O.C.G.A. § 43-11-50 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1933, §§ 84-701, 84-9909, 84-9911, are included in the annotations for this Code section. Constitutionality. - O.C.G.A. § 4311-50 is not unconstitutional on the basis that the 1992 statute which amended it “refers to more than one subject matter” in violation of Ga. Const. 1983, Art. III, Sec. V, Para. III. Ga. L. 1992. p. 2062 is simply comprehensive legislation in the area of regulation of health professionals. Wrzesinski v. State, 271 Ga. 659, 522 S.E.2d 461, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 792 (1999). Burden of defendant whom state shows practiced without license to establish authority to practice. - When the state made out a case by proving that the defendant practiced dentistry in Georgia without having obtained a license from the board, this proof cast the burden upon the defendant to prove a right to so practice; the law makes the having of a license or other authority to practice dentistry at the time of the pas-

sage of former Code 1933, Ch. 84-7 (see now O.C.G.A. § 43-11-50) a matter of defense. Jordan v. State, 77 Ga. App. 700, 49 S.E.2d 694, 1948 Ga. App. LEXIS 622 (1948) (decided under former Code 1933, §§ 84-701, 84-9909, 84-9911). Charge barred by limitations period. - Since the defendant’s crimes of practicing dentistry without a license in violation of an earlier version of O.C.G.A. § 43-11-50 was subject to the two-year limitations period of O.C.G.A. § 17-3-1(d), and defendant’s crime of false statements and writings in violation of O.C.G.A. § 1610-20 was subject to the four-year limitations period of § 17-3-1(c), the court found that the claims were barred by the limitations period when the offenses were not charged in a timely manner, based on the evidence presented of when the crimes occurred; although the period of limitations did not include any period when the defendant was unknown or the crime was unknown pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-32(2), it was shown that various individuals, state courts, and other agencies were

aware that the defendant held oneself out as a dentist, which knowledge was imputed to the state and accordingly, the limitations time ran during that period. McMillan v. State, 266 Ga. App. 729, 598 S.E.2d 17, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 344 (2004), overruled in part, Glidewell v. State, 279 Ga. App. 114, 630 S.E.2d 621, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 469 (2006). Evidence was legally sufficient to support the defendant’s convictions for misdemeanor theft in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-8-2 and for practicing dentistry without a license in violation of an earlier version of O.C.G.A. § 43-11-50, since the defendant served as a dentist to numerous individuals, obtained loans for business ventures involving a dentistry practice, obtained services for the dentist practice which the dentist did not pay for, and performed services on patients; the jury resolved the credibility and weight of the evidence issues pursuant to former O.C.G.A. § 24-9-80 (see now O.C.G.A. § 24-6-620). McMillan v. State, 266 Ga. App. 729, 598 S.E.2d 17, 2004 Ga. App. LEXIS 344 (2004), overruled in part,

Glidewell v. State, 279 Ga. App. 114, 630 S.E.2d 621, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 469 (2006). Defendant’s conviction for practicing dentistry without a license in violation of O.C.G.A. § 43-11-50 was upheld on appeal because sufficient evidence was presented based on the testimony of an insurance investigator who discovered and observed the defendant practicing dentistry and later learned the defendant lacked licensing. Little v. State, 332 Ga. App. 553, 774 S.E.2d 132, 2015 Ga. App. LEXIS 356 (2015). Variance between allegation and proof. - Specification of “repairing” a dental device rather than of “manufacturing” one was not sufficient to constitute a fatal variance between allegata and probata when the language of the accusation was sufficiently definite regarding time, place, and nature of the offense to put the defendant on notice as to the nature of the charges. West v. State, 178 Ga. App. 550, 343 S.E.2d 759, 1986 Ga. App. LEXIS 2549 (1986).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Constitutionality and construction of statutes or regulations prohibiting one who has no license to practice dentistry or medicine from owning, maintaining, or operating an office therefor, 20 A.L.R.2d 808. Practicing medicine, surgery, dentistry,

optometry, podiatry, or other healing arts without license as a separate or continuing offense, 99 A.L.R.2d 654. Physician’s or other healer’s conduct, or conviction of offense not directly related to medical practice, as ground for disciplinary action, 34 A.L.R.4th 609.