The Nevada Board of Dental Examiners has enacted a regulation aimed at enhancing the agency’s processes for reviewing and investigating consumer complaints. This new regulation, which is now in effect, seeks to offer a clear framework for resolving consumer grievances efficiently and transparently.
Executive Director A.L. Higginbotham stated, “Our goal with this regulation is to enhance public and provider trust by delivering a process that is thorough, fair and timely. By redacting personally identifiable information during the complaint review process, we are fostering impartiality and ensuring fairness for both consumers and dental professionals.”
The introduction of this regulation follows concerns raised about the board’s complaint handling procedures during an internal audit by the Governor’s Finance Office. The audit recommended that the board improve its oversight role to ensure public health, safety, welfare, and transparency in its activities.
Under the new rules, any complaints against individuals practicing dentistry or related fields in Nevada will be reviewed by the board’s attorney within 30 days to assess jurisdiction and validity. Personally identifiable information about licensed dental professionals involved in complaints will be redacted during initial reviews to maintain impartiality.
Complaints deemed valid—those containing allegations warranting disciplinary action if proven—are forwarded to the executive director for investigator assignment. Complaints lacking jurisdiction or sufficient evidence may be dismissed.
Dental providers receive copies of complaints filed against them and have 30 days to respond with relevant records addressing the allegations directly.
Investigators can consult experts for written opinions on whether alleged conduct meets care standards. Upon investigation completion, cases go before an independent review panel that may recommend dismissal, informal resolution, or formal hearings.
If a hearing is necessary, three board members form a panel to review findings and evidence before reaching decisions by majority vote.
The regulation confines investigations to original allegations while ensuring timely reporting of outcomes to all parties involved, thereby boosting trust in the board’s processes among both public and providers.
