- Email: [email protected]
Power of State to Restrict Ownership of Dental Offices to Licensed Dentists
The Journal o f the American Dental Association and T h e Dental Cosmos parties have threatened to try to defeat the purpose o f the law by having the Jegislature amend it. However, the den tists of Texas are ready to fight to m ain
tain the law in its present form, and with such an important supporting decision, the defense of the statute should be less difficult.
POWER OF STATE TO RESTRICT OWNERSHIP OF DENTAL OFFICES TO LICENSED DENTISTS By L e s l i e C
h il d s ,
H E power of a state to restrict the practice o f dentistry to duly li censed persons is not open to ques tion, and the courts have uniformly upheld such legislation as a valid exercise of the police power. But the validity o f such regulation in respect to owning or operating a dental office where this func tion is entirely divorced from profes sional contact with the clientele is not so definitely settled. In some states, especially in the earlier decisions, the statutory exclusion o f lay men, as such, from ownership or interest in dental offices has been declared un constitutional, on the broad ground that the mere ownership of such a property right in no w ay so endangered the health, morals or physical welfare o f the public as to justify the restriction.
T
OWNERSHIP OF DENTAL OFFICES RESTRICTED
O n the other hand, especially in the more recent cases, there is much author ity to the contrary that appears to reflect the present day tendency of the courts; and, as an example of judicial reasoning in this line, the recent M ichigan case of People v. Carroll, 264 N. W . 861, comes to hand. T h e statute involved said ; It shall be unlawful for any person to prac tice dentistry or to operate or to be a partner in the operation of, or control as proprietor,
Indianapolis, Ind.
m a n a g e r o r otherw ise, o r to h ave a n y finan c ia l in terest in the proceeds or receip ts o f or fro m , o th e r th an com pen sation as em p lo yee in th e u su al course o f th e business, o r to re ceive a n y p a rt o r p ercen ta ge of the proceeds o r receip ts o f o r fro m , in lie u o f ren t or an y p a rt o f th e ren t o f a n y ro om , office, o r den tal p a rlo r w h ere d en ta l w o rk is done, p ro vid ed o r co n tra cted fo r in a n y co u n ty o f this state, n o t b e in g a t the tim e a den tist licen sed to p ra ctice as such in this state a n d registered in th e office o f th e c o u n ty cle rk o f such co u n ty as herein p ro vid ed .
T h e respondent was informed against for violation o f the foregoing statute, the specific charge being that he was a partner in the operation of a dental par lor and was not licensed to practice den tistry as required by the statute. There was evidence that he had been engaged in this work for more than twenty years, and that all dental work performed in the respondent’s establishment was done by licensed dentists. T h e respondent based his defense on the ground that the statute was unconsti tutional for a number of reasons, the contention being, among other things, that its requirement that the owner or operator o f a dental parlor be a licensed dentist deprived him o f a property rig h t; and that this prohibition of the statute was without justification under the police power, because it did not even remotely promote the health or welfare o f the pub lic.
Association Activities HOW THE COURT REASONED
T h e trial, however, resulted in the re spondent’s conviction. A n appeal fol lowed, and here the higher court, after noting that the regulation o f the practice of dentistry was within the police power o f the state, turned to the respondent’s principal contention. Here, in stating the question before it, the court said: “ The next question that presents itself to us is the validity o f a regulation requiring the owner or operator of a dental parlor to be a licensed practitioner.” Then after reviewing and citing from the leading cases for and against this proposition, the court continued: It is a well-known fact that in the profes sion of dentistry the services rendered are personal and call for knowledge in a high de gree, and that to separate this knowledge from the power of control is an evil, the correction of which was attempted by the in stant legislation. The evils which arise from divorcing the “ power of control” from “knowledge” apply with equal force to a partnership as well as a corporation. . . . the general rule is that it is within the police power of the state to impose reason able regulations relative to the professions of law, medicine, and dentistry. Courts dis tinguish between professions and businesses. In the latter, individuals may engage in the common occupations of life, and laws which unnecessarily impair these rights must be held unconstitutional; but in the practice of a profession such as dentistry which has to do with personal privacy and where the licensee must possess skill and character, we
1863 think it is within the police power of a state to control and regulate the ownership and operation by a firm of a dental parlor as well as to prescribe the qualifications of those who engage in its practice. . . . We, therefore, hold that respondent being engaged in the operation of a dental parlor was engaged in the practice of dentistry contrary to the above act. Judgment of con viction is affirmed. CONCLUSION
T h e foregoing case constitutes perhaps the clearest presentation of judicial rea soning upholding the validity o f statutory regulation in respect to the ownership of property rights in dental offices that has been handed down to d ate; for, in the main, prior authority supporting the rul ing herein has applied to cases involving the corporate practice o f law, medicine or dentistry, under various forms and guises, and has not necessarily dealt with the precise question o f ownership regu lation. In this case, however, the court squarely upheld a most sweeping statute prohibiting lay ownership, apparently under any form or pattern, of property rights in dental offices. And although, as noted in the beginning, there is authority to the contrary, the reasoning herein is in accord with the general trend of judi cial pronouncements that tend to support and broaden the field of statutory regula tion o f the practice of dentistry. 1520 East T en th Street.
tain the law in its present form, and with such an important supporting decision, the defense of the statute should be less difficult.
POWER OF STATE TO RESTRICT OWNERSHIP OF DENTAL OFFICES TO LICENSED DENTISTS By L e s l i e C
h il d s ,
H E power of a state to restrict the practice o f dentistry to duly li censed persons is not open to ques tion, and the courts have uniformly upheld such legislation as a valid exercise of the police power. But the validity o f such regulation in respect to owning or operating a dental office where this func tion is entirely divorced from profes sional contact with the clientele is not so definitely settled. In some states, especially in the earlier decisions, the statutory exclusion o f lay men, as such, from ownership or interest in dental offices has been declared un constitutional, on the broad ground that the mere ownership of such a property right in no w ay so endangered the health, morals or physical welfare o f the public as to justify the restriction.
T
OWNERSHIP OF DENTAL OFFICES RESTRICTED
O n the other hand, especially in the more recent cases, there is much author ity to the contrary that appears to reflect the present day tendency of the courts; and, as an example of judicial reasoning in this line, the recent M ichigan case of People v. Carroll, 264 N. W . 861, comes to hand. T h e statute involved said ; It shall be unlawful for any person to prac tice dentistry or to operate or to be a partner in the operation of, or control as proprietor,
Indianapolis, Ind.
m a n a g e r o r otherw ise, o r to h ave a n y finan c ia l in terest in the proceeds or receip ts o f or fro m , o th e r th an com pen sation as em p lo yee in th e u su al course o f th e business, o r to re ceive a n y p a rt o r p ercen ta ge of the proceeds o r receip ts o f o r fro m , in lie u o f ren t or an y p a rt o f th e ren t o f a n y ro om , office, o r den tal p a rlo r w h ere d en ta l w o rk is done, p ro vid ed o r co n tra cted fo r in a n y co u n ty o f this state, n o t b e in g a t the tim e a den tist licen sed to p ra ctice as such in this state a n d registered in th e office o f th e c o u n ty cle rk o f such co u n ty as herein p ro vid ed .
T h e respondent was informed against for violation o f the foregoing statute, the specific charge being that he was a partner in the operation of a dental par lor and was not licensed to practice den tistry as required by the statute. There was evidence that he had been engaged in this work for more than twenty years, and that all dental work performed in the respondent’s establishment was done by licensed dentists. T h e respondent based his defense on the ground that the statute was unconsti tutional for a number of reasons, the contention being, among other things, that its requirement that the owner or operator o f a dental parlor be a licensed dentist deprived him o f a property rig h t; and that this prohibition of the statute was without justification under the police power, because it did not even remotely promote the health or welfare o f the pub lic.
Association Activities HOW THE COURT REASONED
T h e trial, however, resulted in the re spondent’s conviction. A n appeal fol lowed, and here the higher court, after noting that the regulation o f the practice of dentistry was within the police power o f the state, turned to the respondent’s principal contention. Here, in stating the question before it, the court said: “ The next question that presents itself to us is the validity o f a regulation requiring the owner or operator of a dental parlor to be a licensed practitioner.” Then after reviewing and citing from the leading cases for and against this proposition, the court continued: It is a well-known fact that in the profes sion of dentistry the services rendered are personal and call for knowledge in a high de gree, and that to separate this knowledge from the power of control is an evil, the correction of which was attempted by the in stant legislation. The evils which arise from divorcing the “ power of control” from “knowledge” apply with equal force to a partnership as well as a corporation. . . . the general rule is that it is within the police power of the state to impose reason able regulations relative to the professions of law, medicine, and dentistry. Courts dis tinguish between professions and businesses. In the latter, individuals may engage in the common occupations of life, and laws which unnecessarily impair these rights must be held unconstitutional; but in the practice of a profession such as dentistry which has to do with personal privacy and where the licensee must possess skill and character, we
1863 think it is within the police power of a state to control and regulate the ownership and operation by a firm of a dental parlor as well as to prescribe the qualifications of those who engage in its practice. . . . We, therefore, hold that respondent being engaged in the operation of a dental parlor was engaged in the practice of dentistry contrary to the above act. Judgment of con viction is affirmed. CONCLUSION
T h e foregoing case constitutes perhaps the clearest presentation of judicial rea soning upholding the validity o f statutory regulation in respect to the ownership of property rights in dental offices that has been handed down to d ate; for, in the main, prior authority supporting the rul ing herein has applied to cases involving the corporate practice o f law, medicine or dentistry, under various forms and guises, and has not necessarily dealt with the precise question o f ownership regu lation. In this case, however, the court squarely upheld a most sweeping statute prohibiting lay ownership, apparently under any form or pattern, of property rights in dental offices. And although, as noted in the beginning, there is authority to the contrary, the reasoning herein is in accord with the general trend of judi cial pronouncements that tend to support and broaden the field of statutory regula tion o f the practice of dentistry. 1520 East T en th Street.