Bingham

Bingham v. Hamilton

Good Law
100 F. Supp. 2d 1233·2000 WL 867483·2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8956
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 15, 2000CIV. S-99-0499 DFL JFMCalifornia3,950 words

Opinion

Opinion

Levi, J.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER

This is a First Amendment commercial speech case in which plaintiffs Perry Bing-ham and the American Academy of Implant Dentistry (AAID) challenge the California State Board of Dental Examiners’ (“California Dental Board” or “Dental Board”) enforcement policy prohibiting the advertisement of certain credentials by California licensed dentists. Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted.

I.

• Implant dentistry consists of the placing of “devices for attaching artificial replacement teeth to the same bones to which natural teeth are anchored.” (Pis.’ Exh. DD, Defs.’ Regulatory File, at 546, AAID Position Paper: Specialty Recognition and the Future of Dental Implants.) This case arises from the interaction of four sets of facts or circumstances concerning the practice of implant dentistry. First, any dentist with a general license to practice as a dentist may perform implant dentistry in California. There is no requirement of any special training or education beyond that required for the license to practice as a dentist. As a consequence, any licensed dentist may advertise that he or she…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.