A Skagit County dentist has agreed to an indefinite suspension of his license to practice, a decision finalized in February with the Washington Department of Health. This disciplinary measure marks the latest chapter in a long-standing history of regulatory issues for the physician, who originally received his state credential in 1983. While the current suspension stems from his failure to adhere to the terms of a 2023 agreement, records indicate that concerns regarding his office practices and patient privacy protocols date back more than a decade.

The earliest documented interaction between the dentist and the state regulatory body occurred on October 7, 2014, following an anonymous complaint from a patient. At that time, the practitioner had been in the profession for 31 years. The initial report described a dental evaluation that fell below standard levels of care and highlighted significant hygiene concerns within the clinic.

The 2014 statement of allegations detailed several specific infractions. The complainant noted that the dentist was treating patients while wearing street clothes, without a mask or eye protection. Further issues included the absence of a sink in the treatment room, the unsanitary handling of instruments, and the dentist’s inability to produce proof of Hepatitis B vaccination. His CPR certification was also found to be expired by five years. Beyond physical hygiene, the patient alleged serious violations of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy standards, specifically regarding the transfer of care to another provider without adequate safeguards for sensitive information.

Just two weeks after the private complaint, Adult Protective Services reported the dentist to the Department of Health. Their report cited substandard care provided to an elderly woman and an unclean office environment. In response, a state investigator visited the clinic on November 19, 2014. The findings from that visit corroborated the earlier reports, leading to a formal statement of allegations issued in March 2015.

The investigator’s report listed multiple specific deficiencies. It was noted that the operatory used for patient treatment lacked a sink. Additionally, the x-ray head and its control panel, located in the hallway opposite the sterilization area, were not covered with protective barriers. The dentist was observed treating patients while wearing street clothes and without personal protective equipment; the patients themselves also lacked eye protection.

Records of sterilization were also incomplete. The dentist failed to maintain a log for spore tests and could not provide full monitoring program results for biological spore testing. A log tracking sterile solutions was also missing. As with the initial complaint, the investigator confirmed that the dentist could not produce Hepatitis B vaccination records and that his CPR and First Aid certification had lapsed approximately five years prior. The clinic also lacked an automated external defibrillator (AED) and a blood pressure cuff.

Privacy controls were found to be inadequate during the investigation. The dentist was observed discussing treatment recommendations for a patient in a manner that was audible to others waiting in the lobby. Furthermore, he conducted the intake process for a new patient, including a review of their medical history, at the front counter where other individuals could overhear the conversation.

Commission Reviews Practice Conditions

Approximately 60 photographs depicting the state of the clinic were submitted to the Dental Quality Assurance Commission. After examining the images, the Commission concluded that the dentist's operations did not adhere to infection control regulations and presented a danger to patient well-being.

Terms of First Stipulation

The practitioner entered into a stipulated agreement with the Department of Health, consenting to engage a third-party dental practice compliance consultant to suggest operational improvements. He further agreed to implement those recommendations. The agreement also required the practitioner to reimburse the state for a $4,000 investigation bill.

Additionally, the practitioner was mandated to complete four hours of continuing education regarding infection control and four hours covering HIPAA and patient privacy. He was also required to sit for and pass the Commission’s jurisprudence examination within six months of signing the stipulation.

It remains unclear which document the practitioner was referencing in a handwritten note on the release form stating, “OK!! I signed the previous one too. -JJ.” It is notable that the stipulation contains subsection 2.3, which reads: “The disciplinary authority considered the following mitigating factors: A. Lack of prior disciplinary record.”

Nine months later, the Department of Health confirmed that the terms of the agreement had been satisfied, releasing the practitioner from the stipulation's conditions.

Second Investigation Launched

On May 23, 2023, another anonymous complaint was filed, prompting the Department of Health to initiate a second investigation into the practitioner's conduct. The allegations raised in the 2023 action were strikingly similar to those from 2014.

Quoting directly from the investigator’s findings dated June 14, 2023:

A. Respondent did not maintain written infection policies and procedures. B. Respondent did not maintain documentation of annual reviews of current office infection prevention policies. C. Respondent did not perform waterline testing and did not maintain documentation of waterline testing results. D. Weekly spore test logs were only available for the period of January 16, 2023 through April 7, 2023. A testing kit was located with an expiration date of July 31, 2021. E. The high-volume evacuation (HVE) was present but not used. Sterile instruments and supplies were stored in uncovered containers on the counter. F. The high-volume evacuation (HVE) was present but not used. Sterile instruments and supplies were stored in uncovered containers on the counter.

Terms of Second Stipulation

Four months after the second investigation identified continued sanitation issues, the Department of Health and the practitioner entered into a second stipulated agreement. Once again, the practitioner was required to engage a third party. However, instead of a general compliance consultant, the Department of Health mandated the payment for a one-time infection control inspection conducted by a specific provider, Harris Biomedical.

The practitioner was also fined $2,000, and the Department of Health agreed to conduct three random inspections of the practice over the following two years. The practitioner was again directed to take and pass the Commission’s jurisprudence examination.

2024 Unannounced Visit

On July 15, 2024, an investigator conducted an unannounced visit to the practice and reported further instances of unprofessional conduct. The investigator identified numerous infection control failures, including:

  • The practitioner leaving a patient in the chair to complete another task, but not removing his gloves, and then going directly back to the patient in the chair without changing gloves.
  • No sink in the patient care room
  • Touching contaminated instruments with bare hands

Deficiencies in Sanitation and Protocol Led to Suspension of Dental Practice

An investigation into a Sequim-based dental practice revealed a pattern of lapses in infection control and operational procedures, prompting the Department of Health to bring formal charges against the practicing dentist. Among the concerns documented were inconsistent surface disinfection, inadequate handling of sterilization equipment when spore test results fell short, and unsafe needle disposal methods. Further issues included an uncovered ultrasonic cleaner, tools stored without protective packaging in open cabinets and containers, and environmental conditions marked by persistent musty smells, ceiling water stains, and exposed electrical components shielded only by towels.

The department issued formal accusations of Unprofessional Conduct against Dr. Jech on September 9, 2025—more than a decade after the first complaint was filed and more than a year following the conclusion of the final site inspection in July 2024. By month’s end, on September 30, Dr. Jech agreed to an indefinite hold on his dental practice authorization as part of a stipulated resolution.

The Department of Health has been asked to release all documentation concerning complaints, inspections, and correspondence involving Dr. Jech. While the agency has begun compiling these materials, no public records indicate that affected patients received direct compensation or were contacted for follow-up assessments after potential exposures.

Efforts to assess patient outreach or remediation efforts are ongoing, with no visible restitution programs identified to date.