Bach v. Florida State Bd. of Dentistry

Summary

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the suspension of Carol Ann Bach's dental hygiene license but reversed the suspension of Richard S. Bach's dentistry license. The court held that Florida Statutes section 466.38 required proof that Dr. Bach knowingly permitted his hygienist to perform an unauthorized operation, and that constructive knowledge or negligence was insufficient to establish implied permission or ratification. The dissent would have affirmed the Board's order against Dr. Bach.

Holdings

1. The evidence clearly supported the Board's findings concerning Carol Ann Bach, so her one-year suspension was affirmed.
2. A dentist's license may not be suspended under section 466.38 merely because the dentist should have known of an employee's unauthorized act or negligently failed to supervise the employee. The Board had to establish that the dentist permitted the act, including through implied permission or ratification supported by full knowledge or equivalent culpable conduct.
3. The word "permit" does not require an express order; it may encompass implied or tacit permission. However, the evidence in this case did not establish that Dr. Bach impliedly permitted or ratified the unauthorized acts.

Questions Presented

1. Whether competent and substantial evidence supported the Board's suspension of Carol Ann Bach's dental-hygiene license for administering an unauthorized anesthetic.
2. Whether section 466.38, Florida Statutes (1977), authorized suspension of Richard Bach's dental license based on an inference that he permitted or ratified his hygienist's unauthorized acts when he was not present and lacked full knowledge of them.
3. Whether the statutory term "permit" requires an express order or may include implied or tacit permission.

Disposition

other