Dentist suspended for six months for paid and unfinished treatment

The Honor Tribunal of the College of Dental Surgeons of Costa Rica suspended the professional practice of Dr. Luis Carlos Ramírez Rodríguez for six months for failing to fulfill his ethical duties to a patient who paid for a dental treatment that was never completed. The resolution, issued at 9:30 hours on July 23, 2026, is published for the second time in La Gaceta No. 187 on Monday, October 5, 2026, pages 185 to 192, under official reference IN202601127353.

The case corresponds to file 048-2022, opened following the complaint that Ms. Flor de María Montoya Romero, ID 1-0433-0940, filed on December 14, 2022, before the Prosecutor’s Office of the College of Dental Surgeons of Costa Rica against the dentist Dr. Luis Carlos Ramírez Rodríguez, ID 1-1110-0685 and license 317806. The complaint invoked articles IV and VIII of the Code of Ethics of the College of Dental Surgeons of Costa Rica, published in La Gaceta No. 246 on December 22, 2011, and in effect at the time of the events.

The procedure went through the Prosecutor’s Office, the Directing Body, and an oral and private hearing held on May 14, 2026, to which only the complainant appeared. On June 11, 2026, the Directing Body recommended declaring the complaint well-founded and transferred the file to the Honor Tribunal, which issued the final act. The first publication was made in La Gaceta No. 186 on October 2, 2026.

A 2015 treatment paid for and never finished

The proven facts establish the origin of the case on September 18, 2015, when the patient visited the professional’s office and they agreed upon an aesthetic dental and interceptive orthodontic treatment for her grandson. The accredited elements are:

• Agreed amount: ¢1,090,000.00 (one million ninety thousand colones), paid via bank transfers made by the complainant’s husband, Walter Guillermo Guevara González, with a receipt dated 09/18/2015.
• Agreed scope: care for the maxilla and mandible, plus the pediatric treatment for the grandson.
• Executed: an upper bridge from pieces 1.7 to 2.7, cemented in 2015 and decemented approximately in 2020.
• Pending: all care for the mandible, which was never performed.
• Expected duration: approximately three months, according to the communications provided in the file.

The Tribunal considered it proven that the patient repeatedly requested the completion of the work between 2016 and 2022, through messages and appointment requests, and that the professional changed offices several times and rescheduled appointments due to trips, lack of water in the clinic, medical leaves, and the pandemic.

Diligence, continuity, and obligation of means

The Tribunal concluded that there was a breach of article IV of the Code of Ethics, which requires honest, diligent, and equal care, and article VIII, which allows for the acceptance or rejection of patients but mandates the justification of the interruption of a treatment already initiated and the effort to ensure its continuity. It also noted that, having received an advance payment, it was the professional’s responsibility to prove which portion was applied to the treatment and to return the unapplied amount.

Regarding the upper bridge, the Tribunal ruled out disciplinary responsibility for its decementation, as negligence in its placement was not proven and it was considered an obligation of means and not of results. The reprimand focused on the lack of diligence and the absence of an effective solution for compromised care that was paid for but not completed.

Sanction, appeals, and publication

The imposed sanction is the suspension of professional practice for six months, with a record placed in the sanctioned individual’s professional file. The following appeals are available against the resolution:

• Motion for reconsideration, within eight business days following its notification, resolved by the same body.
• Appeal before the Board of Directors, pursuant to article 56 of the Regulations for Administrative Disciplinary Procedures, published in La Gaceta No. 5 on January 13, 2023.

The act bears the signatures of the Tribunal members Dr. Roberto Gazel González, Dr. Andrés Furchtgott Barrios, Dr. Carolina Madriz Arce, Dr. Heilyn Quirós Abarca, and Dr. Carol Calvo Domingo.

The resolution establishes a relevant criterion for patients: a treatment paid for in advance is not exhausted by its commencement, and the professional must justify its interruption, guarantee continuity, or return the unapplied amounts. The case also demonstrates that prolonged silence in the face of a pending obligation can result in the temporary suspension of professional practice.

Source: La Gaceta, No. 187 of October 5, 2026, Section I (notices), pp. 185-192 (official reference: IN202601127353).