Revocation for Sexual Misconduct, California Code of Regulations, Title 16, Section 1018

Sexual harassment can happen at any time, but no one expects these things to happen while visiting the dentist. Unfortunately, many women report being sexually assaulted while being groggy from anesthesia. By the Revocation for Sexual Misconduct regulatory action, the Dental Board of California amends section 1018 of Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations. It requires an administrative law judge to order the revocation of a license if the judge’s proposed decision contains a finding of the fact that the licensee has committed or has been convicted of a sex offense (engaged in sexual contact with a client, customer, or patient.

The Dental Board of California has determined that businesses that may be affected by this proposal are:

  • Businesses that employ licensees who face disciplinary action due to sexual misconduct;
  • Businesses owned by licensees who face disciplinary action due to sexual misconduct.

Sexual contact (for the purposes of this section) shares the meaning defined in subdivision (c) of Section 729 of the Business and Profession Code, and sex offense has the same meaning as defined in Section 44010 of the Education Code.

There was no reasonable alternative that has been identified to be as effective in carrying out the purpose than the adopted regulation. Protection of the public while exercising regulatory, licensing, and disciplinary functions is the Dental Board’s highest priority, and this regulatory change helps the Board to ensure that individuals who have violated laws related to sexual misconduct will be disciplined appropriately and effectively.

Benefits from the Proposed Regulation

The regulation related to revocation for sexual misconduct provides maximum protection to consumers against licensees who are violating the laws as well as ensuring that they will be disciplined effectively.

CDA (California Dental Association) submitted a letter to the Board’s proposed regulatory change to amend the Section 1018 relative to Revocation for Sexual Misconduct. They commented that two conflicting and seemingly different statutes define unprofessional conduct:

  1. Section 1680 in the Dental Practice Act that defines unprofessional conduct for dental professionals and addresses sexual misconduct in subsection (e)
  2. Section 726 from the overall division for healthcare providers. This section restates the first part of section 1680, but it deletes the phrase that links unprofessional conduct to the practice of dentistry.

However, their comments were rejected.

Dental Board of California doesn’t share the opinion that these two sections are conflicting statutes, but that both of them operate concurrently. Ultimately, the DBC rejected the CDA’s proposed amendment, and they don’t have to express any statutory authority to provide an exemption from the provisions of section 726 of Business and Professions Code to permit sexual relationships between a dental professional and a patient who is a significant other or a spouse. By doing this, they would exceed their rulemaking authority.

Dental Specialties Institute, Inc. is there to teach and help you understand about the legal responsibilities and roles of dentists and dental auxiliaries, as well as legal repercussions of client, customer, and patient mistreatment. The course is mandatory for all RDA applicants to receive their practicing license.