It is clear that Pearson and Smith's actions in polishing a patient's
teeth with a portable instrument, similar to the one introduced as
evidence, are permissible activity as part of patient education. The
burden is on the state dental board to show by reliable, probative and
substantial evidence that Pearson [***6] and Smith exceeded what they
are permitted to do under Ohio statute and administrative rules. In
that the state dental board failed to produce any evidence to show
that Pearson and Smith performed the polishing of patients' clinical
crowns in an impermissible manner, we find that the trial court abused
its discretion in affirming the state dental board's order.
Accordingly, Dr. Stack's first assignment of error is found well
taken. In light of this court's disposition of the first assignment of
error, we find the second, third and fourth assignments of error not
well taken. On consideration whereof, the court finds substantial
justice has not been done the party complaining, and the judgment of
the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is reversed. It is ordered that
appellee pay the court costs of this appeal. Judgment reversed.
Handwork, P.J., Glasser and Sherck, JJ., concur.
--
Joel M. Eichen, .
Philadelphia PA

DISCLAIMER FOLLOWS:

*********

Dental health-related material
is provided for information purposes
only and does not necessarily
represent endorsement by or an official
position of the SciMedDentistry gang
or any other official agency either
actual or fictitious or Steve Mancuso.

Advice on the treatment or care
of an individual patient should
be obtained through consultation
with a dentist who has examined
that patient or is familiar with
that patient's dental history.

STANDARD DISCLAIMER

STACK, Appellant, v. OHIO STATE DENTAL BOARD, Appellee No. L-91-003
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth Appellate District, Lucas County 78
Ohio App. 3d 583; 605 N.E.2d 959; 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 712 February
28, 1992, Decided



On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:18:18 -0400, Joel M. Eichen D.D.S.
<> wrote:

>It is clear that Pearson and Smith's actions in polishing a patient's
>teeth with a portable instrument, similar to the one introduced as
>evidence, are permissible activity as part of patient education. The
>burden is on the state dental board to show by reliable, probative and
>substantial evidence that Pearson [***6] and Smith exceeded what they
>are permitted to do under Ohio statute and administrative rules. In
>that the state dental board failed to produce any evidence to show
>that Pearson and Smith performed the polishing of patients' clinical
>crowns in an impermissible manner, we find that the trial court abused
>its discretion in affirming the state dental board's order.
>Accordingly, Dr. Stack's first assignment of error is found well
>taken. In light of this court's disposition of the first assignment of
>error, we find the second, third and fourth assignments of error not
>well taken. On consideration whereof, the court finds substantial
>justice has not been done the party complaining, and the judgment of
>the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is reversed. It is ordered that
>appellee pay the court costs of this appeal. Judgment reversed.
>Handwork, P.J., Glasser and Sherck, JJ., concur.

--
Joel M. Eichen, .
Philadelphia PA

DISCLAIMER FOLLOWS:

*********

Dental health-related material
is provided for information purposes
only and does not necessarily
represent endorsement by or an official
position of the SciMedDentistry gang
or any other official agency either
actual or fictitious or Steve Mancuso.

Advice on the treatment or care
of an individual patient should
be obtained through consultation
with a dentist who has examined
that patient or is familiar with
that patient's dental history.

STANDARD DISCLAIMER