Summary
In Corsello v. State Dental Council and Examining Board, 75 Pa. Commw. 15, 460 A.2d 1226 (1983), this Court rejected the petitioner's argument that his substantial compliance with board regulations governing procedure for securing a license to practice dentistry justified his requested waiver from those requirements.
Summary of this case from State College Manor Ltd. v. Commonwealth, Department of Public WelfareOpinion
Argued March 2, 1983
June 9, 1983.
State Dental Council and Examining Board — Refusal of license to practice dentistry — Failure of clinical examination — Abuse of discretion.
1. The State Dental Council and Examining Board does not abuse its discretion in refusing to waive the requirement that an applicant for a license to practice dentistry pass a clinical examination when the examination was failed three times by the applicant and the requirement for successful completion of the examination has a substantial and reasonable relationship to an ability to practice dentistry. [17]
Argued March 2, 1983, before Judges BLATT, CRAIG and DOYLE, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1081 C.D. 1982, from the Order of the State Dental Council and Eamining Board in case of In Re: Gregg Michael Corsello, D.M.D., dated April 15, 1982.
Request to the State Dental Council and Examining Board for grant of licensure to practice dentistry. Request denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Robert I. Grigsby, with him Scott E. Becker and Alan S. Baum, Thomson, Rhodes Grigsby, for petitioner. David J. Felicio, Assistant Counsel, with him Edward D. Frank, II, Chief Counsel, David F. Phifer, Chief Counsel, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.
Gregg M. Corsello, D.M.D. (petitioner) appeals here from an order of the Pennsylvania State Dental Council and Examining Board (Board) which denied his request for special relief in the form of a grant of licensure to practice dentistry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Board regulations provide that "to secure a license to practice dentistry, a person shall sequentially pass a written (National Boards) examination, a clinical (Northeast Regional Board) examination, and a Pennsylvania Dental Law Examination." The petitioner successfully passed the first, but, after three attempts, failed to pass the sequel. He then requested the Board to waive its requirement for successful completion of the clinical examination. The Board's denial of this request is presently before us.
Section 3(e) of The Dental Law, Act of May 1, 1933, P.L. 216, as amended, 63 P. S. § 122.
The clinical examination tests an applicant's ability to perform basic dental procedures on a patient and includes a prosthodontics, periodontics, and restorative portion. The petitioner successfully completed the first two portions of the clinical exam, but has never passed the restorative portion.
The petitioner argues that the Board abused its discretion. He contends that, inasmuch as his failure on each occasion was based on a different reason, the Board should have considered these three examinations "cumulatively" and held that his allegedly substantial compliance justifies the waiver he now seeks.
The petitioner raises an additional issue which involves a constitutional challenge to the Board's procedures, but which was not raised before the Board. The petitioner argues that we should decide this new issue on the merits because the Board would not have had the legal expertise to decide a constitutional issue. It is clear, however, that "a party may not raise upon appeal any other question not raised before the agency (notwithstanding the fact that the agency may not be competent to resolve such questions). . . ." Section 703 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. § 703.
The Board argues that the petitioner has failed to complete the clinical examination successfully, and that, inasmuch as this requirement is a reasonable requirement for those seeking licensure in the Commonwealth, it may require the petitioner to fulfill this requirement before granting him licensure. See Reisinger v. State Board of Medical Education and Licensure, 41 Pa. Commw. 553, 399 A.2d 1160 (1979); Oliver v. Pennsylvania Board of Psychologists Examiners, 45 Pa. Commw. 195, 404 A.2d 1386 (1979). We agree.
There is no doubt that the petitioner has failed to complete the restorative portion of the clinical examination successfully. This clearly has a substantial and reasonable relationship to his ability to practice dentistry successfully, and is a prerequisite to obtaining licensure in this Commonwealth.
We believe, therefore, that the Board did not commit any error of law or abuse of discretion in refusing to waive this requirement. Reisinger.
Our scope of review here is limited to a determination of whether or not constitutional rights were violated, and whether or not the adjudication was in accordance with the law and supported by substantial evidence. Reisinger.
We will affirm the order of the Board.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of June, 1983, the order of the State Dental Council and Examining Board in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.