Title: GARY W. VOLLAN V. WYOMING BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

GARY W. VOLLAN V. WYOMING BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS2007 WY 132165 P.3d 103Case Number: 06-275Decided: 08/16/2007
APRIL TERM, A.D. 2007

 
 

GARY 
W. VOLLAN,Appellant(Defendant),v.WYOMING BOARD OF DENTAL 
EXAMINERS,Appellee(Plaintiff).

 
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Big HornCounty

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

W. Keith 
Goody of Alpine, Wyoming.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

Patrick 
J. Crank, Attorney General; Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; Ryan 
Schelhaas, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Kennard F. Nelson, Senior 
Assistant Attorney General.

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 
VOIGT, 
Chief Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      The district 
court granted a summary judgment in favor of the Wyoming Board of Dental 
Examiners (the Board) against the appellant, Gary Vollan.  The appellant now appeals, arguing that 
his denturist practice in Basin, Wyoming, is 
not conducted in violation of Wyoming statutes barring individuals from 
practicing dentistry without a license.  
We affirm.

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶2]      The appellant is 
a denturist.  In his words, this 
practice involves 

 
 
provid[ing] 
denture care directly on the patient.  
I do a health questionnaire with the patient.  I do an oral exam, recognizing healthy 
tissue, making sure that everything looks healthy before I start 
procedures.  If something doesn't 
look healthy, then I refer the patient to either a dentist or an oral surgeon or 
a medical doctor.

 
 
. . . 
.

 
 
[M]y 
services include complete dentures. . . .  
I take the impressions and I fabricate the denture.  I fit the denture.

 
 
The 
appellant also later adjusts dentures for his patients.

 
 
[¶3]      On September 9, 
2005, the Board filed the complaint in the instant action seeking to enjoin the 
appellant from practicing as a denturist under the theory that such practice 
constituted the practice of dentistry under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 33-15-114 
(LexisNexis 2007) without a license in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 33-15-124 
(LexisNexis 2007).

 
 
[¶4]      The district 
court granted a summary judgment in favor of the Board, finding that there was 
no dispute regarding the material facts and that the appellant was practicing 
dentistry without a license as a matter of law.  This appeal 
followed.

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶5]      Where an 
appellant challenges the district court's grant of a summary judgment, we apply 
the following standard of review:

 
 
            
Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue as to any material 
fact exists and the prevailing party is entitled to have a judgment as a matter 
of law.  Eklund v. PRI 
Environmental, Inc., 2001 
WY 55, ¶ 10, 25 P.3d 511, ¶ 10 (Wyo. 2001); see also W.R.C.P. 56(c). 
 A genuine issue of material fact 
exists when a disputed fact, if it were proven, would have the effect of 
establishing or refuting an essential element of the cause of action or defense 
that has been asserted by the parties. Williams Gas Processing-Wamsutter Co. 
v. Union Pacific Resources Co., 2001 WY 57, ¶ 11, 25 P.3d 1064, ¶ 
11 (Wyo. 2001).  We examine the 
record from the vantage point most favorable to the party who opposed the 
motion, and we give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may 
fairly be drawn from the record.  Id. We evaluate the propriety of a summary 
judgment by employing the same standards and by using the same materials as were 
employed and used by the lower court.  Scherer Constr., LLC v. Hedquist 
Constr., Inc., 2001 WY 23, 
¶ 15, 18 P.3d 645, ¶ 15 (Wyo. 2001).  We do not accord any deference to the 
district court's decisions on issues of law.  Id.

 
 

Trabing 
v. Kinko's, Inc., 2002 
WY 171, ¶ 8, 57 P.3d 1248, 1252 (Wyo. 2002).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶6]      Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
33-15-114 provides, in pertinent part:

 
 
            
(a) Except as provided by paragraph (xii) of this subsection, any person 
is deemed to be practicing dentistry within the meaning of this 
act:

 
 
. . . 
.

 
 
            
(iii) Who directly or indirectly by any means or method furnishes, 
supplies, constructs, reproduces or repairs any prosthetic denture, bridge, 
appliance or other structure to be worn in the human mouth, or places such 
appliance or structure in the human mouth or attempts to adjust the 
same;

 
 
            
. . . .

 
 
            
(xii) A dental laboratory or dental technician is not practicing 
dentistry within the meaning of this act when engaged in the construction, 
making, alteration or repairing of bridges, crowns, dentures or other prosthetic 
or surgical appliances, or orthodontic appliances if the casts or molds or 
impressions upon which the work is constructed have been made by a regularly 
licensed and practicing dentist, and if all crowns, bridges, dentures or 
prosthetic appliances, surgical appliances or orthodontic appliances are 
returned to the dentist upon whose order the work is 
constructed.

 
 
Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 33-15-128(a)(ii) (LexisNexis 2007) further defines "dentistry" as 
"the healing art practiced by a dentist which is concerned with the examination, 
diagnosis, treatment, planning and care of conditions within the human oral 
cavity and its adjacent tissues and structures[.]"  

 
 
[¶7]      The thrust of the 
appellant's argument is that his practice as a denturist does not violate 
Wyoming law 
because he is not engaged in a "healing art."  The appellant argues that he is involved 
in the "mechanical task" of creating a prosthetic, not in curing disease.  He then points us to previous cases in 
which we have discussed the legislature's intent that medical licensing statutes 
protect the public from untrained and unskilled individuals practicing "any 
healing art."  See Paravecchio v. Memorial Hosp. of Laramie 
Co., 742 P.2d 1276, 1281 (Wyo. 1987), overruled in part on other grounds by Torres 
v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2004 WY 92, 95 P.3d 794 (Wyo. 2004); Hahn v. State, 
78 Wyo. 258, 269-70, 322 P.2d 896, 900 (1958); State v. Catellier, 63 Wyo. 123, 164-65, 
179 P.2d 203, 218 (1947).  

 
 
[¶8]      The appellant's 
reliance on the above-referenced cases is misplaced, however, because his 
argument ignores the fact that his denturist practice violates the clear 
language of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 33-15-114.  See supra ¶ 7.  As noted above, the appellant admits 
that he personally examines his customers, creates their dentures, and later 
adjusts those dentures, if necessary.  
See supra ¶ 2.  Under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
33-15-114(a)(iii) a person is deemed to be practicing dentistry if he or she 
creates oral prosthetics, places such prosthetics in the human mouth, or adjusts 
prosthetics after they have been placed in a mouth.  Clearly, the appellant is practicing 
dentistry in multiple ways under the statute.  Finally, the exception in subsection 
(a)(xii) does not apply to the appellant's practice because he admittedly does 
not create the oral prosthetics at the order of a licensed 
dentist.

[¶9]      The district 
court's order granting the Board a summary judgment and enjoining the appellant 
from practicing dentistry without a license is 
affirmed.