Judges: Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General of Kansas
Filed Date: 10/23/1995
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Dr. Estel Landreth, President Kansas Dental Board 3601 S.W. 29th Street S-134 Topeka, Kansas 66614
Dear Dr. Landreth:
As president of the Kansas dental board you inquire about the interpretation of K.S.A.
You indicate that a Kansas dentist licensee requested approval of a corporate name of Adams Dental Group, P.A. The licensee is the sole financial investor in the corporation but has two other licensed dentists working in his practice, among them Dr. Adams whose practice was purchased by the licensee forming the corporation. Citing subsection (b)(2) of K.S.A.
The statute in question, K.S.A.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to practice or offer to practice dentistry under any name except such person's own name, . . . or to use the name of any company, association, corporation, clinic, trade name or business name in connection with the practice of dentistry as defined in this act.
"(b) Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent two or more licensed dentists:
"(1) from associating together for the practice of dentistry, each in such person's own proper name; or
"(2) from associating together for the practice of dentistry in a professional corporation, organized under the professional corporation law of Kansas, under a corporate name, established in accordance with the professional corporation law of Kansas, that may or may not contain the proper name of any such person or persons;
"(3) from associating together with persons licensed to practice medicine and surgery in a clinic or professional association under a name that may or may not contain the proper name of any such person or persons and may contain the word ``clinic.'"
Generally K.S.A.
At issue is whether "associating together" requires the two or more dentists to own shares in the corporation, thereby establishing a financial relationship. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and it is the function of the court to interpret a statute to give it the effect intended by the legislature. If the intent can be ascertained from the statute, that intent governs. City of Wichita v. 200 South Broadway,
In construing statutes, the legislative intent must be determined from a general consideration of the entire act and if possible all the provisions must be reconciled to make them harmonious and consistent. State v. Adee,
It is clear from the prohibition in K.S.A. 1994 Supp.
The board's policy requiring that the dentists associating together have a financial relationship is not only more restrictive than the language of the statute, it does not serve to effectuate legislative intent. Legislative intent, if it can be ascertained from the statute, governs and the language of a statute must be interpreted in light of that legislative intent.Adee,
The language of the statute supports our analysis and conclusion by not actually requiring that the dentists associate together to form the corporation. The language of the statute simply requires the dentists associate together for the practice of dentistry. Rules of construction may not be used to read into a statute something that does not come within the wording of the statute.State ex rel. Stephan v. Board of Seward County Commissioners,
We also note that the board's policy may be challenged on another basis. Internal policy of a state agency which is adopted to govern the agency's enforcement or administration of legislation is a rule or regulation as a matter of law under K.S.A. 1994 Supp.
In conclusion it is our opinion that dentists who want to incorporate under a corporate name pursuant to subsection (b) (2) of K.S.A.
Very truly yours,
CARLA J. STOVALL Attorney General of Kansas
Guen Easley Assistant Attorney General
CJS:JLM:GE:jm
State Ex Rel. Londerholm v. Columbia Pictures Corp. , 197 Kan. 448 ( 1966 )
Kansas Commission on Civil Rights v. Topeka Unified School ... , 243 Kan. 137 ( 1988 )
State v. Adee , 241 Kan. 825 ( 1987 )
City of Wichita v. 200 South Broadway, Ltd. Partnership , 253 Kan. 434 ( 1993 )
State Ex Rel. Stephan v. Kansas Racing Commission , 246 Kan. 708 ( 1990 )