Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lavin v. Department of Reg. & Ed.

FEBRUARY 9, 1965.

CHARLES LAVIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, WILLIAM SYLVESTER WHITE, DIRECTOR OF SAID DEPARTMENT, AND EDGAR T. STEPHENS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.



Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. CHARLES S. DOUGHERTY, Judge, presiding. Judgment affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE BRYANT DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

This appeal is brought from a judgment order entered in the Circuit Court of Cook County, January 16, 1964, affirming an order of the Director of the Department of Registration and Education, which revoked the appellant's license to practice dentistry.

A complaint was filed before the Department of Registration by Edgar T. Stephens, the relator in this matter, alleging eight violations of the Dental Practice Act, Ill Rev Stats 1959, ch 91, par 56a-72h. A hearing was had before the Board of Dental Examiners at which the appellant, Doctor Lavin, was present and represented by counsel. At the conclusion of the hearing the Board issued a report in which it made the following findings:

"1. . . .

"2. In or about 1958, Respondent rented space from the Clark Dental Laboratory at 2656 North Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois, where he has practiced dentistry five days a week, Monday through Friday, with Wednesday off. The monthly rental Respondent pays is $40.00 and covers use of a reception room and an operating room, and also includes electricity, water and heat. Hugo and Mrs. Charlotte Heins, also known as Heinsheimer, are Respondent's lessors. The reception room and dental office are in the front part of the premises and the dental laboratory is located to the rear. Neither Hugo nor Charlotte Heins is a licensed dentist.

"3. Respondent's practice is general, including extractions and dentures. His laboratory work is done by the Clark Dental Laboratory, which bills Respondent for each case separately. There is no minimum guarantee by the Laboratory of Respondent's compensation.

"4. . . .

"5. Respondent's name appears on the front window and front door of the premises at 2656 North Clark Street, along with the name Clark Dental Laboratory. Respondent authorized his name to be put there.

"6. Clark Dental Laboratory carried a two-inch, one-column display advertisement in the 1959 and 1960 issues of the Chicago Red Book classified telephone directory. . .

"7. . . .

"8. Respondent either knew or should have known that Clark Dental Laboratory, with which he was associated professionally, was advertising directly to the public by means of the Chicago Red Book telephone directory."

Findings of similar nature were made concerning offices of the appellant (respondent at the hearing) which were located at 32 North State Street, Chicago, and at 127 North Dearborn Street, Chicago. At the State Street address, the appellant rented from the Allied Optical Company. The Allied Optical Company also rented office space to Perfected Dental Products Company. Both Allied Optical Company and Perfected Dental Products Company advertised in the Chicago Red Book classified telephone directory. At the Dearborn Street address, the appellant was found to be renting from one Beldon Clyde who operated four dental laboratories. It was found that "Respondent's name, along with the names of said laboratories, appeared on the door of the seventh floor premises occupied by said laboratories." Laboratories in this suit of offices were advertising in the Chicago Red Book classified telephone directory.

The following findings were also made by the Board:

"20. Respondent telephoned the Chicago office of the Illinois State Dental Society on three different occasions in May and June, 1958, and inquired of the Program Director as to the propriety of Respondent setting up a dental practice in a dental laboratory. Respondent stated that he could get a lot more business by going into a dental laboratory than he had at that time in his own practice. Respondent was informed that such arrangement could jeopardize his license to practice dentistry and could lead to proceedings to revoke that license, especially if the dental laboratory advertised to the public.

"21. On two different occasions, December 8 and December 15, 1959, Respondent was reached by telephone at said Clark Dental Laboratory by the Program Director of the Illinois State Dental Society and during the conversation which ensued, Respondent stated that he was a mental case and that was the reason he was forced to work in these holes."

On the basis of the findings of fact, the Board determined that appellant was guilty of improper conduct in that he violated the Dental Practice Act by aiding and abetting persons not licensed to practice dentistry in Illinois, to engage in the practice of dentistry in violation of the Act. Ill Rev Stats 1959, c 91, par 62(6). The Board also found appellant guilty of having professional connection or association with various individuals who were holding themselves out to the public in a manner contrary to the law in that they were operating dental laboratories which advertised to the public. Ill Rev Stats 1959 c 91, par 60a, 62(8).

In addition, the Board found that appellee had been practicing dentistry in a name other than his own in violation of Ill Rev Stats 1959, c 91, par 62(10) and that appellant had taken impressions for or used the services of a person, firm or corporation violating provisions of Ill Rev Stats 1959, c 91, par 60a, which constituted a violation of par 62(16) of the same chapter. Finally, the Board concluded that appellant had advertised or solicited by himself, or through other persons, firms or corporations, by means of classified ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.