Jones v. Dental Com'n of Connecticut

• Citation: 109 Conn. 73,145 A. 570
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 06 April 1929
• Parties: JONES v. DENTAL COMMISSION OF CONNECTICUT.

145 A. 570

109 Conn. 73

JONES v. DENTAL COMMISSION OF CONNECTICUT.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 6, 1929

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; L. P. Waldo Marvin Judge.

Proceeding by the Dental Commission of Connecticut to cancel the registration of Arthur G. Jones as an unlicensed assistant dentist. From a judgment dismissing his appeal from and affirming the Commission's order canceling his registration on trial to the court, he appeals. No error.

Benjamin Slade, of New Haven, for appellant.

Richardson Bronson, of Waterbury, and Benjamin W. Alling Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS JJ.

MALTBIE, J.

In 1926, section 2906 of the chapter of the General Statutes, dealing with the practice of dentistry, provided that all unlicensed assistants who registered their names with the dental commissioners prior to October 1, 1907, might continue to practice as assistants, provided they performed dental operations on patients in the office and in the immediate presence of a registered or licensed dentist and directly under his supervision, but that the commissioners might cancel the registration of any person so practicing for any of the reasons set forth in section 2901. One of these reasons was a violation of any provision of the dentistry law. One of the provisions of that law forbade any person to engage in the practice of dentistry, unless legally qualified or duly licensed by the commissioners to do so. General Statutes, § 2899. The appellant, as an unlicensed assistant, had registered his name with the dental commissioners prior to October 1st, 1907, and thereafter continued to practice dentistry under the terms of the statute. On June 10, 1926, the commissioners canceled his registration; he appealed to the superior court, as authorized by the statute, and, the appeal being dismissed and the order of the commissioners being affirmed, he now has appealed to this court.

On January 27, 1926, a private detective went to the office of a registered dentist where the appellant was located to get him to do some work for her. He did drill a tooth and sprayed it and directed her to return the next day for further treatment. This she did, and then paid him $3 for his services. At the time he worked upon her tooth, no registered or licensed dentist was present, and he acted without supervision by any such dentist. The appellant contends that this one item of work does not constitute the practice of dentistry so as to involve a violation of the statute. Under the definition given in State v. Faatz, 83 Conn. 302, 76 A. 295, that would be so. But, after that case was decided, the Legislature defined the practice of dentistry within the Dental Act to be, among other things, the performance of any operation or the making of an examination with the intent to perform, or cause to be performed, any operation upon the human teeth or jaws. General Statutes, Rev. 1918, § 2910. The appellant was clearly guilty of practicing dentistry within this definition. The effect of section 2906 was to establish an exception to the general prohibition against the practice of dentistry...