- Email: [email protected]
New Jersey Law against Advertising Upheld
Association Activities
139
AIDING AND ABETTING B e f o r e the California Appellate Court in 19 14 came the case wherein the point was raised o f aiding and abetting an un licensed person in the practice of den tistry, and that part o f the statute which makes aiding and abetting a ground for canceling the certificate o f a licensed per son was held as valid. (Lassen v. Board o f Dental Examiners, 24 Cal. App. 767 . 19 14 .) The same question was raised in an eastern court and that tribunal held that the assisting o f an unregistered per son in the practice o f dentistry is grounds for revocation. (Davis v. Calderwood, 251 Mass. 283 . 1925 .) The courts o f California were again called on to decide the validity o f the statute as it relates to aiding and abetting when, in 1927 , the cases o f Osborne v. Baughman, 85 Cal. App. 224 , and
Meaghes v. Board o f Dental Examiners, 87 Cal. App. 193 , were brought for judi cation. The statute was upheld as valid. A later case of aiding and abetting was held sufficient for revocation. The ac cused took exception to the rules o f the board in its conduct o f the hearing. The court held that the rules o f pleading in criminal cases do not apply to proceedings before the board. A writ o f certiorari was asked on the grounds o f prejudice of the members o f the board. The writ was de nied by the court, with the statement that prejudice o f members does not disqualify members from hearing the proceedings. In this case, the action o f the Superior Court in reversing the action o f the Board was held as error. (Winning v. Board o f Dental Examiners, 114 Cal. App. 658 ; 300 Pac. 866. 19 31 .)
N EW JERSEY LA W AGAINST ADVERTISING UPHELD T h e New Jersey State Supreme Court, October 18 , upheld the constitutionality o f the state dental practice act, enacted in 1934 .
The state board o f registration and examination in dentistry had suspended the license o f Dr. William Levine, of Jersey City, for violation o f that pro vision o f the act prohibiting dentists from advertising prices, and a test suit appeal ing this action of the board followed. The board had twice previously re voked this license, only to have it re stored on technicalities following appeal and court action. Counsel for Dr. Levine contended that the law deprived a dentist o f constitu tional rights and vested the board with improper exercise o f police powers. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled, in an opinion written by Justice Bodine,
It is clear that the legislature of this state, in authorizing the revocation or suspension of the license of a dentist who advertised his product, or the price, or charges to be paid therefor, or the durability of his work in defiance of the manner specified in the act, was enacting a law necessary to protect the public from the wiles and artifices of charla tans. The issue before the state board in sus pending his (Dr. Levine’s) license upon the charges made was simply whether he had resorted to the prohibited practice, and it is not necessary for it to investigate the truth or falsity of the advertisements adduced, since they admittedly offend against the leg islative concept of proper dental practice. The practice of dentistry is not a business but a privilege, and the practice thereof is subject to state regulation in the interest of the public. It is proper that the state should take steps to prevent licensed dentists from resorting to the well-known practice of char latans and quacks.
139
AIDING AND ABETTING B e f o r e the California Appellate Court in 19 14 came the case wherein the point was raised o f aiding and abetting an un licensed person in the practice of den tistry, and that part o f the statute which makes aiding and abetting a ground for canceling the certificate o f a licensed per son was held as valid. (Lassen v. Board o f Dental Examiners, 24 Cal. App. 767 . 19 14 .) The same question was raised in an eastern court and that tribunal held that the assisting o f an unregistered per son in the practice o f dentistry is grounds for revocation. (Davis v. Calderwood, 251 Mass. 283 . 1925 .) The courts o f California were again called on to decide the validity o f the statute as it relates to aiding and abetting when, in 1927 , the cases o f Osborne v. Baughman, 85 Cal. App. 224 , and
Meaghes v. Board o f Dental Examiners, 87 Cal. App. 193 , were brought for judi cation. The statute was upheld as valid. A later case of aiding and abetting was held sufficient for revocation. The ac cused took exception to the rules o f the board in its conduct o f the hearing. The court held that the rules o f pleading in criminal cases do not apply to proceedings before the board. A writ o f certiorari was asked on the grounds o f prejudice of the members o f the board. The writ was de nied by the court, with the statement that prejudice o f members does not disqualify members from hearing the proceedings. In this case, the action o f the Superior Court in reversing the action o f the Board was held as error. (Winning v. Board o f Dental Examiners, 114 Cal. App. 658 ; 300 Pac. 866. 19 31 .)
N EW JERSEY LA W AGAINST ADVERTISING UPHELD T h e New Jersey State Supreme Court, October 18 , upheld the constitutionality o f the state dental practice act, enacted in 1934 .
The state board o f registration and examination in dentistry had suspended the license o f Dr. William Levine, of Jersey City, for violation o f that pro vision o f the act prohibiting dentists from advertising prices, and a test suit appeal ing this action of the board followed. The board had twice previously re voked this license, only to have it re stored on technicalities following appeal and court action. Counsel for Dr. Levine contended that the law deprived a dentist o f constitu tional rights and vested the board with improper exercise o f police powers. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled, in an opinion written by Justice Bodine,
It is clear that the legislature of this state, in authorizing the revocation or suspension of the license of a dentist who advertised his product, or the price, or charges to be paid therefor, or the durability of his work in defiance of the manner specified in the act, was enacting a law necessary to protect the public from the wiles and artifices of charla tans. The issue before the state board in sus pending his (Dr. Levine’s) license upon the charges made was simply whether he had resorted to the prohibited practice, and it is not necessary for it to investigate the truth or falsity of the advertisements adduced, since they admittedly offend against the leg islative concept of proper dental practice. The practice of dentistry is not a business but a privilege, and the practice thereof is subject to state regulation in the interest of the public. It is proper that the state should take steps to prevent licensed dentists from resorting to the well-known practice of char latans and quacks.