Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Honamrbla 33.Carl Raldsr, %erataey Texas Sate Board cf Lbrntal&wminmm rztxcmBul.ldi~ Corpue Cheuristi, PccixaB Bear Sim .tt?f.n,l; the salI Cl?, !3trQuss'to 8Q ~rsctlco Dental iiu.urp3y an3 Smtiatrg in ang Cwnty in tha Stnta of Texna 3.1%whioh th1.elicense ia recorded.t ‘* + l Dr. 5trauos eecurad has lfcenae as ebooc eat out In 1929 nnd he5 never MI- corded hla license in any county i.nthe Honorable B. Carl Holder, Becretery, Page 2 State ai Texas, for upon securing said li- cenae Dr. 3trauss a%?turnedto MlchLgan where he has practiced dentistry ainca, *e+l* "I am, hOVeVBr, faced vith the difficulty Of detarmlnlng vhether or not the liaense grant- ed to Dr. Strauss in 1929 is still valid in view of the fact that wune v&s never recorded In the office of the clerk of any county in Texas. Is such recordatlon requ:red where a dentist has never actually practiced in the State of Texas, under the wording of the 1919 and the 1935 lavs that such license shall bo resented to the aountg clerk for recordatlon Pbefore beglnnlng the practice of dentlotry in any plsce in thts Stste?t" The Constitution of the State of Texea proVid08 that "the Legislature may pass laws presarlb%ng q~llficatlons of practltloners of medLcine in this State, and to punieh persona for malpracttce l l *." Pursuant to its inherent powera and the authorities expresely or implledlg conferred, the Legislli- ture has enacted Ucense regulations relating to medicine, dentistry, optomabry, and other slmllar prafesslons. In order to more efflclentlg aafaguard the llvea and veJ.l.being of its citizens the Legislature haa not only set up standards and regulrements for preparation and practice, but has eetab- liahed Boarda of Fxaminera composed of professional men to adminieter the lwva in ragsrd to the practice of a particular profeas-Lon. Article 4546, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, aa amended, whtch vith the exception of mI.nor changes in language is the 8tuneas Section 9 of'House Bill Ho. 1, Acts of the 36th Legislature, read8 ae followsr "Every peraon to whom a 1Lcense ZB isfm?d by the State Board of Dantal ExamLmra nhall, before begfnnlng the practice of dentLstry at any piece In this State, yre8er.tthe shameto th8 County Clerk of the county In nNch he resides and offers to practice, and to the County Clerk of each and every other county In vhlch hemay practice or offer to practice1 ,. . Honorable B. Carl Holder, Page 3 staidCounty Clerk shall record aaid license in a book provided for the.mrgose, and re- ceive fifty (50$?)cents therefor, Absence of the record of such license in any place vhere such license is hereby required to be recoztiedshall be prima facie evidence in any court op this State of the vant of poeeesbion of such license. Acts 1919, g),Aota 1935, 44th Leg,, p. SOS, ch. 249; 2 l The apparent intent of the Legislature in requirw this recordatlon of license Is not primarily to protect the dentLst or to preserve a record of the lfcense, but to protect the publ.icand to give to the citizena of thZs State a con- venient and acceptable means of determining the status of the practicing dentist in their county. The last sentence in thls Article bears out thls Lnterprotnt1on vhen it states that absence of such reccrd ia prhm facie evidence of want of pos- cession of ouch license. We would point out Ln this regard if it is only grim8 fncSe evidence thus subject to contrary proof there must be other means by vhkh a dentist could eatab- llsh and prove his license. In this connection ve should nlso analyze Article 4547, Revised Civil Statutoa of Texas, vuch reads aa follovst 1 1 1 l* l ) No person shall be required to surrender an old license for a nev one unless he 80 dosiree. If 43-1~ licenne .issuedunder thle or any former law in Texeo ehall be lost or destroyed, the holder of said lfcenoe my present h?s ap?Zfcatl.onto the board for a duplicate llcenee together vith hLs affiaavLt of such loss or destruction and that he is the sane person to whom said license we ia- sued.,and shal.1be pranted a license under this lav. If the records of said board fail to shov that such person k’a ever licensed, the board may exsrclse its discret:on in granting said duplicate license." Re-dlng these tvo artlclc? tpEether we arrive at the conclualon that the Piles of the Board of Centnl Fxnniners are in reality the true and guiding records. Since the Dental li- censlq statutes do not set up a tine 1lm:t or require a re- examination, a llcense once gmperly secured and issued would exlat during the l:.feof the gractlt.;onerunless he vi.oleted , L . -, Honorable B. Carl Holder, Page 8 nome law in regard to the praatlce of dentlstq Q: the law itself vae changed. Under the fhota an you state thorn,it was not nec- essary for Dr. Ytrauss to record his lioense a8 he did not practice in Texas ami If that liceose accord1r.gto the re- dotis of yaw Board vae properly aecwed. and issued, It is at111 in good,Etandirq. We feel hovover that ve should point out that if Dr. Stmuss ia going to practice dentistry in Texas, he ehculd compPy with the lev and record hI:alicense in the proper county. Your8 very truly FBfrR3