In a controversial decision that has raised alarms among dental professionals and patients alike, the Utah Division of Professional Licensing has reinstated Dr. Nicholas LaFeber’s dental license despite a troubling record of substandard care. The reinstatement has sparked outrage, with critics questioning the agency’s commitment to patient safety.
Dr. LaFeber, an oral surgeon with a history of complaints against him, faced scrutiny following numerous reports from both patients and fellow professionals. A seasoned oral surgeon recalled seeing a litany of patients with complications from procedures performed by LaFeber, including incorrectly sized dental implants and chronic infections. In a letter addressed to state regulators, he expressed deep concern for patient safety, stating that LaFeber had repeatedly made the same mistakes over the years, leading to severe, life-altering complications.
“I believe that he is not competent to place implants,” wrote Dr. Creed Haymond, highlighting the potential dangers of allowing LaFeber to continue practicing. This letter was one of two warnings sent to the state licensing agency regarding LaFeber’s practices over the past decade. The first came from Dr. Brandon McKee, who, after reviewing patient files, recommended that LaFeber’s license be revoked due to alarming patterns of patient harm.
Despite these warnings, the licensing division’s dentistry board recommended revocation of LaFeber’s license in December 2022 after new evidence indicated his practice had not improved. However, in May 2023, Utah licensing director Mark Steinagel reinstated LaFeber’s license after he completed three years of probation and remedial courses.
The decision has traumatic implications for patients who have since reported feeling harmed under LaFeber’s care. Two individuals shared their experiences of pain and complications after receiving routine dental work. Michelle Lipsey, who had trusted LaFeber with her dental care, described her ordeal after having cavities filled, stating she was left in prolonged pain that necessitated additional procedures from other dentists. Despite filing a complaint with the licensing agency, her case was closed without further action.
LaFeber, while stating he could not comment on specific patients due to privacy laws, defended his practice. He argued that complications are a natural part of dentistry and that he had no reason to believe his outcomes were worse than those of his peers. However, Melanie Hall, a spokesperson for the Division of Professional Licensing, explained that license revocations are rare and typically reserved for “especially egregious” conduct, emphasizing the agency’s goal of allowing for professional rehabilitation.
This approach has drawn criticism from former members of the dental board, who expressed frustration at the decision to reinstate LaFeber. They felt that the board’s recommendations were disregarded and that public safety was compromised. “You hate to take somebody’s livelihood away from them when they’ve gone through years of dental school,” one former board member stated. “But the board’s job is to protect the public.”
LaFeber’s troubles began in late 2019 after a complaint from a former employee, which led to an investigation revealing multiple cases of poor patient care. The agreement reached at that time allowed him to continue practicing under probation but restricted him from performing certain procedures. Notably, Utah law does not require dentists to disclose disciplinary actions to patients, a significant gap that leaves many unaware of the risks involved in choosing a provider with a troubled history.
Throughout his probation, LaFeber met with the dental board multiple times, presenting a demeanor that appeared agreeable, even when faced with pointed critiques. His insistence that he could improve through additional training and changes to his practice model seemed to satisfy some board members, despite ongoing concerns about his competency.
As the board deliberated over the quality of LaFeber’s care, they acknowledged the unique nature of his case. However, a troubling pattern emerged: LaFeber continued to face complaints from new patients even after his license was reinstated. Both Lipsey and another patient, Haley Stafford, reported painful experiences following dental procedures performed by LaFeber, leading to additional dental work and expenses.
Stafford expressed disbelief over LaFeber’s ability to regain his license without potential patients being informed of his past. “How does a dentist nearly lose their license and get it back, and patients are not aware of that?” she questioned.
Despite the growing number of complaints, the licensing agency closed the case involving Lipsey without further action, citing confidentiality rules that prevent them from disclosing the specifics of their investigations. LaFeber maintains that he has improved his practice since completing the required training and has incorporated new technologies to enhance patient outcomes.
As LaFeber continues to operate his dental practice, the concerns surrounding his reinstatement linger. Many in the dental community and among patients are left to wonder if the regulatory framework in Utah adequately safeguards public health and well-being or if it prioritizes the rehabilitation of licensees over the protection of vulnerable patients seeking care.
