679.140
Discipline of licensee; grounds; procedure; sanctions. (1) The Oregon Board of Dentistry
may discipline as provided in this section any person licensed to practice
dentistry in this state for any of the following causes:
(a) Conviction of
any violation of the law for which the court could impose a punishment if the
board makes the finding required by ORS 670.280. The record of conviction or a
certified copy thereof, certified by the clerk of the court or by the judge in whose
court the conviction is entered, is conclusive evidence of the conviction.
(b) Renting or
lending a license or diploma of the dentist to be used as the license or
diploma of another person.
(c)
Unprofessional conduct.
(d) Any violation
of this chapter or ORS 680.010 to 680.205, of rules adopted pursuant to this
chapter or ORS 680.010 to 680.205 or of an order issued by the board.
(e) Engaging in
or permitting the performance of unacceptable patient care by the dentist or by
any person working under the supervision of the dentist due to a deliberate or
negligent act or failure to act by the dentist, regardless of whether actual injury
to the patient is established.
(f) Incapacity to
practice safely.
(2) “Unprofessional
conduct” as used in this chapter includes but is not limited to the following:
(a) Obtaining any
fee by fraud or misrepresentation.
(b) Willfully
betraying confidences involved in the patient-dentist relationship.
(c) Employing,
aiding, abetting or permitting any unlicensed personnel to practice dentistry,
dental hygiene or dental therapy.
(d) Making use of
any advertising statements of a character tending to deceive or mislead the
public or that are untruthful.
(e) Impairment as
defined in ORS 676.303.
(f) Obtaining or
attempting to obtain a controlled substance in any manner proscribed by the
rules of the board.
(g) Prescribing
or dispensing drugs outside the scope of the practice of dentistry or in a
manner that impairs the health and safety of an individual.
(h) Disciplinary
action by a state licensing or regulatory agency of this or another state
regarding a license to practice dentistry, dental hygiene, dental therapy or
any other health care profession when, in the judgment of the board, the act or
conduct resulting in the disciplinary action bears a demonstrable relationship
to the ability of the licensee or applicant to practice dentistry, dental
hygiene or dental therapy in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. A
certified copy of the record of the disciplinary action is conclusive evidence
of the disciplinary action.
(3) The
proceedings under this section may be taken by the board from the matters
within its knowledge or may be taken upon the information of another, but if
the informant is a member of the board, the other members of the board shall
constitute the board for the purpose of finding judgment of the accused.
(4) In
determining what constitutes unacceptable patient care, the board may take into
account all relevant factors and practices, including but not limited to the
practices generally and currently followed and accepted by persons licensed to
practice dentistry in this state, the current teachings at accredited dental
schools, relevant technical reports published in recognized dental journals and
the desirability of reasonable experimentation in the furtherance of the dental
arts.
(5) In
disciplining a person as authorized by subsection (1) of this section, the
board may use any or all of the following methods:
(a) Suspend
judgment.
(b) Place a
licensee on probation.
(c) Suspend a
license to practice dentistry in this state.
(d) Revoke a
license to practice dentistry in this state.
(e) Place
limitations on a license to practice dentistry in this state.
(f) Refuse to
renew a license to practice dentistry in this state.
(g) Accept the
resignation of a licensee to practice dentistry in this state.
(h) Assess a
civil penalty.
(i) Reprimand a
licensee.
(j) Impose any
other disciplinary action the board in its discretion finds proper, including
assessment of the costs of the disciplinary proceedings as a civil penalty.
(6) If the board
places any person upon probation as set forth in subsection (5)(b) of this
section, the board may determine and may at any time modify the conditions of
the probation and may include among them any reasonable condition for the
purpose of protection of the public and for the purpose of the rehabilitation
of the probationer or both. Upon expiration of the term of probation, further
proceedings shall be abated by the board if the person holding the license
furnishes the board with evidence that the person is competent to practice
dentistry and has complied with the terms of probation. If the evidence fails
to establish competence to the satisfaction of the board or if the evidence
shows failure to comply with the terms of the probation, the board may revoke
or suspend the license.
(7) If a license
to practice dentistry in this state is suspended, the person holding the
license may not practice during the term of suspension. Upon the expiration of
the term of suspension, the license shall be reinstated by the board if the
board finds, based upon evidence furnished by the person, that the person is
competent to practice dentistry and has not practiced dentistry in this state
during the term of suspension. If the evidence fails to establish to the
satisfaction of the board that the person is competent or if any evidence shows
the person has practiced dentistry in this state during the term of suspension,
the board may revoke the license after notice and hearing.
(8) Upon receipt
of a complaint under this chapter or ORS 680.010 to 680.205, the board shall
conduct an investigation as described under ORS 676.165.
(9) Information
that the board obtains as part of an investigation into licensee or applicant
conduct or as part of a contested case proceeding, consent order or stipulated
agreement involving licensee or applicant conduct is confidential as provided
under ORS 676.175. Notwithstanding ORS 676.165 to 676.180, the board may
disclose confidential information regarding a licensee or an applicant to
persons who may evaluate or treat the licensee or applicant for drug abuse,
alcohol abuse or any other health related conditions.
(10) The board
may impose against any person who violates the provisions of this chapter or
ORS 680.010 to 680.205 or rules of the board a civil penalty of up to $5,000
for each violation. Any civil penalty imposed under this section shall be
imposed in the manner provided in ORS 183.745.
(11)
Notwithstanding the expiration, suspension, revocation or surrender of the
license, or the resignation or retirement of the licensee, the board may:
(a) Proceed with
any investigation of, or any action or disciplinary proceedings against, the
dentist, dental hygienist or dental therapist; or
(b) Revise or
render void an order suspending or revoking the license.
(12)(a) The board
may continue with any proceeding or investigation for a period not to exceed
four years from the date of the expiration, suspension, revocation or surrender
of the license, or the resignation or retirement of the licensee; or
(b) If the board
receives a complaint or initiates an investigation within that four-year
period, the board’s jurisdiction continues until the matter is concluded by a
final order of the board following any appeal.
(13) Withdrawing
the application for license does not close any investigation, action or
proceeding against an applicant. [Amended by 1955 c.560 §2; 1961 c.311 §1; 1963
c.284 §8; 1965 c.122 §5; 1971 c.157 §1; 1973 c.554 §1; 1977 c.192 §3a; 1977
c.745 §51; 1979 c.142 §1; 1979 c.744 §53a; 1981 c.185 §2; 1983 c.169 §11; 1985
c.323 §6; 1991 c.734 §73; 1995 c.199 §2; 1997 c.791 §25; 1999 c.253 §1; 1999
c.578 §1; 2003 c.83 §5; 2009 c.756 §39; 2021 c.530 §14]
679.150 [Amended by 1961 c.311 §2; 1963
c.284 §9; 1965 c.122 §6; 1967 c.282 §2; 1983 c.169 §12; repealed by 1999 c.578 §6]
Notes of Decisions
Campbell v. Henderson, 403 P.2d 902 (Or. 1965).
· cites it 13× “*77 The regulations were adopted by the board on November 2, 1962, and purport to be interpretations of ORS 679.140, as it read at that time. This section then provided that a dentist may have his license revoked or suspended for unprofessional conduct, and that "Unprofessional…”
Coffey v. Bd. of Geologist Examiners, 235 P.3d 678 (Or. 2010).
· cites it 3× “140(2) defined “unprofessional conduct” as “including] but not limited to” a list of specific activities.”
Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 586 P.2d 816 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 35× “In contrast with Mintz, Ward, and Hurley , the conduct at issue here is not expressly proscribed by ORS 679.140 and is not inchoate of any of the conduct specifically proscribed by that statute.”
Ortiz v. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div., 609 P.2d 1309 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 3× “The Supreme Court’s assessment in Megdal of the effect of the Board’s failure to particularize the "unprofessional conduct” standard in ORS 679.140 applies with equal force to the Division’s failure here to particularize the meaning of "good cause” in ORS 418.”
Investigators, Inc. v. Harvey, 633 P.2d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “ORS 679.140(5). The purpose of this regulatory legislation is to insure that only qualified persons are licensed and practicing as dentists.”
Spray v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 624 P.2d 125 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“Board of Dental Examiners, the court examined the phrase "unprofessional conduct,” as that term is used with respect to the practice of dentistry in ORS 679.140, as a ground for revocation of a dental license.”
Bernard v. Bd. of Dental Examiners, 465 P.2d 917 (Or. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 2× “insuráncé company pro viding insurance coverage for' the dental plan, eontrary to- ORS 679.140 2. (b).” *27 Thereafter, the board, based upon the Findings and Conclusions of the hearing examiner, entered its order: “(1) That the Board approves and does hereby adopt the Findings…”
Morgan v. Bd. of Dentistry, 848 P.2d 650 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 8× “Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Dentistry (Board) that disciplined him for violations of ORS 679.140 1 and ORS 679.170(6). We affirm.”
Oregon State Denturist Ass'n v. Bd. of Dentistry, 19 P.3d 986 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).
“9 That statement also noted that a denturist who places or attaches a denture on or about a root structure or implants is practicing dentistry without a license in violation of ORS 679.140 and ORS 679.170. 10 OSDA also asked for a declaratory ruling as to whether the Board must…”
Angelos v. State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 414 P.2d 335 (Or. 1966).
· cites it 3× “The Board makes no attempt to restrain any dentist in the kinds of dentistry he performs, but merely seeks to regulate advertising within the meaning of ORS 679.140. The plaintiff asserts that the regulation is an unwarranted denial of a claimed right to advise the public that…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(1) — 1 case
Morgan v. Bd. of Dentistry, 848 P.2d 650 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Dentistry (Board) that disciplined him for violations of ORS 679.140 1 and ORS 679.170(6). We affirm.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(1)(a) — 1 case
Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 586 P.2d 816 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“In contrast with Mintz, Ward, and Hurley , the conduct at issue here is not expressly proscribed by ORS 679.140 and is not inchoate of any of the conduct specifically proscribed by that statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(1)(c) — 4 cases
Ortiz v. Adult & Fam. Servs. Div., 609 P.2d 1309 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).
“The Supreme Court’s assessment in Megdal of the effect of the Board’s failure to particularize the "unprofessional conduct” standard in ORS 679.140 applies with equal force to the Division’s failure here to particularize the meaning of "good cause” in ORS 418.”
Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 586 P.2d 816 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“In contrast with Mintz, Ward, and Hurley , the conduct at issue here is not expressly proscribed by ORS 679.140 and is not inchoate of any of the conduct specifically proscribed by that statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(1)(d) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(1)(e) — 1 case
Morgan v. Bd. of Dentistry, 848 P.2d 650 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Dentistry (Board) that disciplined him for violations of ORS 679.140 1 and ORS 679.170(6). We affirm.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(2) — 6 cases
Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 586 P.2d 816 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“In contrast with Mintz, Ward, and Hurley , the conduct at issue here is not expressly proscribed by ORS 679.140 and is not inchoate of any of the conduct specifically proscribed by that statute.”
Bernard v. Bd. of Dental Examiners, 465 P.2d 917 (Or. Ct. App. 1970).
“insuráncé company pro viding insurance coverage for' the dental plan, eontrary to- ORS 679.140 2. (b).” *27 Thereafter, the board, based upon the Findings and Conclusions of the hearing examiner, entered its order: “(1) That the Board approves and does hereby adopt the Findings…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(2)(a) — 2 cases
Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 586 P.2d 816 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“In contrast with Mintz, Ward, and Hurley , the conduct at issue here is not expressly proscribed by ORS 679.140 and is not inchoate of any of the conduct specifically proscribed by that statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(2)(b) — 2 cases
Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 586 P.2d 816 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“In contrast with Mintz, Ward, and Hurley , the conduct at issue here is not expressly proscribed by ORS 679.140 and is not inchoate of any of the conduct specifically proscribed by that statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(2)(g) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(2)(o) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(4) — 3 cases
Morgan v. Bd. of Dentistry, 848 P.2d 650 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Dentistry (Board) that disciplined him for violations of ORS 679.140 1 and ORS 679.170(6). We affirm.”
Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 586 P.2d 816 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“In contrast with Mintz, Ward, and Hurley , the conduct at issue here is not expressly proscribed by ORS 679.140 and is not inchoate of any of the conduct specifically proscribed by that statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(5) — 1 case
Investigators, Inc. v. Harvey, 633 P.2d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“ORS 679.140(5). The purpose of this regulatory legislation is to insure that only qualified persons are licensed and practicing as dentists.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(5)(j) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(l)(a) — 1 case
Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 586 P.2d 816 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“In contrast with Mintz, Ward, and Hurley , the conduct at issue here is not expressly proscribed by ORS 679.140 and is not inchoate of any of the conduct specifically proscribed by that statute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(l)(c) — 4 cases
Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 586 P.2d 816 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“In contrast with Mintz, Ward, and Hurley , the conduct at issue here is not expressly proscribed by ORS 679.140 and is not inchoate of any of the conduct specifically proscribed by that statute.”
Morgan v. Bd. of Dentistry, 848 P.2d 650 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Dentistry (Board) that disciplined him for violations of ORS 679.140 1 and ORS 679.170(6). We affirm.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(l)(d) — 2 cases
Morgan v. Bd. of Dentistry, 848 P.2d 650 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
“Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Dentistry (Board) that disciplined him for violations of ORS 679.140 1 and ORS 679.170(6). We affirm.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 679.140(l)(e) — 1 case
Investigators, Inc. v. Harvey, 633 P.2d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“ORS 679.140(5). The purpose of this regulatory legislation is to insure that only qualified persons are licensed and practicing as dentists.”
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.