Holcomb v. Johnston, 19663
| Decision Date | 14 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 19663,19663 |
| Citation | 213 Ga. 249,98 S.E.2d 561 |
| Parties | Jack HOLCOMB v. Charles L. JOHNSTON et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The portion of Code, (Ann.) § 84-701 (Ga.L.1949, pp. 1161, 1162) defining persons who for a fee take impressions for and fit dental prosthetics, and who 'make or repair appliances usable on teeth or as teeth, unless said appliances are ordered by and returned to a licensed dentist,' as practicing dentistry, is not unconstitutional and void as violating the due process clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions in preventing dental laboratories or technicians carrying on their lawful business because orders for the making, repairing, and manufacture of such dental appliances come from practicing dentists rather than by prescriptions from patients or otherwise.
This case is one to enjoin the defendant from practicing dentistry and is brought in two counts, i. e., (1) for illegally practicing dentistry without a license, and (2) for unauthorized practice of dentistry constituting a public nuisance. The answer of the defendant, as amended, admits that he is not a licensed dentist, but is a dental laboratory technician having his own laboratory, but he alleges that the portion of Code, (Ann.) § 84-701 (Ga.L.1949, pp. 1161, 1162) defining the practice of dentistry as 'All persons who shall charge a fee * * * who shall * * * take an impression thereof for the purpose of treating or operating upon the same [human tooth, teeth, gums or jaws], or who shall make or repair appliances usable on teeth or as teeth, unless said appliances are ordered by and returned to a licensed dentist,' is violative of the due process clauses of the State, art. 1, § 1, par. 3, and Federal, Amend. 14, Constitutions and is void, since the defendant has the right to carry on his vocation of dental technician, and since under the law the licensed dentists taking impressions and ordering dentures or appliances usable as teeth send the prescriptions or orders therefor direct to the laboratory or technician of their choice, and the patients for whom such are prescribed do not have the free choice to select a laboratory or technician of their own, and the defendant would not be afforded the opportunity to conduct his business or vocation except upon the whim of licensed dentists.
The case came on for trial after the defendant was restrained, and it was stipulated: (1) the plaintiffs are licensed dentists, authorized to practice dentistry in this State: and (2) the defendant has prepared impressions for the purpose of making and repairing appliances usable as teeth, and he has made appliances usable as teeth which were not ordered or returned to a licensed dentist, and that he has charged and received a fee for such service. In addition, the evidence, in substance showed the education of the defendant, his practical and theoretrical training and his qualifications as a dental laboratory technician; testimony by expert witnesses as to the science of dentures, the training required of student dentists on this subject, the education and training necessary for students to qualify to take the examination of the Georgia State Board of Dental Examiners for a license to practice dentistry, the importance of centric occlusion or 'taking the bite' upon the general health of a person, the importance of the oral examination made by dentists in taking impressions and in fitting appliances to diagnose disease, discover pathological conditions, and prevent rough spots which would cause irritation, the need for correct adjustments to avoid irritation, prevent sore spots, impairment of speech, and change in the facial contours of the patients, especially in women; and that dental laboratory techanicians are mere mechanics who know the fundamentals of the materials with which they work, but who confine their work to fabrication of the denture or appliance according to prescription or instructions of the dentist, having nothing whatever to do with the patient, usually never seeing the patient. The defendant admitted that he had made no oral examination of the patients' mouths, merely asking them if their gums were sore; that he would make an impression, and after making the denture would insert the appliance in their mouths, instructing them to return to the laboratory on a future day if the denture did not fit or 'bothered' the patient for adjustments. Other testimony disclosed that some dentists make the dentures or appliances themselves but the prescription or order for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berry v. Koehler
...adoption of laws pertaining to it is within the province of the legislature. Ice v. State, Ind. 1959, 161 N.E.2d 171; Holcomb v. Johnston, 1957, 213 Ga. 249, 98 S.E.2d 561; Lasdon v. Hallihan, 1941, 377 Ill. 187, 36 N.E.2d 227; People ex rel. Chicago Dental Society v. A. A. A. Dental Labora......
-
Pearle Optical of Monroeville, Inc. v. Georgia State Bd. of Examiners in Optometry
...232 U.S. 548, 558, 34 S.Ct. 364, 58 L.Ed. 721; McNaughton v. Johnson, 242 U.S. 344, 37 S.Ct. 178, 61 L.Ed. 352; Holcomb v. Johnston, 213 Ga. 249, 252, 98 S.E.2d 561; Hortman v. Yarbrough, 214 Ga. 693, 107 S.E.2d 202. 2. Optometry is a learned profession because a valid statute of the State ......
-
General GMC Trucks, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., GMC Truck and Coach Division
...Ga. 759, 213 S.E.2d 596 (1975) (electric membership); Wilder v. State, 232 Ga. 404, 207 S.E.2d 38 (1974) (billiards); Holcomb v. Johnston, 213 Ga. 249, 98 S.E.2d 561 (1957) (dental appliances); Lamons v. Yarbrough, 206 Ga. 50, 55 S.E.2d 551 (1949) (dental hygienists), where the regulations ......
-
Thrasher v. Board of Governors
...lead to infection and serious bodily illness. In this connection, see Lees v. Oster, 8 Utah 2d 141, 329 P.2d 648, 649; Holcomb v. Johnston, 213 Ga. 249, 98 S.E.2d 561, 563; United States v. Patterson, D.C.N.D.Ill.E.D., 155 F.Supp. 669, 672, citing People ex rel. Chicago Dental Society v. A.......