{"id":171997,"date":"2025-09-27T02:38:18","date_gmt":"2025-09-27T02:38:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/171997\/"},"modified":"2025-09-27T02:38:18","modified_gmt":"2025-09-27T02:38:18","slug":"utah-reinstates-nicholas-lafebers-dental-license-despite-alarming-care-record-propublica","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/171997\/","title":{"rendered":"Utah Reinstates Nicholas LaFeber\u2019s Dental License Despite \u201cAlarming\u201d Care Record \u2014 ProPublica"},"content":{"rendered":"

This article was produced for ProPublica\u2019s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Salt Lake Tribune<\/a>. Sign up for Dispatches<\/a> to get our stories in your inbox every week.<\/p>\n

Reporting Highlights<\/p>\n

Warnings Ignored: Utah\u2019s dentistry board urged the state to revoke Nicholas LaFeber\u2019s license after reports of failed root canals and poor dental work. Instead, regulators reinstated it.
\n New Harm Alleged: Since LaFeber\u2019s license was reinstated, two patients have said routine fillings left them in prolonged pain and they needed to have the work redone by other dentists.
\n Opting for Lighter Discipline: Regulators say they prefer probation and rehabilitation over license revocation because it \u201cends a career.\u201d A former board member said the public \u201cwas not well-served.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.\n <\/p>\n

The patients kept coming to the Utah oral surgeon\u2019s office \u2014 one after another, year after year \u2014 with dental work that the surgeon said had gone wrong. He later recounted in a letter to state licensors that he had seen dental implants that had been the wrong size, patients with chronic sinus infections and one person whose implant had become lost inside their sinus cavity. These patients, he said, had all been worked on by the same dentist: Dr. Nicholas LaFeber.<\/p>\n

The surgeon, a 30-year veteran, wrote the letter in November 2022 after Utah\u2019s licensing division asked for his opinion of work done by LaFeber, whose license was on probation after the agency determined he had provided substandard care to more than a dozen patients. His warning was blunt: He believed LaFeber wouldn\u2019t improve as a dentist and should not be performing dental implant procedures. He had seen LaFeber make the same mistakes in patients for years, he wrote, causing \u201csevere\u201d and sometimes life-changing complications.<\/p>\n

\u201cI believe that he is not competent to place implants,\u201d the oral surgeon, Dr. Creed Haymond, concluded. \u201cI give this opinion with soberness and sadness, but I feel I have a duty to aid the board in protecting the public from what appears to be an incompetent practitioner.\u201d<\/p>\n

His assessment of LaFeber\u2019s skills in restorative dentistry was also mentioned in a February 2023 order regarding agency action on LaFeber\u2019s license<\/a>. Haymond did not respond to interview requests.<\/p>\n

This was the second letter that Utah\u2019s Division of Professional Licensing had received recommending that LaFeber be stopped or limited from practicing after more than a decade of dentistry in Utah, according to records obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune and ProPublica. The agency licenses Utah dentists and other professionals and investigates allegations of misconduct.<\/p>\n

Two years prior, another dentist who had considered buying one of LaFeber\u2019s practices recommended LaFeber\u2019s license be revoked after looking through patient files: \u201cAs I started going through charts, as well as seeing the previous work, I began to realize how poor he treated these individuals,\u201d wrote Dr. Brandon McKee. \u201cPatients with failed implants are put on antibiotics and told to wait while the implant is continuing to heal. Some of these are for nine months.\u201d<\/p>\n

This letter was discussed in a September 2020 public dentistry board meeting<\/a>. McKee did not respond to interview requests.<\/p>\n

The licensing division\u2019s dentistry board \u2014 whose members are mostly dentists and hygienists \u2014 recommended to Utah licensing director Mark Steinagel in December 2022 that LaFeber\u2019s license be revoked after reviewing additional evidence suggesting his skills had not improved.<\/p>\n

But despite this recommendation and the letters of warning from his colleagues, Steinagel reinstated LaFeber\u2019s license in May 2023 after the dentist completed three years of probation, which included taking remedial classes.<\/p>\n

\"A<\/p>\n

Mark Steinagel, director of the state agency that licenses Utah professionals, reinstated Nicholas LaFeber\u2019s license even though the agency\u2019s dentistry board recommended that it be revoked.<\/p>\n

Credit:
\n Rick Egan\/The Salt Lake Tribune<\/p>\n

Since LaFeber\u2019s license was reinstated, new patients say they\u2019ve been hurt. The Tribune and ProPublica spoke with two patients who say they saw the dentist within the last year for what they believed would be routine cavity fillings. Instead, they say they left in pain that became prolonged and ultimately required the procedures to be redone by other dentists. Neither knew when they sought dental care that LaFeber had nearly lost his license after regulators determined his work fell below the standard of care.<\/p>\n

\u201cI had never had this done before, so I didn\u2019t know what\u2019s normal,\u201d said one patient, Michelle Lipsey. \u201cI was just like, \u2018He\u2019s an adult, male dentist. He probably knows what he\u2019s doing.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Lipsey filed a complaint against LaFeber with licensors in July detailing her experience, but the agency closed the case a month later and took no disciplinary action.<\/p>\n

LaFeber said he would not discuss individual patients because they did not grant him permission to do so. He told The Tribune and ProPublica that he has always tried to keep his patients\u2019 best interests in mind. \u201cI had a few outcomes from dental work that had complications and needed further treatment,\u201d he wrote in an email in response to questions.<\/p>\n

\u201cI assume every dentist encounters some percentage of negative patient outcomes and I have no reason to believe that my practice had a higher percentage than others.\u201d<\/p>\n

Melanie Hall, a spokesperson for Steinagel and the Division of Professional Licensing, said in response to questions that the division only revokes someone\u2019s license when their conduct has been \u201cespecially egregious\u201d because doing so \u201cends a career.\u201d<\/p>\n

The agency\u2019s top priority, she said, is keeping Utahns safe \u2014 but she added that it also wants to ensure that licensees have a chance at \u201cprofessional rehabilitation\u201d and, when appropriate, can continue to work and earn money.<\/p>\n

The state has revoked two dental licenses since June 2015, according to a Tribune and ProPublica examination of a decade\u2019s worth of publicly available licensing division records.<\/p>\n

Hall said that LaFeber\u2019s license was reinstated despite the dental board\u2019s recommendation because the dentist had finished the remedial courses that the board required him to take and his probationary period was ending. She noted that no other patients filed a complaint during that three-year period and that the dental board\u2019s role was to only make recommendations to Steinagel and his staff.<\/p>\n

That decision bothered some of those who served on the dental board during that time. Two former board members told The Tribune and ProPublica that they were frustrated state licensing division leaders did not listen to them and that they felt LaFeber should not practice dentistry given his record. Both spoke on the condition of anonymity because of potential professional repercussions.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou hate to take somebody\u2019s livelihood away from them when they\u2019ve gone through years of dental school and had a practice,\u201d one of the former board members said. \u201cBut the board\u2019s job is to protect the public.\u201d<\/p>\n

In LaFeber\u2019s case, the former board member said, \u201cthe public was not well-served.\u201d<\/p>\n

LaFeber, without knowing the identities of the board members, suggested that some might have been biased against him.<\/p>\n

\u201cEvery One of These Cases Was Alarming\u201d<\/p>\n

LaFeber said in public dentistry board meetings that he came to the attention of the licensing division in late 2019 after one of his former employees filed a complaint. He said the employee, who he said he had previously fired, directed licensors to more than a dozen cases in which he admitted during a board meeting that he had provided \u201cpoor patient care.\u201d<\/p>\n

State licensing officials could have suspended or revoked LaFeber\u2019s license, but instead, in early 2020, they struck an agreement with LaFeber \u2014 a common outcome in license discipline cases. According to the agreement, investigators found that some of the patients in those cases had had root canals that resulted in infections or needed to be redone. Licensors also determined that LaFeber had improperly placed permanent replacement teeth in other patients, including one whose implant extended into the sinus cavity, the document said.<\/p>\n

LaFeber agreed to spend three years on professional probation, during which he would be under the supervision of another dentist whose time he was required to pay for. He was still allowed to perform dental work during that period, according to the stipulation, but agreed not to do implant procedures or root canals.<\/p>\n

He was not required to tell his current or future patients about this discipline. Like most other states, Utah has no law requiring patient disclosure when a licensed professional is disciplined, and a review of more than 3,200 filings from the licensing division\u2019s website shows the state has rarely required disclosure of unprofessional conduct to patients.<\/p>\n

The Utah regulators who discipline licensed professionals act only when someone files a complaint, like what happened in LaFeber\u2019s case. \u201cWe don\u2019t have manpower or staffing for proactive investigations,\u201d Larry Marx, the state\u2019s health care licensing bureau manager, explained to the dental board in a 2020 public meeting.<\/p>\n

Once LaFeber was on probation, oversight of his progress moved to the dental board, an advisory group whose role it is to interview probationers in quarterly public meetings and make recommendations to Steinagel about whether the professionals completed their probation and if they should have their licenses reinstated.<\/p>\n

In these interviews with the dental board, LaFeber admitted his mistakes. He blamed bad outcomes on being burned out from owning four dental clinics, and he said he had done procedures on friends and acquaintances who actually needed more specialized care but didn\u2019t have the money.<\/p>\n

\u201cSome of it I will just admit was a poor, poor choice on my part,\u201d he told the board, according to a recording of the meeting. \u201cAnd I can also say for some of them, they are very dear friends of mine, that I have either coached their kids or helped them in Scouts or something else, single moms, and trying to help them out.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"A<\/p>\n

Dr. Nicholas LaFeber\u2019s profile on the website of his practice, Sandy Center Dental<\/p>\n

Credit:
\n Screenshot by ProPublica<\/p>\n

In addition to the problems that the former employee initially reported to the state licensing division, one dental board member, Dr. Ruedi Tillmann, looked at more than a dozen other files of LaFeber\u2019s during the first few months of his probation and found other cases in which Tillmann saw indications that patients had poor outcomes, according to a December 2020 board meeting.<\/p>\n

Tillmann, a dentist, said during the online meeting that he saw \u201ca number of cases\u201d where LaFeber did four or five implants on a single patient and none of them properly integrated into the patient\u2019s jawbone. \u201cPoor margins, open margins, implant crowns not sitting on implants correctly,\u201d he said about patient files he reviewed. \u201cI\u2019m sorry to be harsh. It\u2019s just that every one of these cases was alarming to me.\u201d<\/p>\n

Dr. Daniel Poulson, another dentist on the board, questioned why LaFeber would do substandard work on his patients, including people he said he knew and cared about.<\/p>\n

\u201cWith 30 cases, what that communicates to me is you didn\u2019t learn. You just kept doing it,\u201d Poulson said during the same meeting. \u201cAnd to blame that on being stressed or overworked \u2014 we\u2019re all stressed. Dentistry is an incredibly stressful profession. But that shouldn\u2019t, in my mind, make an excuse for ill-treating a patient. Using a lot of antibiotics to cover infections that last years is just out of bounds.\u201d<\/p>\n

LaFeber told the board during this meeting that he was confident he could improve his dentistry by taking continuing education courses and by being more selective about patients and referring them more often to specialists instead of trying to do the work himself.<\/p>\n

He also downsized to just one clinic, Sandy Center Dental, a wood-trimmed office suite in a large, tan stucco building located in a Salt Lake City suburb at the base of the Wasatch Mountains.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey Were So Disgusted With All the Problems\u201d<\/p>\n

LaFeber met with the dental board 11 times during his probation in public meetings that were often conducted on video calls because of the coronavirus pandemic. He was cheerful and agreeable during meetings, even at times when board members asked him pointed, critical questions about his work.<\/p>\n

His polite nature was noted several times in records reviewed by The Tribune and ProPublica. For example, McKee, the dentist who had considered buying LaFeber\u2019s practice, wrote in his letter to the board that LaFeber came across as a \u201chumble,\u201d \u201cvery nice guy\u201d who patients trusted. A dentist who leads a dental examination agency wrote in his summary of an exam that LaFeber took that he was \u201coverly pleasant to the extreme.\u201d<\/p>\n

Members of the dental board remarked during public meetings about how \u201cunique\u201d LaFeber\u2019s case was, and they questioned what the right metric would be to determine whether his dentistry had improved and he was safe to work with patients.<\/p>\n

Utah licensors rarely discipline dentists over whether they are competent to do their jobs, an analysis by The Tribune and ProPublica found. A review of disciplinary records from the last decade shows dentists most often getting in trouble for drug or alcohol use or for overprescribing or diverting prescriptions.<\/p>\n

Hall, the licensing division spokesperson, said the agency does not track how many standard-of-care complaints it receives, but acknowledged that proving those types of cases tends to be difficult.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs a result, they are less likely to lead to disciplinary actions compared to cases involving drug use, unlawful behavior, or practicing outside one\u2019s scope of practice,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

But tension was growing between LaFeber and the dental board: While LaFeber had taken a few online, self-paced courses, board members felt he needed more intensive, hands-on classes to improve.<\/p>\n

A breaking point between LaFeber and the board occurred near the end of LaFeber\u2019s probation. At the December 2022 dental board meeting, LaFeber peppered members with questions about the board\u2019s role governing probationers and implied that a board member had acted improperly by soliciting complaints about him.<\/p>\n

The board seemed equally frustrated; LaFeber still hadn\u2019t enrolled in the hands-on courses they had required him to take, programs that could have cost up to $50,000. LaFeber had instead taken a licensure exam and failed several sections, according to a copy of the exam results obtained by The Tribune and ProPublica, which was also referenced in the 2023 agency order<\/a>.<\/p>\n

LaFeber did not respond on the record to questions about these test results.<\/p>\n

Given the test results, Poulson, who had become board chair, said in the public meeting that he worried whether LaFeber would be able to practice dentistry safely by the following February, when his probation period would end.<\/p>\n

\u201cI have two doctors that once tried to buy your practice. They gave it back because they were so disgusted with all the problems they were having with patients,\u201d Tillmann, one of the board members, said in that same meeting, recalling previous conversations he had.<\/p>\n

\"A<\/p>\n

LaFeber\u2019s practice, Sandy Center Dental. LeFeber was not required to tell his current or future patients about his probation.<\/p>\n

Credit:
\n Francisco Kjolseth\/The Salt Lake Tribune<\/p>\n

Poulson suggested that the group make a motion recommending that the state licensing division either revoke or suspend LaFeber\u2019s license, saying that the action would be \u201cprotecting the public from inferior care.\u201d The board unanimously voted to recommend revocation.<\/p>\n

A few months later, Marx issued the agency order stating that LaFeber\u2019s license should be suspended until he could demonstrate he could practice dentistry \u201cwith reasonable skill and safety.\u201d<\/p>\n

LaFeber, though, had one more chance to respond before the suspension would take effect. Soon after the agency order, LaFeber enrolled in and completed his remedial training. He also hired an attorney who signaled his intent to fight the agency\u2019s action, according to public records.<\/p>\n

In response, Marx requested that the agency\u2019s move<\/a> to suspend LaFeber\u2019s license be dismissed, noting that LaFeber said he had delayed complying with the dental board\u2019s requirement that he complete further training because of \u201cfinancial limitations.\u201d Then, Steinagel reinstated LaFeber\u2019s license<\/a>.<\/p>\n

By this point, Steinagel\u2019s agency knew not only about the reports of patients with improper tooth implants and the failed root canals that led to LaFeber\u2019s probation, it also knew the state dental board had recommended that LaFeber\u2019s license be revoked.<\/p>\n

In addition, the agency was aware LaFeber had been sued three times for medical malpractice \u2014 including by a patient who alleged he had implants placed in his sinuses, which caused sepsis, and another patient who said in her lawsuit that, after months of painful infections, she went to another dentist who found a broken dental instrument lodged in her gums. (LaFeber told The Tribune and ProPublica these lawsuits were settled by his medical malpractice insurance carrier and there was never any determination made that his treatment fell below the standard of care.)<\/p>\n

LaFeber said in response to questions that he was not aware of any recommendation from the board to revoke his license \u2014\u00a0though according to recordings and minutes of the public dentistry board meetings, he was present when the dentistry board took its vote. The board\u2019s revocation recommendation is also referenced in the agency order he received, which The Tribune and ProPublica obtained through a public records request.<\/p>\n

The dentist said he felt he was treated fairly by licensors and most members of the dentistry board, but added that he felt one board member did not disclose a conflict of interest and had a \u201cpersonal vendetta\u201d against him. LaFeber did not respond on the record to follow-up questions asking for further details. He said he complied with every request by licensors and its dentistry board and \u201ceven went above and beyond\u201d by taking additional continuing education. He noted that he passed the remediation courses and related tests that the board had requested.<\/p>\n

\u201cI also worked with a supervising dentist, at significant expense, who reviewed my work and provided mentoring for 3 years between 2020 and 2023,\u201d LaFeber wrote.<\/p>\n

After taking these courses, he said, he has been able to incorporate new technology in his practices that has improved patient outcomes. \u201cDentistry is an area that is constantly evolving with so much new technology,\u201d he said, \u201cand I welcome all information sources that can help me improve my practice.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Tribune and ProPublica asked the two former board members who spoke to the news organizations whether their vote to recommend LaFeber\u2019s license be revoked would have changed if they had the opportunity to weigh in again after he had completed his remedial training.<\/p>\n

One former board member said they didn\u2019t think the training completed to satisfy the state was enough to overcome years of poor dentistry. Another said that nothing seems to have changed given new patient complaints. Three board members who were involved in LaFeber\u2019s case declined to comment for this story, and four others could not be reached.<\/p>\n

New Patients Say They Were Harmed<\/p>\n

With his license restored, LaFeber started to once again grow his business. Public records show he still owns Sandy Center Dental, and in July 2024 he got a business license for a second clinic about 10 miles to the west. (An online ad this summer indicated LaFeber was trying to sell his second practice.)<\/p>\n

LaFeber is referenced as the sole dentist on websites for both of these businesses. In his response to The Tribune and ProPublica, he said he owns and operates a single office, Sandy Center Dental, where he works four days a week. A Sept. 23 search of public business records show he is still listed as the registered agent and principal for both practices. LaFeber said he helped start the second office, Parkway Smile Center, but said it is now \u201centirely owned and managed by another dentist.\u201d The new owner could not be reached for comment.<\/p>\n

In the nearly two years since LaFeber\u2019s full return to practice, at least two more patients have publicly complained they were harmed under his care, both of whom The Tribune and ProPublica contacted after they left negative online reviews.<\/p>\n

Michelle Lipsey had been a patient at Sandy Center Dental for nearly eight years, but she said in an interview that she hadn\u2019t been to the dentist for a couple years after her second child was born. She said LaFeber told her during an October 2024 appointment that she needed five cavities filled. She returned a week later for the procedures.<\/p>\n

For weeks after, Lipsey was in pain, and she returned to Sandy Center Dental later that month, complaining that she couldn\u2019t sleep and was only able to eat soft food, according to her medical records. LaFeber redid some of the fillings, medical records show, but Lipsey said the pain persisted. She said a second dentist told her that LaFeber hadn\u2019t properly sealed the fillings and had drilled far deeper than he needed to.<\/p>\n

LaFeber noted in her medical records that he tried to call and text Lipsey after she left a negative review online. \u201cRemember patient was very nervous,\u201d her patient file reads. \u201cWe tried our best to help calm but at no point had the appointment gone as she described in the post.\u201d<\/p>\n

Haley Stafford described a similar experience earlier this year. She said that, based on what LeFeber told her, she was expecting to have two cavities filled during a March appointment; instead, he put fillings in seven teeth. She recalled in an interview that his hands shook when he gave her numbing shots. (The testing exam results reviewed by The Tribune and ProPublica also noted LaFeber\u2019s unsteady hands.)<\/p>\n

\u201cThat was the first time he actually did work on me,\u201d she said. \u201cAnd it was completely botched.\u201d<\/p>\n

She\u2019s been in near-daily pain since, she said, and has needed more dental work on her affected teeth, including two root canals. Stafford found a new dentist, but the repair work has cost her thousands of dollars.<\/p>\n

Both Stafford and Lipsey said LaFeber contacted them about refunding their money.<\/p>\n

LaFeber said he doesn\u2019t recall refunding money to any patients after a complaint. He said he could not comment on specific cases to protect patient privacy, but said that sensitivity and pain can happen after a treatment.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe try to do all we can to minimize it,\u201d he said. \u201cThe presence of pain does not demonstrate treatment that fell below the standard of care.\u201d<\/p>\n

Lipsey filed a complaint with licensors in late July and said she was interviewed by an investigator and shared X-rays from before and after LaFeber filled her cavities.<\/p>\n

Licensors sent Lipsey an email in late August saying that they were closing the case and that \u201cappropriate action was taken,\u201d according to a screenshot of the email Lipsey shared with The Tribune and ProPublica. They would not tell her what that action was, saying the investigative record was considered private under Utah law. Licensing officials declined to comment on the outcome of Lipsey\u2019s complaint.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\n A Utah Therapist Built a Reputation for Helping Gay Latter-day Saints. These Men Say He Sexually Abused Them.\n <\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

If licensors had disciplined LaFeber, it would be considered a public record. The agency has the option to address a complaint informally by giving a verbal warning to a licensed professional or writing a letter of concern. Those measures typically are not disclosed to the public.<\/p>\n

LaFeber told The Tribune and ProPublica that Lipsey\u2019s complaint was dismissed and he did not receive any warnings or a letter of concern. Licensors \u201cinvestigated it thoroughly and found it to be meritless,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

LaFeber\u2019s license remains in good standing, according to the state\u2019s licensing database in September. <\/p>\n

Stafford hasn\u2019t filed a complaint with the state and said she had no idea LaFeber had nearly lost his license until a reporter reached out to her. <\/p>\n

How does a dentist nearly \u201close their license and get it back,\u201d she asked, \u201cand patients are not aware of that?\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"This article was produced for ProPublica\u2019s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Salt Lake Tribune. Sign up…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":171998,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[34],"tags":[49,48,84,392],"class_list":{"0":"post-171997","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-healthcare","8":"tag-ca","9":"tag-canada","10":"tag-health","11":"tag-healthcare"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171997","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=171997"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171997\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/171998"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171997"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171997"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171997"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}