- Email: [email protected]
From the States Legislation & Litigation
From the States LE G IS L A T IO N
&
LI T IG A T IO N
Tw o new laws are included in th is m onth's report. The January report listed those states that exem pt purchases of d rugs or m edicines fro m state sales and use taxes. As o f Jan 1, M ichigan became the 30th state to grant such an exem ption. A New Jersey law a p p lic able to all licensing agencies perm its fo rm e r convicts to qu alify fo r license under certain circum stances.
Michigan ■ T h e M ichigan e x e m p tio n fro m sales an d u se ta x e s fo r d ru g s is lim ited to p re s c rip tio n d ru g s fo r h u m an u se d isp e n se d by p h a rm a c ists on th e p re sc rip tio n o f a p h y sic ia n o r o th e r lic e n se d p ra c titio n e rs o f th e healing arts. New Jersey ■ L icen sin g a u th o ritie s m ay no lo n g er re je c t a n a p p lic a n t on th e sole g ro u n d th a t he is an e x c o n v ic t. A licensing b o a rd m ay re je c t an e x c o n v ic t’s ap p licatio n if his c o n v ic tio n w as fo r a g riev o u s, so -calle d c a p ital crim e. F o r co n v ic ts se n te n c e d u n d e r o th e r kinds o f crim e s, th e b o a rd m ay re ject an ap p licatio n o n ly if th e c o n v ic tio n w as fo r a crim e th a t “ re lates a d v ersely to th e o c c u p a tio n , tra d e , v o c a tio n , p ro fe ssio n o r b u si n e ss fo r w hich th e licen se or c e rtifi c a te is s o u g h t.”
LITIGATION
Three cases involve dentists in m alpractice situa tions in th is m o nth’s report. One case portrays a dispute between a county dental g roup and their state dental society. Two tax case decisions unfavorable to dentists com plete th is m o nth's review.
California juries exonerate two dentists from nerve injury claims ■ In o n e c a se th e d e n tist e x tra c te d a n im p a c te d
th ird m olar. T h e p lain tiff-p atien t c o m p la in e d o f d am ag e to th e lingual n e rv e resu ltin g in p e rm a n e n t g lo sso d y n ia an d e x trem e se n sitiv ity o f th e right side o f h er fa c e . In th e se c o n d c a se th e d e n tist e x tra c te d tw o m o lars. T h e p a tie n t co m p lain ed o f in ju ry to th e lingual n e rv e w ith p e rm a n e n t n u m b n e ss o f th e lo w e r ja w a n d to n g u e . In b o th c ase s th e ju ry a g re e d w ith th e d e fe n d a n t-d en tists th a t n e rv e in ju ry is a n o rm al risk in an e x tra c tio n p ro c e d u re an d , th e re fo re , th e d e n tists h ad no t d ep a rte d fro m usu al sta n d a rd s o f c a re . (Jones v s __________ , C a lif S u p C t, S an D ieg o C o u n ty , d o c k e t no. 338301, 1974.) (Brown v s __________ , C alif S up C t, L o s A n g e le s C o u n ty , d o c k e t no. C 14033, 1974.)
Ohio dentist sued for alleged injuries from wiring of jaws to reduce weight ■ T h is c a se is still in th e p re tria l stag e. T h e co m p lain t alleges th a t th e p la in tiff a sk ed th e d e n tist to w ire h e r ja w s to re d u c e h e r w eight. T h e p la in tiff alleges fu rth e r th a t th e d e n tist p re scrib e d a liquid d iet a n d , as a re s u lt o f th a t d iet, th e p la in tiff su ffe re d a card iac a rre st an d p e rm a n e n t, irre v ersib le b rain dam ag e. T h e p lain tiff a n d h e r h u sb a n d seek d am ag es in th e am o u n t o f $1,250,000. (Creatura vs _______, C ase N o . 74 C l 1776, C t o f C o m m o n P le a s, M ahoning C o u n ty , O hio, 1974.)
County dental society petitions for com ponent society status in New York ■ T h e Suffolk C o u n ty D e n ta l S o ciety a n d th ree o f its officials h av e su ed the D en tal S o ciety o f th e S ta te o f N e w Y o rk to o b tain sta tu s as a c o m p o n e n t so ciety o f N e w Y o rk a n d th e A m e r ican D en tal A sso c ia tio n . T h e sta te d e n tal so ciety an d c o m p o n e n t d e n tal so cieties are g o v e rn e d by a specific sta tu te th a t p re sc rib e s th e g eo g rap h ic a reas fo r c o m p o n e n ts, n am ely each
N e w Y o rk ju d ic ia l d istric t. T h e te n th ju d ic ia l d istric t is c o m p o s e d o f S u f fo lk a n d N a ss a u c o u n tie s. T h e S u f fo lk d e n tists claim th a t th e ju d ic ia l d istrict c rite rio n fo r c o m p o n e n t so cieties is a rb itra ry a n d in v io latio n o f th e ir fed eral a n d s ta te c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts. T h is c a se is a lso in th e p re tria l stage. (Suffolk County Dental Society vs the Dental Society o f the State o f N ew York, S u p r C o u rt, S ta te o f N Y , C o u n ty o f S uffolk, 1974.)
Federal court of appeals in San Fran cisco upholds IRS agents’ search of dentist’s office and home ■ T h e fed era l n in th circu it c o u rt o f a p p e a ls in a n e a rlie r (b u t a p p a re n tly unofficial) o p in io n ruled th a t th e IR S a g e n ts ’ se a rc h w a rra n t w as n o t valid b e c a u se th e item s so u g h t c o n stitu te d e v id e n c e su b ject to the d e n tis t’s rig h t to w ith hold u n d e r th e fifth a m e n d m e n t’s privilege ag ain st self-in crim in atio n . (S ee J A D A 86:1215, J u n e , 1973.) T h e c o u rt, in its official o p in io n , ru led fo r IR S on th e se a rc h a n d se iz u re , em p h asizin g th a t th e d e n tist co u ld ex e rc ise his fifth a m e n d m e n t rig h ts at th e tim e a crim inal p ro c e e d in g w as in stitu te d . T h e co u rt did u p h o ld th e d en tis t’s right to sue IR S fo r d am ag e s in th e am o u n t o f $15,000, b a se d o n his alleg atio n s th a t th e IR S ag e n ts v io lated his rights in th e m a n n e r in w hich th e y e x e c u te d th e ir se a rc h a n d se iz u re . (VonderAhe vs Howland, U S C t o f A p p e a ls, n in th circ u it, n o . 71-1982, 1974.)
Federal district court in Denver also upholds IR S agent in search of dentist’s records ■ T h e d e n tist in th is ca se m ade th e sam e arg u m en t as in th e p rev io u s c a se , n am ely th a t his fifth a m en d m en t rights w e re v io lated by th e IR S search a n d seizu re. T h e d is tric t c o u rt ruled fo r IR S on th a t c o u n t. T h e d e n tis t’s claim fo r m o n ey d a m ages also w as d ism issed ; th e re w as no show ing o f m isc o n d u c t in carry in g o u t th e se a rc h an d seizu re as th e re w as in th e p rev io u s case. In b o th c a s e s th e IR S o b tain ed in fo rm atio n a b o u t th e d e n tis ts ’ tax m a tte rs from fo rm e r (and ap p a re n tly d isg ru n tled ) em p lo y e e s o f th e d e n tists. (Shaffer vs Wilson, U S D ist C t, C o lo C ivil A c tio n no. C -5039, 1974.) JADA, Vol. 90, February 1975 ■ 293
&
LI T IG A T IO N
Tw o new laws are included in th is m onth's report. The January report listed those states that exem pt purchases of d rugs or m edicines fro m state sales and use taxes. As o f Jan 1, M ichigan became the 30th state to grant such an exem ption. A New Jersey law a p p lic able to all licensing agencies perm its fo rm e r convicts to qu alify fo r license under certain circum stances.
Michigan ■ T h e M ichigan e x e m p tio n fro m sales an d u se ta x e s fo r d ru g s is lim ited to p re s c rip tio n d ru g s fo r h u m an u se d isp e n se d by p h a rm a c ists on th e p re sc rip tio n o f a p h y sic ia n o r o th e r lic e n se d p ra c titio n e rs o f th e healing arts. New Jersey ■ L icen sin g a u th o ritie s m ay no lo n g er re je c t a n a p p lic a n t on th e sole g ro u n d th a t he is an e x c o n v ic t. A licensing b o a rd m ay re je c t an e x c o n v ic t’s ap p licatio n if his c o n v ic tio n w as fo r a g riev o u s, so -calle d c a p ital crim e. F o r co n v ic ts se n te n c e d u n d e r o th e r kinds o f crim e s, th e b o a rd m ay re ject an ap p licatio n o n ly if th e c o n v ic tio n w as fo r a crim e th a t “ re lates a d v ersely to th e o c c u p a tio n , tra d e , v o c a tio n , p ro fe ssio n o r b u si n e ss fo r w hich th e licen se or c e rtifi c a te is s o u g h t.”
LITIGATION
Three cases involve dentists in m alpractice situa tions in th is m o nth’s report. One case portrays a dispute between a county dental g roup and their state dental society. Two tax case decisions unfavorable to dentists com plete th is m o nth's review.
California juries exonerate two dentists from nerve injury claims ■ In o n e c a se th e d e n tist e x tra c te d a n im p a c te d
th ird m olar. T h e p lain tiff-p atien t c o m p la in e d o f d am ag e to th e lingual n e rv e resu ltin g in p e rm a n e n t g lo sso d y n ia an d e x trem e se n sitiv ity o f th e right side o f h er fa c e . In th e se c o n d c a se th e d e n tist e x tra c te d tw o m o lars. T h e p a tie n t co m p lain ed o f in ju ry to th e lingual n e rv e w ith p e rm a n e n t n u m b n e ss o f th e lo w e r ja w a n d to n g u e . In b o th c ase s th e ju ry a g re e d w ith th e d e fe n d a n t-d en tists th a t n e rv e in ju ry is a n o rm al risk in an e x tra c tio n p ro c e d u re an d , th e re fo re , th e d e n tists h ad no t d ep a rte d fro m usu al sta n d a rd s o f c a re . (Jones v s __________ , C a lif S u p C t, S an D ieg o C o u n ty , d o c k e t no. 338301, 1974.) (Brown v s __________ , C alif S up C t, L o s A n g e le s C o u n ty , d o c k e t no. C 14033, 1974.)
Ohio dentist sued for alleged injuries from wiring of jaws to reduce weight ■ T h is c a se is still in th e p re tria l stag e. T h e co m p lain t alleges th a t th e p la in tiff a sk ed th e d e n tist to w ire h e r ja w s to re d u c e h e r w eight. T h e p la in tiff alleges fu rth e r th a t th e d e n tist p re scrib e d a liquid d iet a n d , as a re s u lt o f th a t d iet, th e p la in tiff su ffe re d a card iac a rre st an d p e rm a n e n t, irre v ersib le b rain dam ag e. T h e p lain tiff a n d h e r h u sb a n d seek d am ag es in th e am o u n t o f $1,250,000. (Creatura vs _______, C ase N o . 74 C l 1776, C t o f C o m m o n P le a s, M ahoning C o u n ty , O hio, 1974.)
County dental society petitions for com ponent society status in New York ■ T h e Suffolk C o u n ty D e n ta l S o ciety a n d th ree o f its officials h av e su ed the D en tal S o ciety o f th e S ta te o f N e w Y o rk to o b tain sta tu s as a c o m p o n e n t so ciety o f N e w Y o rk a n d th e A m e r ican D en tal A sso c ia tio n . T h e sta te d e n tal so ciety an d c o m p o n e n t d e n tal so cieties are g o v e rn e d by a specific sta tu te th a t p re sc rib e s th e g eo g rap h ic a reas fo r c o m p o n e n ts, n am ely each
N e w Y o rk ju d ic ia l d istric t. T h e te n th ju d ic ia l d istric t is c o m p o s e d o f S u f fo lk a n d N a ss a u c o u n tie s. T h e S u f fo lk d e n tists claim th a t th e ju d ic ia l d istrict c rite rio n fo r c o m p o n e n t so cieties is a rb itra ry a n d in v io latio n o f th e ir fed eral a n d s ta te c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts. T h is c a se is a lso in th e p re tria l stage. (Suffolk County Dental Society vs the Dental Society o f the State o f N ew York, S u p r C o u rt, S ta te o f N Y , C o u n ty o f S uffolk, 1974.)
Federal court of appeals in San Fran cisco upholds IRS agents’ search of dentist’s office and home ■ T h e fed era l n in th circu it c o u rt o f a p p e a ls in a n e a rlie r (b u t a p p a re n tly unofficial) o p in io n ruled th a t th e IR S a g e n ts ’ se a rc h w a rra n t w as n o t valid b e c a u se th e item s so u g h t c o n stitu te d e v id e n c e su b ject to the d e n tis t’s rig h t to w ith hold u n d e r th e fifth a m e n d m e n t’s privilege ag ain st self-in crim in atio n . (S ee J A D A 86:1215, J u n e , 1973.) T h e c o u rt, in its official o p in io n , ru led fo r IR S on th e se a rc h a n d se iz u re , em p h asizin g th a t th e d e n tist co u ld ex e rc ise his fifth a m e n d m e n t rig h ts at th e tim e a crim inal p ro c e e d in g w as in stitu te d . T h e co u rt did u p h o ld th e d en tis t’s right to sue IR S fo r d am ag e s in th e am o u n t o f $15,000, b a se d o n his alleg atio n s th a t th e IR S ag e n ts v io lated his rights in th e m a n n e r in w hich th e y e x e c u te d th e ir se a rc h a n d se iz u re . (VonderAhe vs Howland, U S C t o f A p p e a ls, n in th circ u it, n o . 71-1982, 1974.)
Federal district court in Denver also upholds IR S agent in search of dentist’s records ■ T h e d e n tist in th is ca se m ade th e sam e arg u m en t as in th e p rev io u s c a se , n am ely th a t his fifth a m en d m en t rights w e re v io lated by th e IR S search a n d seizu re. T h e d is tric t c o u rt ruled fo r IR S on th a t c o u n t. T h e d e n tis t’s claim fo r m o n ey d a m ages also w as d ism issed ; th e re w as no show ing o f m isc o n d u c t in carry in g o u t th e se a rc h an d seizu re as th e re w as in th e p rev io u s case. In b o th c a s e s th e IR S o b tain ed in fo rm atio n a b o u t th e d e n tis ts ’ tax m a tte rs from fo rm e r (and ap p a re n tly d isg ru n tled ) em p lo y e e s o f th e d e n tists. (Shaffer vs Wilson, U S D ist C t, C o lo C ivil A c tio n no. C -5039, 1974.) JADA, Vol. 90, February 1975 ■ 293