California cracks down on lay dentistry

Oakland, Calif.- State veterinary leaders await a judge's ruling as to whether a Santa Cruz teeth cleaning operation and its understudy illegally practiced veterinary medicine when the student used a scraper during a dog's teeth cleaning and allegedly asphyxiated the animal while restraining it.

The state requests Cindy Collins, president of Canine Care, Inc., and its agent, James Aldrin, conform to regulations barring unlicensed professionals from practicing lay dentistry. By doing so, the state offers to partially or fully waive fines totaling $1,000, court records show.

The administrative law judge's decision, expected this month, sets the stage for at least four similar California cases alleging animal injury stemming from lay dental care. Prosecutors maintain that the California Veterinary Practice Act prohibits unlicensed persons from applying instruments to perform dental operations, including the removal, repair, polishing or cleaning of teeth. Yet it also determines, "Nothing in this regulation shall prohibit any person from utilizing cotton swabs, gauze dental floss, dentifrice, toothbrushes or similar items to clean an animal's teeth."

The phrase "or similar items" sparks the debate.

"They say the scraper falls under that distinction, and we disagree," says Sue Geranen, executive officer to the Veterinary Medical Board (VMB), which submitted complaints to the attorney general's office. "Can just anyone use a hard instrument to clean teeth? We say, no, that's the practice of veterinary medicine."

Sue Geranen

Lay animal service outfits disagree. Canine Care, Inc., a business that teaches animal teeth cleaning techniques, and Aldrin waived paying $500 in fines each in lieu of a judicial ruling in the case.

Testing the regulation

Neither defendant could be reached for comment at presstime.

"These people can show pictures where scrapers are next to toothbrushes and toothpaste in the grocery store, and they think that's why these hard, metal tools should be exempt," Geranen says. "They're charging people for their services and setting up businesses to do this, and we think that's wrong.

"Our regulation has been in place since the early 1990s, and it's never been tested. This is an opportunity for the defendants to do that. We're proposing that the state close what could be a loophole in the practice act, which creates confusion on the part of the public."

The judge's ruling is expected to set precedence for the state's other cases, which have become costly to prosecute.

Awaiting an outcome

"The implication is if you allow people to perform dentistry or veterinary procedures outside the veterinary hospital then you have places of business that are not inspected or have permits," says Gary Hill, the California Veterinary Medical Association's (CVMA) director of unlicensed activity. "This leads to underground dentistry and no regulatory fallback for the consumer."

The next case scheduled for hearing later this month in Los Angeles involves a similar dental outfit, which allegedly aided and abetted in the practice of veterinary medicine, resulting in a dog's broken jaw. If regulatory change does not take place with the judicial rulings, the practice act likely will be reviewed and changed, says CVMA Executive Director Dick Schumacher, DVM.

Dr. Dick Schumacher

"Everyone's hanging on this opinion," he says. "I would hope that we would prevail."