Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 448-3 (2026)

Practice by unlicensed employee prohibited; penalty

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§448-3 Practice by unlicensed employee prohibited; penalty. (a) Except as provided in section 447-3, no person who manages or conducts as manager, proprietor, conductor, or otherwise a place where dental operations are performed, shall employ any person as operator in dental surgery or as a practitioner, or cause to permit any person to so act, who is not duly licensed to practice dentistry; provided that nothing in this chapter shall prohibit any unlicensed person from performing merely mechanical work upon inert matter in a dental laboratory.

(b) A duly licensed and registered dentist may employ auxiliary personnel, other than registered dental hygienists, to assist the dentist in the practice of dentistry. These employees shall be known as dental assistants and shall perform all duties assigned to them under the supervision, direction and responsibility of the dentist. Duties of the dental assistant and regulatory directives shall be delineated under rules which the board of dentistry may from time to time adopt.

(c) Any person violating this section shall be fined not less than $100 nor more than $1,000 for the first violation. Any person violating this section a second time shall be fined not less than $500 nor more than $2,000 and, in addition to the fine, the person's license shall be revoked. [L 1917, c 136, §3; am imp L 1920, c 7, §3; RL 1925, §1067; RL 1935, §982; RL 1945, §2153; RL 1955, §61-3; HRS §448-3; am L 1971, c 96, §1; gen ch 1985; am L 1986, c 217, §1; am L 2018, c 203, §4]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2012–2012 · leading case: State v. Gonzalez., 288 P.3d 788 (Haw. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Gonzalez., 288 P.3d 788 (Haw. 2012). · cites it 4× “Such widespread application of strict liability cannot be reconciled with the Commentary to HRS § 702-212, which counsels that strict liability “should not be discerned lightly by the courts,” that HRS § 702-212(2) “severely limits the situations which will allow the imposition…”

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 448-3(a) — 1 case

State v. Gonzalez., 288 P.3d 788 (Haw. 2012). “Such widespread application of strict liability cannot be reconciled with the Commentary to HRS § 702-212, which counsels that strict liability “should not be discerned lightly by the courts,” that HRS § 702-212(2) “severely limits the situations which will allow the imposition…”

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.