NV.gov
Complaint Overview
If you have concerns about the standard of care you received from a Nevada dental professional, or if you have concerns about someone practicing dental-related services within a regulated practice scope in Nevada, the Nevada State Board of Dental Examiners (NSBDE) offers a formal complaint process to help protect the public.
A complaint to the Board is a professional licensing matter (not a lawsuit). The Board’s role is to determine whether discipline is warranted, primarily under Nevada Revised Statues 631 and Nevada Administrative Code 631 (though other statutes and regulations also apply to Nevada dental professionals and can form the basis of a disciplinary action).
What the Board Cannot Do
It’s important to know the extent of the Board’s jurisdiction, as there are some forms of relief the Board cannot provide and some topics over which the Board has no power to investigate or correct. Understanding this will help you choose the right path for your situation.
Not a civil action: Filing a complaint with the Board is not a required remedy that you must exhaust prior to filing a civil lawsuit and does not pause the statute of limitations for a district, justice, or small claims court lawsuit. If you think you may have a civil claim (e.g., medical malpractice), you should consult an attorney (the Board cannot serve as your attorney or provide legal advice) and be aware of any statute of limitations.
No civil damages: The Board cannot under statute and does not determine or award civil damages (pain and suffering, missed work, additional expenses, etc.), which are in the purview of a civil court.
Not a fee dispute forum: The Board has no statutory grant of authority to decide the appropriateness of the fees charged by a dental professional, nor does it have subject matter jurisdiction over warranty disputes or purely monetary matters. Thus, the Board does not arbitrate, settle, or decide fee or money disputes.
No billing/insurance disputes: The Board does not investigate billing, insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid matters. Claims of insurance fraud should be directed to the Nevada Attorney General’s Office-Insurance Fraud Unit (https://ag.nv.gov/About/Criminal_Justice/Insurance_Fraud/). Claims of Medicaid Fraud should be directed to the Nevada Attorney General’s Office-Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (https://ag.nv.gov/About/Criminal_Justice/Medicaid_Fraud/). Claims related to Medicare should be submitted either to an indivudal insurer (in the case of Medicare Advantage Plans) or to the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (in the case of Medicare Parts A or B.)
Time limits for filing complaints: Nevada statues require a dental professional to retain patient records for only five years from the date of service. Thus, the Board does not investigate standard-of-care issues for dental treatments performed five years ago or longer, as there will likely be no evidence that can substantiate or negate any complaint claims.
Jurisdiction limited to licensees only: The Board can only investigate and discipline a person holding a professional license that was granted by the Board; these include only dentists, dental hygienists, dental therapists, and expanded function dental assistants. Thus, the Board does not have jurisdiction over dental office personnel (such as receptionists or billers/coders) and dental assistants.
To file a complaint online:
-
Online Complaint Form
To file a paper complaint, submit a complete complaint packet that includes:
-
Paper Complaint Form
- Verification of Complaint
-
Authorization to Release Records / Authorization for use of dental & personal information
Where to Send a paper copy of the Complaint if the online form is not submitted (mail, fax, or email):
Mail: Nevada State Board of Dental Examiners
2651 N Green Valley Pkwy, Ste 104
Henderson, NV 89014
Fax: (702) 486-7046
Email: nsbde@dental.nv.gov
The Board’s disciplinary process is designed to evaluate complaints fairly and consistently under Nevada law (NRS 631) and regulation (NAC 631). Importantly, peer review (dentists and hygienists evaluating other dentists and hygienists) and anonymity (names of practitioners and patients are redacted once a complaint is received so disciplinary reviewers do not know the identity of whose conduct they are reviewing, thereby eliminating the potential for bias or prejudice) are keystones to ensuring disciplinary matters are properly adjudicated. Below is an overview of the stages throughout the complaint process.
1) Intake and legal review (jurisdiction + whether an investigation is warranted)
After a complaint is received, Board counsel reviews the subject matter and timeliness of the complaint to determine whether the Board has jurisdiction. If jurisdiction is present, the matter is moved to the investigation phase. If jurisdiction is not found present, the matter is moved to a review panel, who will determine whether Board counsel’s finding of no jurisdiction is correct. If the review panel deems Board Counsel correct, the matter is remanded for dismissal; if the review panel deems Board counsel incorrect, the matter is moved to the investigation phase. Nevada regulations set timelines for this early review.
2) Investigation (if opened)
If the matter is referred for investigation, an investigator (also known as a preliminary screening consultant or PSC) is appointed. The PSC/investigator is a Nevada licensed dentist.
The person who is the subject of the complaint (also known as a respondent) is notified by certified mail (return receipt requested) and electronic mail that a complaint has been filed against them, and the notice includes a copy of the complaint. (Note, the version of the complaint going to the respondent is not redacted so the respondent is fully apprised of all aspects of the complaint.)
The person under investigation must provide both a written response to the allegations and all relevant patient records, which must include all relevant imaging, within required timeframes. Respondents may, but are not required to, obtain counsel at this juncture; if counsel is retained, they will notify the Board and coordinate the provision of a response and patient records.
3) Review by the PSC
As noted, the Board utilizes a PSC (and may retain additional dental experts) to evaluate the complaint and supporting materials.
The PSC or other expert provides a written analysis of clinical patient records and imaging, as well as an opinion regarding whether the conduct potentially violates the law or professional standards and constitutes grounds for discipline. Under NRS 631.368, a PSC’s report is a record of the investigation that is kept confidential; the only exception is that, per regulation, the respondent has the opportunity to review the PSC report and offer a rebuttal or clarification. Therefore, other than the respondent (and their lawyer if applicable), no persons other than those members of the review panel (including the complainant) can see the PSC report.
4) Review Panel review and recommendation
After the PCS’s investigation is concluded and their report is written, Board legal staff forwards required materials (the PSC report, complaint, records, responses, expert opinions, etc.) to the review panel, with personally identifying information about the subject of the complaint redacted.
The hearing panel meets approximately one time per month to review all cases for which a PSC report has been completed the month prior. They discuss each case, and by a majority vote, they will typically vote to handle the complaint in one of three ways:
-
Remanding the complaint for dismissal on the merits – this means that at least 2/3 of the review panel did not find that a violation of law or professional standards occurred, such that the dental professional shall face no discipline. In some cases, where there is no violation of law and no indication that best practices were ignored, the matter is simply closed. In other cases, even though there was no violation of law found, the review panel may find that best practices were not necessarily adhered to; in those cases, the matter is still closed, but a Letter of Concern issues to the licensee letting them know how they can avoid similar complaints in the future by following best practices.
-
Resolving by stipulation – this means that at least 2/3 of the review panel did find that a violation of law or professional standards occurred, and that they are recommending probation with some probationary requirements. If the respondent agrees to accept probation, the matter will be resolved via a settlement agreement (also known as a stipulation).
-
Proceeding to a formal hearing – this means that at least 2/3 of the review panel did find that a violation of law or professional standards occurred, and either the conduct is egregious enough or the proposed penalties are significant enough (e.g. suspension, revocation) that a due process administrative hearing is warranted.
(Note that if a stipulation is offered, but a respondent refuses the probation terms and all attempts to negotiate with the review panel are exhausted, the matter will convert to a recommendation for formal hearing).
Under NRS 631.363, and the Board must consider the panel’s findings and recommendation before taking action on a complaint.
5) Board action, hearings, and possible outcomes
Whatever recommendation is made by a review panel must be approved by the full Board at a public board meeting. Thus, whether to remand a case for dismissal, whether to approve a stipulated probation, or whether to require a formal administrative hearing is ultimately voted on and approved or rejected by the Board.
Whether stipulated as a probation term or issued by a hearing panel after a formal hearing, possible disciplinary actions can include (among other options) suspension/revocation, fines, probation, public reprimand, limits on practice, education/training requirements, and in some cases patient reimbursement (though patient reimbursment is not guaranteed; not available in all cases; and limited to verifiable out-of-pocket costs only that do not include amounts paid by insurance, amounts paid by a friend, family member, or a third party on a patient's behalf, or interest on credit cards or health credit accounts.
If the Board votes to remand a case for dismissal, the case is concluded and the complaint is dismissed. If the Board votes to accept the stipulated probationary agreement (which would have already been accepted by the respondent), the respondent's probationary requirements start. If the Board votes to send the matter for an administrative hearing, Board counsel drafts formal complaint documents for the Board to review and approve. After approval, a notice of hearing and the formal complaint is served upon respondent, who will then appear at a formal due process hearing on the designated date.
Complaint Updates By Email
To help you stay informed, if you have an email address and have provided it to the Board, the Board provides complaint status updates by email as your complaint moves through major steps in the process.
Because investigations involve confidential information, email updates typically only reflect where your complaint is in the process (for example: received, under review, investigation opened/assigned, panel review, and closure); detailed and individual investigative findings are not discussed in status emails.
Though Board counsel and Board legal staff cannot act as attorneys or legal advisors to either complainants or respondents, we are happy to answer what questions we can (considering confidentiality exclusions) and assist with processes where we can. Further, we strive to be accessible to those with language barriers and disabilities; if you need language, access, or accommodation assistance in starting the complaint process, do not hesitate to let us know. To that end, the initial point of contact for starting the complaint process can be reached at 702-486-7045.