- Email: [email protected]
Legislation & Litigation
From the States LEGISLATION
&
LITIGATION
LEGISLATION
LITIGATION
A proposed revision of the Texas dental practice act brought forth some ringing opposition to two of its features. As a re sult, a dental laboratory registration pro vision was dropped from the enacted re vision. The new law also gives the Texas Board of Dental Examiners broad rulemaking power over dental practice and auxiliary functions; the rule-making pro vision was also fiercely contested. Also included in this report are amendments to New York laws governing review com mittees of health professional groups in cluding dental societies.
Two cases stand out in this month’s re port. One is a Kentucky court of appeals action upholding a contempt o f court c i tation against a dental laboratory owner. The second critical case is a lower court action in Ohio declaring the Ohio state wide fluoridation law unconstitutional.
New York ■ Several amendments to laws governing hospital and profes sional society utilization and review committees were enacted. The new laws specify the legal privileges and immunities that dentists and dental societies, among others, will enjoy while serving on or sponsoring utili zation or peer review committees. Another new law authorizes dental care benefits for New York state employees under a “dental insur ance plan.”
Texas ■ The Texas dental law was amended to give the Board of Dental Examiners authority to adopt and en force regulations governing dentists, dental hygienists, and assistants, in cluding the definition of their “areas of practice.” A provision to register and regulate dental laboratories was withdrawn when a group of labora tory owners sought an amendment to create a separate board to regulate dental laboratories and technicians.
Kentucky court of appeals upholds posting o f $1,000 bond as deterrent to future violations of state dental law ■ The defendant dental labor atory owner was cited for contempt o f court for violating a previous order to cease the unlicensed practice of dentistry. The defendant admitted the violation o f injunction but con tended that the procedure was im proper and the dental law was uncon stitutional. The Kentucky court o f ap peals upheld the board of dental ex aminers on every issue including the penalty, namely that the defendant “execute a bond . . . in the amount of $1,000 running to the benefit of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to insure his compliance with the [injunction o rder].” (Karr vs Kentucky State Board o f Dental Examiners, July 2, 1971. See 467 or 468 SW2d when published.) Ohio court of common pleas invali dates statewide fluoridation law. ■ In a declaratory judgment, the common pleas court of Hamilton county ruled that the fluoridation of Cincinnati water supplies under the new statewide fluoridation law was unconstitutional. The court relied mainly on a provision in the Ohio Constitution that provides “all laws,
of a general nature, shall have uni form operation throughout the state; . . . . ” The fluoridation law permitted municipalities that were not yet flu oridated at the time the law was enacted to put the issue to the elec torate by referendum. Municipalities already fluoridated, however, could not resort to a referendum to deter mine whether the electorate wished to continue fluoridation. The court found the referendum provision to be a violation of the uniform application of the laws prescribed by the Ohio Constitution. (Crotty vs City o f Cin cinnati, Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio, No. A244804, 1971.) US Court of Appeals upholds jury verdict against dentist for failing to refer patient to a physician ■ The dentist-defendant extracted an upper molar and “created a communication channel between the mouth and the maxillary sinus.” An infection result ed and, four months after the extrac tion, the patient still suffered from the worsening infection. The jury found no negligence in the extrac tion even though it resulted in the oral antrum opening. The jury did find the dentist negligent for not re ferring the patient to a qualified physician to treat the sinus infection. The jury returned a verdict for $10,668.45. (Graham vs Roberts, 441 Fed 995 (1970).) Texas court o f appeals upholds or der restraining dentist from practic ing medicine ■ The state board of medical examiners charged that the dentist-defendant diagnosed and treated medical conditions o f his p a tients by prescribing drugs and diet for such conditions as prostate and liver disorders. The medical board al so charged that a book authored by the defendant, entitled One Answer to Cancer, offered a diagnosis and treatment for cancer. The trial court ruled against the dentist on all counts and ordered him to cease violating the medical practice act; the Texas appeals court affirmed the injunc tion. (Kelley vs Texas State Board o f Medical Examiners, 467 SW 2d 539, (1971).) JADA, Vol. 83, September 1971 » 5 1 7
&
LITIGATION
LEGISLATION
LITIGATION
A proposed revision of the Texas dental practice act brought forth some ringing opposition to two of its features. As a re sult, a dental laboratory registration pro vision was dropped from the enacted re vision. The new law also gives the Texas Board of Dental Examiners broad rulemaking power over dental practice and auxiliary functions; the rule-making pro vision was also fiercely contested. Also included in this report are amendments to New York laws governing review com mittees of health professional groups in cluding dental societies.
Two cases stand out in this month’s re port. One is a Kentucky court of appeals action upholding a contempt o f court c i tation against a dental laboratory owner. The second critical case is a lower court action in Ohio declaring the Ohio state wide fluoridation law unconstitutional.
New York ■ Several amendments to laws governing hospital and profes sional society utilization and review committees were enacted. The new laws specify the legal privileges and immunities that dentists and dental societies, among others, will enjoy while serving on or sponsoring utili zation or peer review committees. Another new law authorizes dental care benefits for New York state employees under a “dental insur ance plan.”
Texas ■ The Texas dental law was amended to give the Board of Dental Examiners authority to adopt and en force regulations governing dentists, dental hygienists, and assistants, in cluding the definition of their “areas of practice.” A provision to register and regulate dental laboratories was withdrawn when a group of labora tory owners sought an amendment to create a separate board to regulate dental laboratories and technicians.
Kentucky court of appeals upholds posting o f $1,000 bond as deterrent to future violations of state dental law ■ The defendant dental labor atory owner was cited for contempt o f court for violating a previous order to cease the unlicensed practice of dentistry. The defendant admitted the violation o f injunction but con tended that the procedure was im proper and the dental law was uncon stitutional. The Kentucky court o f ap peals upheld the board of dental ex aminers on every issue including the penalty, namely that the defendant “execute a bond . . . in the amount of $1,000 running to the benefit of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to insure his compliance with the [injunction o rder].” (Karr vs Kentucky State Board o f Dental Examiners, July 2, 1971. See 467 or 468 SW2d when published.) Ohio court of common pleas invali dates statewide fluoridation law. ■ In a declaratory judgment, the common pleas court of Hamilton county ruled that the fluoridation of Cincinnati water supplies under the new statewide fluoridation law was unconstitutional. The court relied mainly on a provision in the Ohio Constitution that provides “all laws,
of a general nature, shall have uni form operation throughout the state; . . . . ” The fluoridation law permitted municipalities that were not yet flu oridated at the time the law was enacted to put the issue to the elec torate by referendum. Municipalities already fluoridated, however, could not resort to a referendum to deter mine whether the electorate wished to continue fluoridation. The court found the referendum provision to be a violation of the uniform application of the laws prescribed by the Ohio Constitution. (Crotty vs City o f Cin cinnati, Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio, No. A244804, 1971.) US Court of Appeals upholds jury verdict against dentist for failing to refer patient to a physician ■ The dentist-defendant extracted an upper molar and “created a communication channel between the mouth and the maxillary sinus.” An infection result ed and, four months after the extrac tion, the patient still suffered from the worsening infection. The jury found no negligence in the extrac tion even though it resulted in the oral antrum opening. The jury did find the dentist negligent for not re ferring the patient to a qualified physician to treat the sinus infection. The jury returned a verdict for $10,668.45. (Graham vs Roberts, 441 Fed 995 (1970).) Texas court o f appeals upholds or der restraining dentist from practic ing medicine ■ The state board of medical examiners charged that the dentist-defendant diagnosed and treated medical conditions o f his p a tients by prescribing drugs and diet for such conditions as prostate and liver disorders. The medical board al so charged that a book authored by the defendant, entitled One Answer to Cancer, offered a diagnosis and treatment for cancer. The trial court ruled against the dentist on all counts and ordered him to cease violating the medical practice act; the Texas appeals court affirmed the injunc tion. (Kelley vs Texas State Board o f Medical Examiners, 467 SW 2d 539, (1971).) JADA, Vol. 83, September 1971 » 5 1 7