Florida Statute 466.0067 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXII
REGULATION OF PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS

Chapter 466
DENTISTRY, DENTAL HYGIENE, AND DENTAL LABORATORIES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 466.0067

¹466.0067 Application for health access dental license.—The Legislature finds that there is an important state interest in attracting dentists to practice in underserved health access settings in this state and further, that allowing out-of-state dentists who meet certain criteria to practice in health access settings without the supervision of a dentist licensed in this state is substantially related to achieving this important state interest. Therefore, notwithstanding the requirements of s. 466.006, the board shall grant a health access dental license to practice dentistry in this state in health access settings as defined in s. 466.003 to an applicant who:

(1) Files an appropriate application approved by the board;

(2) Pays an application license fee for a health access dental license, laws-and-rule exam fee, and an initial licensure fee. The fees specified in this subsection may not differ from an applicant seeking licensure pursuant to s. 466.006;

(3) Has not been convicted of or pled nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, any felony or misdemeanor related to the practice of a health care profession;

(4) Submits proof of graduation from a dental school accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association or its successor agency;

(5) Submits documentation that she or he has completed, or will obtain before licensure, continuing education equivalent to this state’s requirement for dentists licensed under s. 466.006 for the last full reporting biennium before applying for a health access dental license;

(6) Submits proof of her or his successful completion of parts I and II of the dental examination by the National Board of Dental Examiners and a state or regional clinical dental licensing examination that the board has determined effectively measures the applicant’s ability to practice safely;

(7) Currently holds a valid, active dental license in good standing which has not been revoked, suspended, restricted, or otherwise disciplined from another of the United States, the District of Columbia, or a United States territory;

(8) Has never had a license revoked from another of the United States, the District of Columbia, or a United States territory;

(9) Has never failed the examination specified in s. 466.006, unless the applicant was reexamined pursuant to s. 466.006 and received a license to practice dentistry in this state;

(10) Has not been reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank, unless the applicant successfully appealed to have his or her name removed from the data bank;

(11) Submits proof that he or she has been engaged in the active, clinical practice of dentistry providing direct patient care for 5 years immediately preceding the date of application, or in instances when the applicant has graduated from an accredited dental school within the preceding 5 years, submits proof of continuous clinical practice providing direct patient care since graduation; and

(12) Has passed an examination covering the laws and rules of the practice of dentistry in this state as described in s. 466.006(4)(a).

History.—ss. 3, 6, ch. 2008-64; s. 104, ch. 2010-5; s. 10, ch. 2011-95; s. 2, ch. 2014-108; s. 1, ch. 2020-47; s. 24, ch. 2020-133; s. 13, ch. 2024-243.

¹Note.—Section 13, ch. 2024-243, amended s. 466.0067, effective July 1, 2025, to read:

466.0067 Application for health access dental license.—The Legislature finds that there is an important state interest in attracting dentists to practice in underserved health access settings in this state and further, that allowing out-of-state dentists who meet certain criteria to practice in health access settings without the supervision of a dentist licensed in this state is substantially related to achieving this important state interest. Therefore, notwithstanding the requirements of s. 466.006, the board shall grant a health access dental license to practice dentistry in this state in health access settings as defined in s. 466.003 to an applicant who meets all of the following criteria:

(1) Files an appropriate application approved by the board.

(3) Has submitted to background screening in accordance with s. 456.0135 and has not been convicted of or pled nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, any felony or misdemeanor related to the practice of a health care profession.

(4) Submits proof of graduation from a dental school accredited by the Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association or its successor agency.

(8) Has never had a license revoked from another of the United States, the District of Columbia, or a United States territory.

(9) Has never failed the examination specified in s. 466.006, unless the applicant was reexamined pursuant to s. 466.006 and received a license to practice dentistry in this state.

(10) Has not been reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank, unless the applicant successfully appealed to have his or her name removed from the data bank.

(12) Has passed an examination covering the laws and rules of the practice of dentistry in this state as described in s. 466.006(4)(a).

F.S. 466.0067 on Google Scholar

F.S. 466.0067 on Casetext

Amendments to 466.0067

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 466.0067

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 466.0067.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 466.0067

Total Results: 20

ROBERT D. GARNER v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-09-15

Snippet: murder of a store clerk during a robbery. Id. at 466-67. Building upon its reasoning in Graham, the Supreme

ALL INSURANCE RESTORATION SERVICES, INC. v. AMERICAN INTERGRITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2022-03-23

Snippet: Anchor Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 302 So. 3d 463, 466–67 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020), rev. denied, SC20-1382, 2020

BENJAMIN AQUINO v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2020-12-02

Snippet: was lying. 3 Id. at 466-67. To prevail on an ineffective assistance

Susan Snyder v. Florida Prepaid College Board

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2019-03-13

Citation: 269 So. 3d 586

Snippet: Nabbie v. Orlando Outlet Owner, LLC, 237 So. 3d 463, 466-67 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (recognizing a true ambiguity

Roberts v. Miami-Dade County

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-06-27

Citation: 249 So. 3d 1309

Snippet: the County’s refusal to hear his appeal. Id. at 466-67. The trial court held that the employee failed

Rachel D. Dukes, f/k/a Rachel D. Griffin, Former Wife v. Timothy R. Griffin, Former Husband

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-10-11

Citation: 230 So. 3d 155

Snippet: restrictions. See, e.g., Perez v. Fay, 160 So.3d 459, 466-67 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Witt-Bahls v. Bahls, 193 So

Curiale v. Curiale

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2017-06-09

Citation: 220 So. 3d 554, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 8499, 2017 WL 2491557

Snippet: (emphasis added); see also Perez v. Fay, 160 So.3d 459, 466-67 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). The steps necessary to reestablish

Warren Staples v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-10-06

Citation: 202 So. 3d 28, 41 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 422, 2016 Fla. LEXIS 2244

Snippet: Staples, 161 So.3d at 562; Mills, 840 So.2d at 466-67; Archer, 604 So.2d at 563. Having done neither

Slaton v. Slaton

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-07-15

Citation: 195 So. 3d 1192, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 10880, 2016 WL 3767297

Snippet: reestablish time-sharing. Perez, 160 So.3d at 466-67 (quoting Grigsby, 3 9 So.3d at 457)

Doolittle v. Shumer

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-12-05

Citation: 152 So. 3d 779, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 19785, 2014 WL 6829845

Snippet: suit.” Eller Media Co. v. Serrano, 761 So.2d 464, 466-67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). .The record before us does

Stinson ex rel. Deily v. GEICO Insurance Co.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-01-15

Citation: 37 So. 3d 277, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 191

Snippet: reasonable at the time it was entered into. Id. at 466-67. While Phillips concerned a minor, we believe it

In Re Guardianship of Deily

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-01-15

Citation: 37 So. 3d 277, 2010 WL 143457

Snippet: reasonable at the time it was entered into. Id. at 466-67. While Phillips concerned a minor, we believe it

Calero v. Calero

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2008-12-10

Citation: 996 So. 2d 244, 2008 WL 5156678

Snippet: bi-weekly, resulting in a gross monthly income of $3,466.67 and a net monthly income of $3,255.23. The parties'

Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2008-10-23

Citation: 997 So. 2d 1098, 36 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2540, 33 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 849, 2008 Fla. LEXIS 2010, 2008 WL 4659374

Snippet: intentional infliction of emotional distress. Id. at 466-67. Further, the court concluded that Rapp had abandoned

Deparvine v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2008-09-29

Citation: 995 So. 2d 351, 2008 WL 4380919

Snippet: that "the declarant responded to an event." Id. at 466-67 (emphasis supplied) (discussing McGauley v. State

Barclay v. Robert C. Malt & Co., Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2008-06-18

Citation: 985 So. 2d 53, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 9109, 2008 WL 2435992

Snippet: Improvement Corp. v. Hall, 143 Fla. 778, 197 *55 So. 464, 466-67 (1940). This court has recognized that a "mortgage

Overton v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2007-11-29

Citation: 976 So. 2d 536, 2007 WL 4191990

Snippet: merely speculative); Gore v. State, 846 So.2d 461, 466-67 (Fla.2003) (holding that the Brady claim was insufficiently

Willis v. GAMI GOLDEN GLADES, LLC.

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2007-10-18

Citation: 967 So. 2d 846, 2007 WL 3024039

Snippet: Sash & Door Co., 286 S.C. 579, 336 S.E.2d 465, 466-67 (1985); Wright v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Cent

Wolfe v. Wolfe

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2007-03-28

Citation: 953 So. 2d 632, 2007 WL 911830

Snippet: was not a basis to modify the award. 4 So.2d at 466-67. Yet without explanation, Springstead somehow reformulated

Donoff v. Donoff

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2006-11-01

Citation: 940 So. 2d 1221, 2006 WL 3077748

Snippet: was not a basis to modify the award. 4 So.2d at 466-67. Yet without explanation, Springstead somehow reformulated