Supreme Court rules in favor of embattled dentist

SANDPOINT — The Idaho Supreme Court is extracting Idaho State Board of Dentistry sanctions against a former Priest River dentist who was accused of failing to adequately advise a patient and publishing misleading advertising.

The high court unanimously ruled that there was insufficient evidence to support the regulatory board’s disciplinary charges against Dr. Lon N. Peckham, who now practices in Post Falls.

The ruling is notable to some in the legal community because Idaho courts tend to defer to an agency or board’s findings in a dispute.

The case is based on two separate chains of events.

The first involved the treatment of woman who needed a crown on a rear molar, while the other involved an ongoing dispute with the dentistry board regarding claims Peckham made on his website.

The board accused Peckham of failing to adequately inform a patient about the differences between a large amalgam buildup instead of a traditional crown. It further alleged that Peckham made misleading representations about the correlation between denture use and various ailments, and that the dentistry board was trying to hide the truth about the correlation.

The board initially called for Peckham’s dental license to be revoked and the imposition of a $40,000 fine, but ultimately penalized him with a $10,000 fine and ordered him to pay $23,000 in prosecution costs in 2011.

Sandpoint attorney Brent Featherston, Peckham’s counsel, filed a petition for judicial review in 1st District Court. But Judge Jeff Brudie held that there was sufficient evidence to support the board’s findings, prompting Featherston to appeal.

Justice Warren Jones observed that the patient had very little recollection of her discussion with Peckham about the subject crown, only that he failed to explain that the silver amalgam was not pure silver and it was the same material used for fillings. Malby said she also was not advised that the crown would be shaped in her mouth as opposed to being manufactured at a lab.

“There is not one shred of evidence that dentist in good standing under the circumstances that Dr. Peckham encountered would have provided any of these three pieces of information,” Jones wrote in a June 21 opinion.

Jones further held that there was simply no evidence that Peckham or any other dentist would have apprised his patient of the “obscure semantic distinction” between a crown, amalgam buildup or amalgam crown.

Peckham asserted on his website that missing teeth were associated with dementia and long-term denture use leads to an increased risk of diabetes and heart disease. The board faulted Peckham for failing to distinguish between correlation and causation, conflating missing teeth with long-term denture use, stating that he can cure or limit heart disease through dental treatment and accusing it of trying to hide the truth.

But the court ruled that there was insufficient proof to establish that the Peckham’s online assertions were misleading.

Jones noted that Peckham did not state that missing teeth cause dementia and said it was unclear if Peckham was actually making an unwarranted “inferential leap” that those with dentures face similar health issues as those with missing teeth. Jones added there is no evidence that dental treatment can eliminate a contributing cause of ill health is unfounded or that Peckham’s criticism of the board is misleading.