation and payment of the necessary fees.

3. At all times pertinent to the Factual Allegations, Respondent held a license to practice dentistry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

4. Respondent's last known address on file with the Board is 45 Darby Road, Suite A, Paoli,PA 19301.

COUNT ONE

5. Paragraphs 1 through 4 are incorporated by reference.

6. During the period of February 1993 through July 1998, Respondent provided
dental treatment to Ms. Jana Nestlerode (patient #1).

7. On or about March 18, 1998, Respondent held a scheduled appointment with patient #1.

8. Pursuant to the appointment referenced in paragraph 7, Respondent told patient #1 that there were "good medical reasons" to have all of patient #1's amalgams replaced.

9. On or about April 1 and April 2, 1998, Respondent replaced all eleven (11)
amalgams for teeth #l, 2, 5, 12, and 31 in the mouth of patient #1,

10. Subsequent to replacement of amalgams referenced in paragraph 9, patient ftl experienced pain in teeth which had amalgams replaced.

11. During the period of April and May 1998, patient #1 had multiple appointments with Respondent, who told patient #1 to "give it time" and "wait it out" regarding pain referenced in paragraph 10.

12. During the period of April and May 1998, Respondent recommended that
patient #1 see a nutritionist.

13. On or about May 27, 1998, Respondent provided Electro-Dermal Screening (EDS) testing to patient #1.

14. Subsequent to May 27, 1998, patient #1 was provided dental treatment by Paul R. Kramer, D.D.S. and Kevin Smith, D.M.D. which alleviated the pain suffered by patient #1 referenced in paragraph 10.

15. During the period of December 1997 through February 1999, Respondent provided dental treatment to Ms. Regina Collins (patient #2).

16. During the period referenced in paragraph 15, Respondent provided EDS testing to patient #2.

17. On or about January 27, 1998, April 30, 1998, and May 28, 1998, Respondent injected homeopathic remedies (Sanum remedies) directly into the jaw of patient #2.

18. On or about June 15, 1998, patient #2 was admitted to Chester County Hospital with a spinal disc infection.

19. During the period of June 15, 1998 through June 24, 1998, patient #2 was treated on an in-patient basis at Chester County Hospital with antibiotics and analgesics.

20. During the period of June 24, 1998 through August 1998, patient #2 was treated on an out-patient basis with daily eight-hour treatments of antibiotics connected through an IN. bag.

21. On or about October 26, 1998, Respondent performed oral surgery on patient #2 for removal of a cyst in the upper right jaw area.

22. During the period of January 1997 through June 1997, Respondent provided dental treatment to Mr. William Field (patient #3).

23. On or about January 23, 1997, Respondent provided EDS testing to patient #3.

24. Subsequent to administration of the EDS testing referenced in paragraph 23, Respondent told patient #3 that all of the patient's wisdom teeth were infected and that the infection was draining down the back of the patient's throat into the meridians of the patient's shoulders.

25. On or about June 2, 1997, Respondent performed oral surgery by extracting four wisdom teeth from the mouth of patient #3.

26. Subsequent to the oral surgery referenced in paragraph 25, Respondent discharged patient #3 to the patient's home without a prescription for an antibiotic.

27. Subsequent to the oral surgery referenced in paragraph 25, patient #3 experienced severe pain and fever throughout the night of June 2, 1997 and into the morning of June 3, 1997.

28. On the second of two telephone calls made by the parent of patient #3 to Respondent on June 2 and 3, 1997, the Respondent prescribed penicillin to patient #3 on June 3, 1997.

29. During the period of June 4, 1997 through June 11, 1997, patient #3 experienced continued severe pain and a large lump developed on the right temple of patient #3.

30. On or about June 11, 1997, patient #3 was examined by John L. Lignelli, D.D.S., who diagnosed trismus (inability to open the mouth) secondary to a hard swelling of the right cheek indicating infection.

31. On or about June 11, 1997, Dr Lignelli performed an immediate incision and drainage to the infected area of patient #3.

32. On or about June 16, 1997, patient #3 had a followup examination with Dr. Lignelli, which revealed that hard swelling of the right cheek was reduced, but that a visible lump remained in the right temporal area.

33. On or about June 18, 1997, Dr. Lignelli performed an incision and drainage of the deep temporal space abscess for patient #3.

34. On or about March 2002, dental records and related background information concerning the treatment provided by Respondent to patient #1 and patient #2 as referenced in paragraphs 6 though 21, were provided for expert review by a dental consultant for the Commonwealth, Michael B. Pliskin, D.D.S., Ph.D., Associate Dean of Temple University School of Dentistry.

35. On or about April 5, 2002, Dr. Pliskin forwarded an expert report to the Commonwealth concerning the treatment provided by Respondent to patient #1.

36. Annotated in the summary and conclusions section of the expert report referenced in paragraph 35 is the following statement, "Dr. Roeder's treatment of Ms. Nestlerode fell below the standard of care to a reasonable degree of dental certainty. He negligently used banned testing procedures, inappropriate and scientifically invalid methodologies and performed experiments without informed consent, As a result of his negligence amalgam restorations were unnecessarily and inappropriately removed and as a consequence several teeth required endodontic procedures."

37. On or about April 11, 2002, Dr. Pliskin forwarded an expert report to the Commonwealth concerning the treatment provided by Respondent to patient #2.

38. Annotated in the summary and conclusions section of the expert report referenced in paragraph 37 is the following statement, "Dr. Roeder injected homeopathic remedies which have never been scientifically tested or proven to be useful in treating anything. It is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of dental certainty, that Dr. Roeder's treatment of a non-disease using scientifically untested and experimental diagnostic devices and substances was negligent, fraudulent and deceitful."

39. On or about August, 2002, dental records and related background information concerning the treatment provided by Respondent to patient #3 as referenced in paragraphs 22 though 33, were provided for expert review by Dr. Pliskin.

40. On or about September 12, 2002, Dr. Pliskin forwarded an expert report to the Commonwealth concerning the treatment provided by Respondent to patient #3.

41. Annotated in the last paragraph of the expert report referenced in paragraph 40 is the following statement, "In summary, it is my opinion that Dr. Roeder's treatment of Mr. Field failed to conform to the accepted and prevailing standard of care in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Therefore, it is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of dental certainty, that Dr. Roeder was negligent in his evaluation, diagnosis and treatment of Mr. Field."

42. Based upon the foregoing Factual Allegations, the Board is authorized to suspend or revoke, or otherwise restrict Respondent's license or permit, or impose a civil penalty under 63 P.s. § 123.1 (a)(9) in that Respondent committed repeated acts of negligence, malpractice of incompetence in the practice of dentistry,

COUNT TWO

43. Paragraphs I through 42 are incorporated by reference.

44. Based upon the foregoing Factual Allegations, the Board is authorized to suspend or revoke, or otherwise restrict Respondent's license or permit, or impose a civil penalty under 63 P.S. § 123.1 (a)(8) in that Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct by departing from, or failing to conform to, the standards of acceptable and prevailing dental practice.

COUNT THREE

45. Paragraphs 1 through 44 are incorporated by reference.

46. Based upon the foregoing Factual Allegations, the Board is authorized to suspend or revoke, or otherwise restrict Respondent's license or permit, or impose a civil penalty under 63 P.S. §123.1(a)(8) in that Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct by violating regulations promulgated by the Board at 49 Pa. Code §33.208 (a) concerning prescribing, administering and dispensing medications.

COUNT FOUR

47. Paragraphs 1 through 46 are incorporated by reference.

48. On or about September 18, 2001, Investigator Patrick J. McElroy of the Department of State, Bureau of Enforcement and Investigation (BED, provided a release form signed by patient #1 to the Respondent for a copy of the patient's records and x-rays to be released by Respondent to the Department of State.

49. Prior to April 2002, copies of x-rays for patient #1 were not released by Respondent pursuant to the signed release form referenced in paragraph 48.

50. On or about April 17, 2002, copies of x-rays for patient #1 prepared and maintained by Respondent were provided by Attorney for Respondent to the prosecuting attorney in this matter,

51. Based upon the foregoing Factual Allegations, the Board is authorized to suspend or revoke, or otherwise restrict Respondent's license or permit, or impose a civil penalty under 63 P.S. § 123.1 (a)(8) in that Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct by violating regulations promulgated by the Board at 49 Pa. Code §33.209 (c) concerning preparing, maintaining and retaining patient records.

PENALTIES

If the Board finds that the Factual Allegations are true and correct, and determines that it has the authority to suspend or revoke the Respondent's license or permit, the Board may, in its discretion, impose one or more of the following penalties:

The revocation, suspension or other restriction of any licenses, certifications, registrations, permits or other authorizations to practice a profession held by Respondent in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or the imposition of any other disciplinary or corrective action which the Act authorizes the Board to impose.

The imposition of a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each and every violation of the Act. Where criminal proceedings are a basis for a violation of the Act, each count for which the Respondent was convicted may be considered a separate violation of the Act.

PROCEDURES

All proceedings are conducted in accordance with the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §501-508, 701-704; 63 P.S. §2201-2207; and the General Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure, 1 Pa. Code §31.I-35.251. RESPONDENT IS HEREBY ORDERED TO FILE A WRITTEN ANSWER TO THIS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WITHIN THIRTY (30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER The Answer shall specifically admit or deny each of the Factual Allegations made herein, and shall set forth the facts and state concisely the matter of law upon which Respondent relies. If Respondent fails to file an Answer within the time allowed herein, the Factual Allegations may be deemed admitted, and the Board will issue an Order which may impose penalties as set forth above.

If Respondent desires a formal administrative hearing, at which he may defend against the allegations in the Order to Show Cause or to present evidence in mitigation of any penalty which may be imposed upon Respondent or any of Respondent's licenses, certifications, registrations, permits or other authorizations to practice a profession, a written request for hearing must be filed within thirty (30) days of this Order. IF RESPONDENT FAILS TO FILE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR HEARING WITHIN THIRTY (30 DAYS OF THIS ORDER RESPONDENT WILL BE DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO A BEARING AND FINAL JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED WITHOUT A HEARING.

If a hearing is scheduled, Respondent will be notified of the specific time and place of the hearing. The hearing will be held before the Board or its duly designated Presiding Officer, in accordance with 1 Pa. Code §35.185. Respondent may appear, with or without counsel, offer testimony or other evidence on his behalf, and confront and cross-examine the Commonwealth's witnesses.

Answers, requests for hearings, preliminary motions, protests, petitions to intervene, or any other pleading must be filed with:

Deanna S. Walton, Prothonotary
Department of State
124 Pine Street, Suite 200
Harrisburg, PA 17101
717-772-2686

Also, you must send a separate copy of the Answer, and any other pleadings or documents, to the prosecuting attorney named below at:

P.O. BOX 2649
HARRISBURG, PA 17105-2649

Notices and petitions to intervene must be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, unless in extraordinary circumstances for good cause shown, a later filing is authorized by the

BY ORDER:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
LEGAL OFFICE

Keith E. Bashore
Prosecuting Attorney
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of State
P.O. Box 2649
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2649
(717) 783-7200

Quackwatch Home Page

This page was posted on October 8, 2002.