Case against Rutland dentist proceeds
By Brent Curtis
STAFF WRITER | November 10,2012
An embattled Rutland dentist faced with two dozen criminal charges is no longer practicing under the terms of a state Board of Dental Examiners suspension.
Dr. Peter B. Gray closed his practice on Allen Street of his own accord in October 2011, but state regulators say he would need to satisfy a number of conditions to ever practice in the state again.
Gray, 54, began practicing dentistry in Vermont in 1993 but has been sanctioned repeatedly by the board since his license was revoked in October 2007 after he tested positive for using the drug fentanyl — a strong narcotic painkiller.
His license was returned on conditional status in 2008 after Gray underwent substance abuse treatment.
But in 2010, the state Attorney General’s Office charged Gray with 23 felony counts of making fraudulent claims of service to the Medicaid program — charges Gray has denied.
Gray also pleaded innocent in December 2011 to a felony charge of lewd and lascivious conduct for allegedly molesting a woman while she was under anaesthesia for a dental procedure.
A jury draw for trial on the fraud cases is set for Jan. 23, 2013.
Gray was also sued in 2009 by a New York woman who said he drugged and raped her at his home in April 2009 and another lawsuit was filed in 2010 by a Rutland man who said Gray pulled 22 of his teeth in the course of an hour in 2010.
Months after the dental practice closed last year, state regulators asked the Board of Dental Examiners to suspend his license because Gray had confided that he was suffering from depression.
In a deposition, Gray said he would not practice dentistry again until his medical providers recommend it.
In their decision, board members said Gray’s license would be suspended to protect his patients.
But in conditions attached to his suspended license, the board set forth a number of benchmarks Gray would need to reach to have his license returned — including that he is “medically and psychologically fit,” has completed any recommended treatment and that “his return to the practice of dentistry does not present a risk to the health, safety and welfare of his potential patients.”