I lost $31,279.46 to Dr. Rubinoff for dental work which was criticized by three other specialists (a periodontist and two other prosthodontists) and which had to be completely redone by another prosthodontist. This is what the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario wrote after completing their malpractice investigation (quoted verbatim from their official report):
"The panel felt that Dr. Rubinoff rushed the treatment..." (pg. 16)
"The panel was very concerned that Dr. Rubinoff did not conduct a proper pre-surgical case work-up including obtaining the necessary diagnostic imaging. The panel had serious concerns that there was no radiograph..." (pg. 17)
"This scan and analysis would have guided Dr. Rubinoff in selecting the appropriate placement of the implants. The Iack of appropriate imaging is also a further reason why Dr. Rubinoff should have waited and not rushed the treatment.
In addition to the lack of appropriate imaging, the prosthetic design was not easier to clean as promised by Dr. Rubinoff...." (pg. 17)
"The panel was concerned about the overall lack of professional judgment demonstrated by Dr. Rubinoff...Not only was there a Iack of appropriate imaging, sufficient treatment planning, and a disregard for the professional opinion of other colleagues...Dr. Rubinoff should have proposed a much Iess expensive alternative..." (pg. 19)
"...the ICR Comrnittee (Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee) has identified clinical issues requiring remediation or significant improvement and that pose a moderate risk of directly affecting patient care or safety or the public interest..." (pg. 25)
"Dr. Rubinoff should conduct a proper pre-surgical case work-up including obtaining the necessary diagnostic imaging and treatment planning for implant placement..." (pg. 26)
"Dr. Rubinoff should not be dismissive of the opinion and perspective of other colleagues and should encourage patients to obtain a second opinion when doubts are cast on his treatment plan" (pg. 26)
"Dr. Rubinoff should use appropriate professional judgment when recommending treatment options." (pg. 26)
"Dr. Rubinoff should take care to ensure that he is not attempting to mislead the College and should demonstrate insight by admitting to errors which are clearly demonstrated." (pg. 26)
"...The panel is very concerned that despite the complainant's clear request for records, Dr. Rubinoff failed to provide XXX(redacted) with the requested records..." (pg. 20)
The above are excerpts quoted from the Dental College's full disciplinary decision (some segments excised, but no words altered). A summary of this decision is posted online here (only a summary is posted, but not the full decision):
The attached photos speak for themselves. Dr. Rubinoff actually told the Dental College that the ugly protruding implant was "precisely planned". This is what the Dental College had to say about Dr. Rubinoff's balogne explanation (quoted verbatim):
"The panel, based on the information in the record, could not accept that Dr. Rubinoff planned for this implant to be placed such that it would be visible which is aesthetically unappealing and felt that this may have been an attempt to mislead the College...The panel found it offensive that Dr. Rubinoff submitted that implant 22 was precisely planned..." (pg. 18)
(THESE WORDS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES ABOUT DR. RUBINOFF'S ABILITY TO REPORT THINGS TRUTHFULLY.)
I wish to be clear that this review is MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION, ABOUT ONLY MY OWN PERSONAL ISOLATED EXPERIENCE as a patient, and NOT about Dr. Rubinoff’s practice in general, which may be full of satisfied and well-served patients, NOR the other dentists in his clinic whom may be highly skilled.
Rubinoff Morley S Dr Reviews
I lost $31,279.46 to Dr. Rubinoff for dental work which was criticized by three other specialists (a periodontist and two other prosthodontists) and which had to be completely redone by another prosthodontist. This is what the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario wrote after completing their malpractice investigation (quoted verbatim from their official report):
"The panel felt that Dr. Rubinoff rushed the treatment..." (pg. 16)
"The panel was very concerned that Dr. Rubinoff did not conduct a proper pre-surgical case work-up including obtaining the necessary diagnostic imaging. The panel had serious concerns that there was no radiograph..." (pg. 17)
"This scan and analysis would have guided Dr. Rubinoff in selecting the appropriate placement of the implants. The Iack of appropriate imaging is also a further reason why Dr. Rubinoff should have waited and not rushed the treatment.
In addition to the lack of appropriate imaging, the prosthetic design was not easier to clean as promised by Dr. Rubinoff...." (pg. 17)
"The panel was concerned about the overall lack of professional judgment demonstrated by Dr. Rubinoff...Not only was there a Iack of appropriate imaging, sufficient treatment planning, and a disregard for the professional opinion of other colleagues...Dr. Rubinoff should have proposed a much Iess expensive alternative..." (pg. 19)
"...the ICR Comrnittee (Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee) has identified clinical issues requiring remediation or significant improvement and that pose a moderate risk of directly affecting patient care or safety or the public interest..." (pg. 25)
"Dr. Rubinoff should conduct a proper pre-surgical case work-up including obtaining the necessary diagnostic imaging and treatment planning for implant placement..." (pg. 26)
"Dr. Rubinoff should not be dismissive of the opinion and perspective of other colleagues and should encourage patients to obtain a second opinion when doubts are cast on his treatment plan" (pg. 26)
"Dr. Rubinoff should use appropriate professional judgment when recommending treatment options." (pg. 26)
"Dr. Rubinoff should take care to ensure that he is not attempting to mislead the College and should demonstrate insight by admitting to errors which are clearly demonstrated." (pg. 26)
"...The panel is very concerned that despite the complainant's clear request for records, Dr. Rubinoff failed to provide XXX(redacted) with the requested records..." (pg. 20)
The above are excerpts quoted from the Dental College's full disciplinary decision (some segments excised, but no words altered). A summary of this decision is posted online here (only a summary is posted, but not the full decision):
https://www.rcdso.org/en-ca/find-a-dentist/search-results/dentist?id=c7g9zdov22fkhGtSDSUTa1dST46jfQC1ptI73c8YWUwI9jr5VmcZwH1zJG%2Fbwn%2Bc#Complaints
The attached photos speak for themselves. Dr. Rubinoff actually told the Dental College that the ugly protruding implant was "precisely planned". This is what the Dental College had to say about Dr. Rubinoff's balogne explanation (quoted verbatim):
"The panel, based on the information in the record, could not accept that Dr. Rubinoff planned for this implant to be placed such that it would be visible which is aesthetically unappealing and felt that this may have been an attempt to mislead the College...The panel found it offensive that Dr. Rubinoff submitted that implant 22 was precisely planned..." (pg. 18)
(THESE WORDS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES ABOUT DR. RUBINOFF'S ABILITY TO REPORT THINGS TRUTHFULLY.)
I wish to be clear that this review is MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION, ABOUT ONLY MY OWN PERSONAL ISOLATED EXPERIENCE as a patient, and NOT about Dr. Rubinoff’s practice in general, which may be full of satisfied and well-served patients, NOR the other dentists in his clinic whom may be highly skilled.