42 C.F.R. § 440.100
Dental services
(a) “Dental services” means diagnostic, preventive, or corrective procedures provided by or under the supervision of a dentist in the practice of his profession, including treatment of—
(1) The teeth and associated structures of the oral cavity; and
(2) Disease, injury, or impairment that may affect the oral or general health of the beneficiary.
(b) “Dentist” means an individual licensed to practice dentistry or dental surgery.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1980–2011 · leading case: McNeil-Terry v. Roling, 142 S.W.3d 828 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
McNeil-Terry v. Roling, 142 S.W.3d 828 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). “” 42 C.F.R. section 440.100(a). The federal purpose, according to the 42 C.”
Persico v. Maher, 465 A.2d 308 (Conn. 1983). “” Relevant to these provisions for EPSDT of individuals under age twenty-one is also 42 C.F.R. § 440.100 (a): “ ‘Dental services’ means diagnostic, preventive, or corrective procedures provided by or *398 under the supervision of a dentist in the practice of his profession,…”
Cushion v. Dep't of Path, 807 A.2d 425 (Vt. 2002). “” 42 C.F.R. § 440.100 (a)(1) &(2). In this case, just as in Brisson , the Department’s exclusion of partial dentures fails to provide service to those in greatest need.”
Callen v. Rogers, 168 P.3d 907 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “(quoting 42 C.F.R. § 440.100 (a)(1)-(2)). ¶ 24 Callen argues that the logical conclusion of that analysis in this case is that, having decided to provide any dental services to its eligible population, Arizona is obliged to provide all necessary dental services to those who are…”
Anderson v. Dir., Dep't of Soc. Servs., 300 N.W.2d 921 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “Plaintiff initially challenges the denial of medicaid benefits on the grounds that defendant must provide all dental services, defined by regulation as "diagnostic, preventive, or corrective procedures provided by * * * a dentist * * 42 CFR 440.100. Plaintiff contends that since…”
Steven Fuller, by His Next Friend, Theresa-Vay Smith v. Mark Emkes, Comm'r, Tennessee Dep't of Fin. & Admin. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “” 42 C.F.R. § 440.100 (a)(1)-(2). Nevertheless, states are permitted to “place appropriate limits on a service based upon such criteria as medically necessity or on utilization control procedures.”
Rachel Lee Ex Rel. Rebecca Lee v. Mark Emkes, Comm'r of the Tennessee Dep't of Fin. & Admin. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “” 42 C.F.R. § 440.100 (a)(1)-(2). Nevertheless, states are permitted to “place appropriate limits on a service based upon such criteria as medical necessity or on utilization control procedures.”
— 42 C.F.R. § 440.100(a) — 1 case
McNeil-Terry v. Roling, 142 S.W.3d 828 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). “” 42 C.F.R. section 440.100(a). The federal purpose, according to the 42 C.”
— 42 C.F.R. § 440.100(a)(1) — 1 case
McNeil-Terry v. Roling, 142 S.W.3d 828 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). “” 42 C.F.R. section 440.100(a). The federal purpose, according to the 42 C.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.