PRICE DANIEL 

AW?WTIN ~.TJZXAS 

ATTT”RNEY GENERAL 

Apall 14; 1950 

Hon. Ft. T. veber, D.D.8. 

Sawrerta~-Treasurer 

Texas State Board of 

Bentel Examiners 

Austin, Texas 

Optaiom lo. Tr~1049, 

.Ret T&J exe@~&ion of dentiats em$oyed by the 

Veterens Admlniatrat:on or ttw II .S. Pub11e Eeeltb Service 

ircim Texas licewe and 

mer sir: 

registretlon raquiremats. 

roll OVB : 

Your request for an opinion reads in part a8 

“Sire World Was 1% the Veterans ‘Admihistratlon of the United Stat& has employed a 

number of Texas licensees on a full time basis 

to perform dental aervteesupon ex-members of 

the Armed Foroes under the W-Veterans program. 

These Texas dentlata praotlce in Federal Veterans hospitals in the State of Texas and in 

other states and In officea rented or leased 

.by the VetWBn8 Admfnlatretion in various Texa8 8reas. Eo fees are charged the ex-servlae 

member and the Texas licensee receives a f-xed salary from the Veterans AdmLniatratLon. 

“The United States Public Health Service 

hes employed Texas licensees, on full time beeis the same as the Veterans AdmI.niatration 

and that agency Is oonsldered by this department as oooupylng a simllar~position to the 

Veterans Administration in so far as the operetlon of the Texas laws is concerned.” 

On the basis of the ,above faota , you have pre - 

Haf*Q for our determtnatlon the following three qUWtiOUB: 

“1 * The full time VetereU! AdmlniBtr8- 

t&on and United states Public Eealth Service 

Texas lloens.ed dent ats &&aim exemption un- 

‘day the . . . &stu : 8 (Ark. 3550a, &C .S. ). 
Bon. R. T. Weber, D.D.3., page 2 (V-1045) 

Are such licensees entitled to snnual registration fee exemption? 

"2 . Are full time Veterans Adminiatration and United States Public Health Servlm 

dentists not licensed to practice dentistry 

in Texas but who perform dental services upon ex-members of the Armed Forces and/or 

their dependents in Veterans Administration 

hospitals under the exalusive control and 

jurisdiction of the Federal Government in 

violation of the o - . statutes prohibiting 

the practice of dentistry by persons not lltensed so to do? 

“3. Are full time Veterans AdmInistration and United States Public Health Service 

dentists not licensed to practice dentistry 

in Texas who perform dental services upon 

ex-members of the Armed Forces end/or therr 

dependents in offices, clinics, or other 

establishments under lease by the Veterans 

Administration exempt from the provisions 

of the Texas Statutes prohibiting the practioe of dentistry without first having been 

licensed in this State?" 

The above questtons will bs discussed and answered in the order stated. 

Artfcle 4550a, V.C.S., provides.in'part: 

Provided, however, that the requirem&'governing the payment of annual 

registration fees and penalties for late 

registration shall not apply to lioenseea 

who sre on active duty with the armed forces 

of the United States of America, and are not 

engaged In private or civilian practice." 

Article 4548, V.C.S., is as follows: 

"Ro person shall practice or offer,or 

attempt to practice dentistry or dental surgery in this State, without first havFng 

obtained a license from the State Board of 

Dental Examiners, as provided for In this 

lav, provided that physicians and surgeons 

may, in the regular practice of theFr profession, extract teeth or make application 
Ron. B. T. Weber, D.D.S., page 3 (V-1045) 

for the relief of pain. nothing herein applies to any person legally engaged in the 

practioe of dentistry in Texas et the time 

of the pass,age of this law." 

38 lJ.S.C.As, Set .15, Is as follows: 

"The medical service in the Veterans' 

Administration, as at present constituted, 

is abolished and in its stead there is suthorlzed and established in the Veterans' Administration a Department of MedicFne and 

Surgery under a Chief Medical birector. The 

functions of the Department of Medicine and 

Surgery shall be those necessary for a aomplete mediaal and hospital service to be 

prescribed by the AdminLstrator of Veterena' 

Affairs (referred to in sections 15-l% of 

this title as the Administrator) pursuant to 

said sections, other statutory authority and 

regulations established pursuant to law, for 

the medical aare and trea,tment of veterans. 

Jan. 3, 1946 c. 658, 8 1, 59 Stat. 6~5.~ 

38 U3.C.A., Sec. 158 provides that the department of medicine and surgery shall Include the followingt 

Office of the Chief Medfcal Director, Medical Servtce, 

Dental Service, Nursing Qervicep and Auxiliary Service. 

38 u.a.c.A., Sec.15d provides: 

"Any person to be eligible for appointment fn the Department of Mediciae and Surgery must -- 

"(a) Be a aitieen of the Unlted States. 

"(b) Xn the Medioal Service -- 

"Bold the degree of doctor of medicine 

or of doctor of osteopathy from a college or 

u&verslty approved by the Administrator, 

have completed ,611 InternShip aatisfsotory to 

the Administrator, and be liceneed to praotice medicine, surgery, or osteopathy in one 

of the Qtates’or TeZ?ritorieB of the United 

&totes or ;Zn the Distrlot of Columbia. 

"(a) In the Dental Servioe -- 
Hon. B. 1. Weber, D.D.S., page 4 (V-1045) 

"Hold the degree of doctor of dental surgery from a college or university approved by 

the Administrator, and be licensed to practioe 

dentistry Fn one of the States or Territories 

of the United States or in the DLstrictof Columbia. . .'I 

38 U.S.C.A., Sec. 706b is as follows: 

"In the adminlstratlon of laws pertaining to veterans, retired officers, and enlisted men of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and 

Coast Guard, who served honorably during a war 

period as recognized by the Veterans' Admlnistration, shall be, and are entitled to hospitalization and domioiliary care in the same 

manner and to the same extent as veterans of 

any war are now or may hereafter be furnished 

hospitalization or domiciliary care by the 

Veterans' Administration and subject to those 

provisions of pare 

gulation Numbered 8 

raph VI (A) of Veterans Re- 

(c), which provide for reduction of monetary benefits to veterans having 

neither wife, child, nor dependent parent whhile 

being furnished hospital treatment, institution61 or domlc~llary aare. July 19, 1939, ch.331, 

-, ltjf4,5389,t,a$.- 1070; Dea. 22, 191, c.612, 55 

. 

Veterans Regulation No. 7 

8 

a) promulgated by Rxecutive Order No. 6333 dated July 2 , 1933, (38 U.S.C.A., 

p.684) provides: 

"The Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, 

within the limits of Veterans' Administration 

facilities, is authorized in his discretion to 

furnish to honorably discharged veterans of 

any war, including the Boxer rebellion and the 

Philippine Fnsurreotl.on, and to men honorably 

discharged from the United States Army, Navy, 

Marine Corps, or Coast Guard for disabilities 

incurred in line of duty, such medical, surgiaal, and dental services as may be found to be 

reasonably necessary for diseases or injuries 

incurred or aggravated in the line of duty; in 

the active military or naval service. D . 

This office has been reliably informed by the 

Veterans Administration that it is not within or under 
Non. B. T. Uebep, D-D.@., pew 3 (V-16@) 

the jurisdicstfon of any of tbe aevercrl depa*menta that 

o to make up the Axused Foraes of the United Stat(rs. On 

La ocntPapJp it Is a sewrate federal agency. 'Phe Publie lteerlth Semfoe La likewise a separate federal agency 

u~&r&e~~u~~~~P~~~on of the Federal Security Menc)'~. 

*.*a# 00 

&m. B&f , 83 t. aupp. na 

"The Public Health Seroioe ia not 1. 

part of the Armed Fordes of the United 

states * Those consist of the Amy, la 

the Mar&m Corps, end the Croast ffugsd. Sk 

Woe Oq !?a+, the Public 8erZth dewlob oa 

be end la World War II wee temportwil~ ta f * 

sir0 into the Armed Foxwa." 

It tbewfore follows that since the Vetsraar 

AdPriaistratPon and United Stetea PubLio Efealth 8efolco 

@a?e not within the jurisdloticn of asy of the departtaents comprising the Armed lkwaee of the United States 

the Qantfsta in the employment of such agencies are no& 

*on Sotlve duty with the Armed Boraea of the United 

@Cater" witb;hin the meantadl, cf A rt+o,le 05gOs, V.C.S., 

mlafing to the exemption from p#pnt of ~fat8e&w& 

fmm P@quimd of lf.cenaed T,xrrr detittists. 

Peslifn$ nw to yea rectind queatlon, we Ball 

stl;at)Blon at the nutsat +o tbe;fact bbet c$baptar 7 of 

TfAlC l+~ ot' VernMas8 Pbncrl Code end Cbeptsr 9 of Title 

7% OZ “WPUO~‘s CivLl 8t%tutea~regulatlng the practice 

O$'hWtrtrg am eoceMf#ea of the pcllce povepa of the 

btrW End 8~ 

al velfere of 

6@ $*.W.26 601 

In rwln v. Conn 225 H,C. 267, 34 $.#.2tt 402 

(19b3),, the oo + 

"Immunftg of interfezsace by local le* 

with tbe instrumentelftfes created for the 
Boa. B. 1. Wehr, D.D.8.) page 6 (V-1045) 

government of the Imted State8 Is a femiliar pmlciple.” 1 

the court J&My v. United 8tetsr, 319 Ii.?. 441 (1943) 

“Sinoe the United 8trtes ir a govbmment of delegated powers,, aoae of whiah may 

be exercised throughout the aetlon by any 

one state, it la necessary for uaif%mity 

that the laws of the United States bs dominant over those of any etete. 8uoh dominanoy is required also to avoid a breakdovn 

of administration though possible confliots 

arising from inoonsiatept requirements. The 

,supremaay oraube bf the C.~netitutlcia~states 

‘prino&ples 

1, 

. . . 

“These inn 

ly u on the Uni r ed States. They am money 

ction fees epe latd directexac e Ions the payment of ‘whioh,’ if they are 

enforoeable, would be requlmd before exec uting a function of government. 8wh a requirement is prohibited by the atipremaay clause. We 

are not dealing as in Oreves, v. State of New 

York, etc., suupTa, with a ta% upon the salery 

of an employee, or as in State of Alabama v. 

King & BoozerP, 314 U.S. 1, 62 8.M. 43, 86 L. 

Rd. 3. 140 A.L. R. 63.5. with a tax man the 

pu.r&kes of a suppl&, or as in Peh D&k.es, 

v. Milk Gontml Oomm. of Pennsylvania, 

:??;.s. 261, 63 s.ct. 617, 87 L. Rd. + 

316, 4 L. Hd. 579; 

.276 (1899); Johnson 

; State of Arizona v. 

,FoveS v. Mitchell, 
. . . . 

Ron. B. T. Weber, D.D.S., page 7 (v-1045) 

deolded MarrPh 1, 1943, with pr&ee oontrol 

exemised over a contractor with the Unitaamy on the buefness of the post office or 

upon the privilege of aeaqling Vnited States 

bonds through federal offioiala. Admittedly the state Puspeotion servioe is to protect consumers from fraud but In carrying 

out sucsh protection, the federal fun&ion 

must be left free.” (EmphasOs added) 

In Attorney General Opinion ,190. O-4764, dated 

Atigust 25, 1942, it is stated: 

“In view of the authorltLes above cited and with reoogniteon of their virtual 

Identity to the situation whloh you have 

sub&teed to this department p you are respectfully advised that Articles 4548 and 

45% of the Revised Civil Statutes of 

Texas (19’25) and Article 747 of Vernon’s 

Penal Code of Texas, prohibiting the practice of dentlstrg in Texas by unlicensed 

!i 

ersons, am poPice regula%fons of the 

tate and as such cannot eonstftutionallg 

be applied to unlfoensed persons who are 

prao%iofng dentistry under the order and 

dfrectfon of %he eommandfng officer of an 

alPen detention oamp established and malnteined by the United S%ates o ” 

By mason of the foregoing, ft is our oplnlon 

that dentfsts employed full time by th,e Veterans Administration and Wni.%ed States Public Health Servioe perfoW.ng services on ex-membera of the Armed Foroes are 

not subject to the police power of %he State of Texar 

pBQulx%hg deatfste to be licensed In Texas. 

The same principles of law herein announoed 

are applicable to those dentists employed full time by 

the Veterans Administration in performing dental servioes for ex-members of the Armed Forces and their dependents fn offices, clfnfcs or other establishments 

under lease by the Veterans Administration Fnasmuch a8 

they”are under the direct supervision of the Veterans 

Adminfstratfon I) A federal agenoy Fs Immune from state 
. . . . 

Hou. R. T. Weber, D.D.S,, page 8 (v-1045) 

Interfereme. united states v. owl&t, 15 F~. supp. 736 

(D.c. PS. 1936), pi, ntists penfmiag dutb3s under the 

supervision of' the Federal (iovernw~ tn eueh establlahments are not subject to Che polioe power of a state. 

Dentls~s Mployed 'Iti1 'time by the Veteraa Administration and th8 United States 

Publio Health Service are not on aotive duty 

with the Armed Forcen of the United States 

within the meaning of Artiole 4550a, V.C.9., 

but dentists so employed by such federal agen- 

,ciqs gre no# qubjeot tu Tjixata 1loessWg ,laws 

(A&t%. 45484455OS, V.C.Si) Lueswwfh ;#a~ the 

ectlvities of' federal aaeneles are not rubject to the police pore% of the State. Walls 

81 F. Supp. 210 (DISC. Co? 

d States, 319 U.S. 441. 

aone v. California, 283 

naon v.,Msyyland,, 254 U. 

15 F. supp. 

APPRO'JEDt 

J. C. Davis, Jr. 

County Affairs Division 

Charles D. Mathews 

Executive Assistant 

RW!bh:ml:mw 

Yours Very truly, 

PRIC& DANIEL 

Attornavy General 

‘! Bi5 

Assiatent