Dental Commission v. Tru-Fit Plastics, Inc., TRU-FIT
| Decision Date | 06 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | TRU-FIT |
| Citation | 269 A.2d 265,159 Conn. 362 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | DENTAL COMMISSION of the State of Connecticut v.PLASTICS, INC. |
David B. Beizer, Asst, Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, were Robert K. Killian, Atty. Gen. and F. Michael Ahern, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appelllant (plaintiff).
Robert A. Slavitt, Norwalk, with whom, on the brief, was Abraham D. Slavitt, Norwalk, for appellee (defendant).
Before ALCORN, HOUSE, THIM, RYAN and SHAPIRO, * JJ.
The portion of § 20-123 of the General Statutes (Rev. to 1968) which is material to the present case provides that '(a)ny person * * * who, directly or indirectly, by any means or method, furnishes, supplies, constructs, reproduces or repairs any prosthetic denture, bridge, appliance or any other structure to be worn in the human mouth, except upon the written direction of a licensed dentist, or who places such appliance or structure in the human mouth or attempts to adjust the same, or delivers the same to any person other than the dentist upon whose direction the work was performed * * * shall be deemed as practicing dentistry or dental medicine.' The penalty for each week in which dentistry is practiced in violation of the statute is, for a first offense, a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1000 or imprisonment for not more than six months or both. General Statutes (Rev. to 1968) § 20-126.
The defendant is not licensed to practice dentistry in Connecticut. The plaintiff dental commission, pursuant to § 20-126, applied to the Court of Common Pleas for an injunction to restrain the defendant from the practice of dentistry. The court rendered judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff has appealed.
Both parties have departed from the issues upon the basis of which the injunction was sought. In its complaint the plaintiff alleged that it and 'citizens of this State, including but not limited to licensed dentists' are irreparably injured by the defendant's 'manufacture and sale of denture kits'. The irreparable injury is alleged to arise because the defendant's activity is causing injury to the mouths or bodies of persons who purchase the kits or use dentures constructed from them; is conveying the incorrect impression that the defendant is licensed to practice dentistry; is conveying the incorrect impression that the manufacture and sale of the kits are approved by the plaintiff; is conveying the incorrect impression that the use of the kit is a medically suitable and adequate alternative to a set of dentures made under the direction of a licensed dentist; and is injuring the professional reputation of dentists through creating the incorrect impression that one may practice dentistry in Connecticut in the defendant's medically unsound and harmful manner. There was no evidence presented to the trial court in support of these allegations and a denial of injunctive relief would have been proper on that ground.
The case was submitted to the trial court, and is now before us on a stipulation of facts, in substance, as follows: The defendant makes bulk purchases of three different powders and a liquid. It measures these into containers which it packages into what is called a 'Spare Denture Kit'. Included are molds and instructions on how to fashion a spare denture by using an existing denture and the materials in the kit. The defendant is not licensed to practice dentistry in Connecticut and the materials are collected and the instructions are composed without the aid or authority of a Connecticut dentist. Beginning in December, 1964, the defendant advertised the sale of the 'Spare Denture Kits' so assembled in national news media and in newspapers circulated and sold in Connecticut. From December, 1964, until March 31, 1965, the defendant sold and supplied such kits to persons in Connecticut without authority from a licensed Connecticut dentist. Since March 31, 1965, the defendant has sold such kits to persons outside Connecticut...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frazier v. Manson
...ideas of what might be a wise provision in the place of a clear expression of the legislative will. Dental Commission v. Tru-Fit Plastics, Inc., 159 Conn. 362, 365, 269 A.2d 265 (1970). We are compelled to reject the plaintiff's claim that § 18-7a can legally be applied as he urges. The app......
-
Town of Westport v. City of Norwalk
...to read into clearly expressed legislation provisions which do not find expression in its words.' Dental Commission v. Tru-Fit Plastics, Inc., 159 Conn. 362, 365, 269 A.2d 265, 267; Little v. United Investors Corporation, 157 Conn. 44, 48, 245 A.2d 567. In analyzing § 3.07 of the regulation......
-
State v. Tuchman
...Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 165 Conn. 416, 419, 334 A.2d 476 (1973) (automobile dealer's license), Dental Commission v. Tru-Fit Plastics, Inc., 159 Conn. 362, 365, 269 A.2d 265 (1970) (dental license), and Mack v. Saars, 150 Conn. 290, 294-95, 188 A.2d 863 (1963) (optometry license) is ......
-
City of New Haven v. United Illuminating Co., Inc.
...16-234 also rests on a firm basis. It is well setted that a statute must be applied as its words direct. Dental Commission v. Tru-Fit Plastics, Inc., 159 Conn. 362, 365, 269 A.2d 265; Obuchowski v. Dental Commission, 149 Conn. 257, 265, 178 A. 537. Morever, words and phrases in a statute ar......