Everett v. State, 49163-1
| Decision Date | 07 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 49163-1,49163-1 |
| Citation | 99 Wn.2d 264,661 P.2d 588 |
| Parties | Gaither B. EVERETT and Judith A. Everett, husband and wife, Appellants, v. The STATE of Washington, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Schroeter, Goldmark & Bender, J. Kathleen Learned, Seattle, for appellants.
Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., John H. Keith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, for respondent.
We are asked to determine whether a license to practice dentistry issued pursuant to the Dental Licensing Act, RCW 18.32, authorizes the practice of general anesthesiology for nondental purposes. We hold that despite the appellant's considerable expertise in the field of anesthesiology, his dental license does not authorize the administration of anesthesia for nondental purposes except as now permitted by RCW 18.71.030(11); Substitute House Bill 1047, Laws of 1982, ch. 51.
Appellant, Dr. Gaither B. Everett, is licensed to practice dentistry in the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Ohio. Upon completing his studies at the University of Washington Dental School in 1963, Dr. Everett became a faculty member at the dental school. In 1967, he entered a 33-month general anesthesia residency program administered through the University of Washington Medical School. This residency program is the same one completed by graduates of medical school who wish to specialize in anesthesiology.
Appellant completed his residency in 1970 and was subsequently appointed an assistant professor in the Department of Anesthesiology at the University of Washington Medical School. This was done with full knowledge that he was licensed as a dentist and not as a physician. In his capacity as assistant professor and later as associate professor, appellant taught general anesthesiology to both medical and dental students and administered all types of anesthesia to dental and nondental patients. Appellant is particularly known for his expertise in anesthetizing infants for open-heart surgery. We note the record is filled with affidavits attesting to appellant's impressive skill and training as an anesthesiologist.
In late 1977, appellant inquired whether he was authorized to sign Medicare papers for reimbursement of his services as an anesthesiologist. In January 1978, the Attorney General's Office informed him that his license to practice dentistry did not authorize the administration of anesthesia for nondental purposes. This informal Attorney General's opinion was sent to the University and its advice was subsequently adopted by the Washington State Board of Medical Examiners and the Washington Dental Examining and Disciplinary Boards.
On January 6, 1978, the University of Washington limited appellant's practice to the administration of general anesthesia to dental patients only. Under such limitation, the University was forced to reduce his appointment by 75 percent. He voluntarily took a leave of absence until the license question could be resolved. Due to forced budget cuts, the University has since terminated appellant's position.
On August 14, 1979, appellant filed a declaratory judgment action to clarify the meaning of the Dental Licensing Act, RCW 18.32, with respect to the practice of anesthesiology. His suit for damages was bifurcated from the declaratory judgment action. The trial court found the professional licensing scheme contained in RCW 18.32 indicated a legislative intent to limit dentists to work on and treatment of the teeth and associated oral structures. The court thereafter concluded that appellant was not authorized to administer general anesthesia for nondental purposes and granted summary judgment for the State. Dr. Everett appealed and the Court of Appeals certified the matter to this court.
In February 1982, the Legislature amended RCW 18.71.030 of the Medical Practice Act to allow a dentist who has completed a medical residency program in anesthesiology to administer general anesthesia. Substitute House Bill 1047, Laws of 1982, ch. 51, codified at RCW 18.71.030(11) (SHB 1047). To the extent that we are asked to determine whether a dentist currently has authority to administer anesthesia to nondental patients, the question is moot. Hansen v. West Coast Wholesale Drug Co., 47 Wash.2d 825, 827, 289 P.2d 718 (1955). The recent legislation clearly allows a dentist with the proper qualifications to engage in the practice of general anesthesiology. RCW 18.71.030(11). Nevertheless, appellant's action for damages against the State and the University is still pending in the Thurston County Superior Court. We therefore must determine whether appellant had authority to administer nondental anesthesia at the time the challenge to his authority first arose in 1978. We emphasize, however, that the question of damage liability is not before this court. This opinion addresses only the declaratory judgment question relating to the dental licensing scheme as it existed in 1978.
At the time the Attorney General's Office first challenged appellant's practice of anesthesiology, neither the Dental Licensing Act, RCW 18.32, nor the Medical Practice Act, RCW 18.71, authorized the practice of medical anesthesiology by a dentist. For the purpose of disposing of the issue before us we assume that Dr. Everett is well trained and highly qualified to administer anesthesia for medical purposes. Nevertheless, the question is not whether appellant had statutory authority to administer anesthesia. Rather, the question is whether all dentists had such authority.
While our State's statutory licensing scheme does not provide a special license for the practice of anesthesiology, it is clear anesthesia administered in connection with a nondental surgical operation is a medical treatment within the scope of the Medical Practice Act, RCW 18.71. That act requires one to be licensed as a medical doctor to administer any medical treatment. RCW 18.71.020. Appellant was neither licensed as a medical doctor nor did the Medical Practice Act exempt him from this requirement; therefore, our inquiry must focus on the scope of the Dental Licensing Act, RCW 18.32.
Dr. Everett contends he has always had authority to administer anesthesia either in a dental or nondental setting. His argument centers on the language of RCW 18.32.020 which states that a person licensed as a dentist may "(4) [engage] in any of the practices included in the curricula of recognized and approved dental schools or colleges". The Doctor notes that general anesthesia is a required subject taught in all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Blickenstaff, Matter of
...the principle that legislative intent may be determined from the content of subsequent amendments to the statute. Everett v. State, 99 Wash.2d 264, 269-70, 661 P.2d 588 (1983); State v. Barr, 99 Wash.2d 75, 78-79, 658 P.2d 1247 (1983). An original act and an amendment should be read and con......
-
Miebach v. Colasurdo
...application is not expressly provided for in a statute, as here, generally it should not be judicially implied. Everett v. State, 99 Wn.2d 264, 270, 661 P.2d 588 (1983). Statutes generally operate prospectively unless remedial in nature. A statute is remedial when it relates to practice, pr......
-
Marriage of MacDonald, In re
...decrees filed after the effective date of the USFSPA. A statute is presumed to have prospective application only. Everett v. State, 99 Wash.2d 264, 270, 661 P.2d 588 (1983). However, there are exceptions to this rule and the intent of the legislative body enacting the statute is the primary......
-
Paravecchio v. Memorial Hosp. of Laramie County
...The appellant does not have a medical license and, therefore, cannot practice anesthesia in a medical form." See also Everett v. State, 99 Wash.2d 264, 661 P.2d 588 (1983), where the court held that anesthesia administered in connection with nondental surgery was a medical treatment requiri......