_.- - 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorable R. T. Weber, President 

Texas State Board of Dental Examiners 

Austin, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-2743 

Re: Validity of forty-two 

advertisements by dentist 

under Article 752b, Texas 

Penal Code. 

In compliance with your request of October 15, we 

have given careful study to the volume prepared by you and 

submitted to us containing forty-two separate newspaper 

clippings of advertisements by dentists. In our Opinion No. 

O-1992, copy of which is attached hereto, we construed Article 752b, Vernon's Annotated Penal Code of Texas, which 

relates to dental advertisement. In this opinion we shall 

not review the authorities mentioned in our Opinion No. O1992, but shall merely apply the principles announced in 

that opinion to the various sample advertisements contained 

in the exhibits submitted by you. 

Exhibit No. 1 reads as follows: 

"Dr. W. W. Snider 

Dentist 

Dublin, Texas 

Office Phone 68 Res. Phone 84” 

We agree with you that Exhibit 1 is clearly a proper type of newspaper advertisement or professional card insertion. 

Exhibit No. 2 which contains the names of two dentists, their office addresses and phone numbers, is likewise 

proper. Article 752, Vernon's Annotated Penal Code of Texas, 

expressly provides in part: 

1' * * ** Provided, however, this shall not 

prevent two or more legally qualified dentists 
. . 

Honorable R. T. Weber, Page 2 

from practicing dentistry in the same offices 

as a firm, pa,rtnership, or as associates in 

their own names as stated in licenses issued to 

them. . . .” 

Exhibit No. 3 is apparently an advertisement of two 

dentists operating as a firm or partnership, their names in 

the advertisement appearing as “Drs. Parker & Parker.” We 

believe such a combination of names in an advertisement is 

likewise proper. 

The advertisement in Exhibit No. 4 contains the 

statement: “Member Seguin Chamber of Commerce.” While a 

statement of such a nature contained in an advertisement of 

a dentist may not be in accordance with the highest standard 

of ethics of that profession, we are unable to find any provision of Article 752b or other article relating to the practice of dentistry, which prohibits such a statement. In view 

of the fact that criminal statutes are strictly construed, we 

do not believe that this advertisement constitutes a violation 

of Article 752b3, Penal Code. 

The advertisement in Exhibit 5 contains the statement: 

“Emergency calls after office hours answered promptly” which 

you state “is considered by the Board of Dental Examiners as 

being surplusage and extraneous matter foreign to the intent 

of the Penal Code, Article 752a, and the concluding paragraph 

of Article 752b, Acts 1937, 45th Legislature, for in neither 

article quoted is there any intimation that a practitioner may 

call attention to his particular ability to answer the telephone promptly, but the Act merely states that he may list his 

resident number and address.” We are unable to find any prohibition in Article 752a to such a statement. The concluding 

paragraph of Article 752b to which you refer reads as follows: 

“Provided, that any duly licensed practitioner of 

dentistry, may publicly announce by way of newspaper 

or professional card that he is engaged in the practice of dentistry, giving his name, degree, office 

location where he is actually engaged in practice, 

office hours, telephone numbers and residence address; 

and if he limits his practi.ce to a specialty he may 

state same.” 

In construing this paragraph of Article 752b we stated 

In our Opinion No. O-1992. 
. 

Honorable R T. Weber, Page 3 

"Certainly since this is a criminal statute and 

must be strictly construed, it would seem clear that 

the dentist could advertise in any manner and with 

as much space as he desires so long as his advertising did not fall under the prohibited practices 

of the article in question. 

"We, therefore, respectfully advise that Article 

752b, Penal Code as amended, is valid and constitutional and the proviso at the end of said article is permissive rather than restrictive." @mphasis ours.) 

In other words, the last paragraph of Article 752b 

may not be made the basis for a criminal prosecution since said 

paragraph prohibits no practice whatsoever but merely indicates 

the type of advertising which a dentist may employ without violating any of the provisions of the Act. It is our opinion, 

therefore, that Exhibit 5 does not constitute a violation of 

either of the above mentioned articles. 

For the same reasons as mentioned with reference to 

Exhibit 5, we believe that Exhibit 6 is not unlawful by reason 

of the statement in the advertisement "office air condit1oned.s 

For the same reason, we do not consider Exhibit 7 as 

violating the criminal statutes because it contains the phrase 

"Graduate Nurse Assistant;" or Exhibit 8 because it contains 

the phrase "X-Ray Equipped." 

Exhibit 9 contains the statement "Dental X-Ray." With 

regard to this exh1bj.t you ask the question: "If it is found 

that this particular dentist engaged in the general practice 

of dentistry, would this particular insert quoted above be in 

violati.on of the law . . .?" The only reference to the advertising of a specialty by a dentist contained in the statutes 

is found in the last portion of the last paragraph of Article 

752b, which reads: 

"And if he limits his practice to a specialty, 

he may state same." 

As hereinbefore stated, this last paragraph of Article 

752b is permissibe and not restrictive and therefore cannot be 

made the basis of a criminal prosecution. Accordingly, it is 

our opinion that Exhibit 9 does not constitute a violation of 

law. 
Honorable R. T. Weber, Page 4 

For the same reasons as stated with reference to 

Exhibit 9, we believe that the advertisement in Exhibit 10 

is not unlawful by reason of containing the phrase "Dentist 

and X-Ray Work." We have reached the same conclusion with 

reference to Exhibit 11 which contains the statement "Complete 

Line of X-Ray Work;" Exhibit 12 which states "Special Attention Given Plate Work;" Exhibit 13 which states "Doctor of 

Dental Surgery and General Dentistry" as well as "X-Ray Diagnosis;" Exhibit 15 which states "Dentistry -- Orthodontia -- 

X-Ray;" Exhibit 16 stating "Dental Surgeon -- X-Ray and Florascopic Work.V 

Exhibit 14 contains the statement "Dental Surgeon 

and Mechanical Dentistry.', Of this you state: "The Board of 

Dental Examiners is at a loss to understand the meaning of the 

term 'Mechanical Dentistry.'" Conceding that the term "Mechanical Dentistry " does not have a well-recognized meaning among 

the dental profession we do not believe that it is "of a character tending to mislead or deceive the public" within the scope 

of Section (e) of Article 752b; wherefore we are of the opinion 

that Exhibit 14 will not justify criminal action. 

The advertisement in Exhibit 17 contains the statement "All Work Guaranteed; Prices Reasonable." We believe the 

phrase "All Work Guaranteed" is a violation of Subsection (j) 

of Article 752b, which reads: 

"Advertising to guarantee any dental services." 

The statement "Prices Reasonable" cannot be construed, 

we believe to violate Section (h), which reads: 

"Advertising bargains, cut rates, or special 

values in dental services . . ." 

We agree with you that Exhibits 18, 19, 20 and 21 

are all proper and authorized insertions to indicate, in the 

case of Exhibit 18, the opening of an office by a dentist; in 

Exhibit 19, a temporary location of dentist's office; in Exhibit 

20, a contemplated location of a dentist's office in the near 

future; and in Exhibit 21, the association of another dentist 

with an established practitioner. 

Exhibit 22 reads as follows: 

"Dr. Buchanan 

Dentist 

Dr. Dixon's Location 

Lampasas, Texas." 
Honorable R. T. Weber, Page 5 

With reference to this advertisement you ask whether 

it is permissible for a dentist to refer to the fact that he 

is now occupying the premises for offices recently held by 

another dentist for an indefinite length of time or whether 

the reference to the previous practitioner’s location must be 

dropped after a reasonable time has elapsed and the public 

should be informed of the new party’s occupying such premises? 

We are unable to find any provision of the penal statutes wh&ch 

forbids a dentist to state that he is occupying the premises or 

offices formerly occupied by another dentist under any circumstances, wherefore we must conclude that no limitation on the 

time during which such an advertisement may be properly run can 

be found in the statutes. 

Exhibit 23 presents the advertisement by an optometrist 

announcing that he “has returned to practice in Fort Stockton, 

office with Dr. E. A. Roberson, Dentist.” We do not believe 

this advertisement constitutes a violation of law by the dentist. 

Moreover, in a city the size of Fort Stockton, the public might 

be better advised of the location of the optometristIs office 

by referring to the off ice of Dr. E. A. Roberson, than if the 

street address were given. 

Exhibit 24 contains the statement “Formerly Mayo Dental 

Clinic.” As stated in the preceding paragraph we know of no provisiorsin the statute which prohibit reference to the dentist 

formerly occupying the premises now occupied by the advertising 

practitioner. 

Exhibit 25 reads as follows: 

“Dr. J. H. Williamson, Dentist 

Kray La,boratory and Dental Diagnosis 

Pyorrhea Treat.ment, Extraction, Artif lcial Teeth. 

“How often to you see your DENTIST? Get the 

watchful help of your DENTIST before serious trouble 

occurs. Neglect is dangerous and costly.” 

“Kray” 

advertisement, 

is obviously a misprint for “X-ray” in this 

and such misprint would not subject the dentist 

to prosecution for false or misleading advertising. 

As stated In our discussion of Exhibit 9, we do not 

consider the statement of several specialties as constituting 

a violation of Article 752b. Nor are we able to find any provisions Of the statutes which forbids advertising by means Of 
Honorable R. T. Weber, Page 6 

a dissertation urging readers to see their dentists such as 

is contained in this exhibit. 

We do not believe that the advertisement contained 

in Exhibit 26 wherein the doctor’s name appears in bold and 

black-face type constitutes a violation of the Act. As stated 

in our Opinion No. O-1992: 

“It would seem clear that the dentist could 

advertise in any manner and with as much space as 

he desires so long as his advertising did not fall 

under the prohibited practices of the article in 

question.” 

Exhibit 27 contains the statement “Credit Dentist.” 

This statement can certainly not be construed as coming within 

the prohibitions of Sections (g) and (h) of Article 752b against 

advertising comparative values or bargains, and consequently we 

believe the same is not unlawful. 

As to the statement “Has returned to Austin and ReOpened His Office” in this exhibit, we can find no evil therein 

which is prohibited by statute. 

Exhibit 28 contai.ns a picture, presumably of the 

practitioner, we do not believe that this violates any penal 

provision, particularly not Section (o), which reads: 

“Advertising by means of large display signs, 

or glaring light signs, electric or neon, or such 

signs containing as a part thereof the repreaentation of a tooth, teeth, bridge work, plates of teeth, 

or any portion of the human head, or using specimens 

of such in display, d-irecting the attention of the 

public to any such person or persons engaged in the 

practice of dentistry.” 

We can not extend subdivision (0) which forbids advertising by means of “large display signs, or glaring light 

signs, electric or neon, or such signs containing as a part 

thereof the representation of a toot.h, teeth, bridge work, 

plates of teeth or any portion of the human head,” etc. 

display signs” 

“Large 

mentioned in this subdivision, when considered 

in connection with the other things named in the subdivision 

must be construed a.a something other than newspaper advertisements. In legal construction of statutes, words -- like people 

-- are known by their associates. 

signs” is considered in this light, 

And when the term “Display 

others mentioned in that connection, 

it means signs such as the 

and newspaper ads are not 

included. 
Honorable R. T. Weber, Page 7 

Exhibit 29 contains the following statements: 

“Good Plates Need Not Be Expensive 

Must Fit -- Improve Your Appearance -- Be 

Light In Weight -- Odorless -- Durable 

“Easy Credit Terms .I’ 

This advertisement appears to have been skillfully 

written with the provisions of Article 752b in mind. The 

statement “Good Plates Need Not Be Expensive” is so phrased 

as not to come within subsection (h) forbidding advertising 

bargains, etc. “Must Fit,” etc. can hardly be construed as 

a guarantee so as to come within subsection (j). 

Exhibits 30, 31, 32 and 33 do not violate the statutes for reasons set out in our discussion of Exhibit 28. 

We do not believe Exhibit 34 violates the rohibition 

against advertising bargains contained in Section (h P because 

of the statement “A Little Cash and A Small Amount Weekly.” 

For reasons heretofore discussed we can find no objection to Exhibits 35 and 36. 

Exhibit 37 contains the statement: “A small amount 

down and a small amount weekly .I’ Since no representation is 

made regarding the total cost of d.ental service, this statement 

cannot be construed as a bargain. We find no vice in the advertisement. 

Exhibit 38 contains the statement: “I have always 

tried to make as good plates as humanly possible and at the 

same time keep my prices within the reach of the masses.” It 

is our opinion that this quotation violates subsection (d) 

which forbids “statements as to skill” as well as subsection 

(h), since by clear l.mplication it advertises bargains. 

Exhlbit 39 is bad in that the following quotation 

therefrom may be construed as “a statement as to the skill or 

method of practicing dentistry,” at least by inference, forbidden in Section (d): 

“Not so many years back the science of 

dentistry had not progressed to where it could 

rebuild sunken cheeks, almost eliminate wrinkles 

acd make plates that fit, look good, are light 

in weight, odorless and durable, as it can today.” 
Honorable R. T. Weber, Page 8 

The claim of superior services is adroitly made, 

but whatever the phrasing the obvious meaning intended, and 

no doubt conveyed, is that Dr. Mayo is prepared to give and 

will give to the public that progressive dentistry that will 

“rebuild sunken cheeks, almost eliminate wrinkles and make 

plates that fit, look good, are light in weight, odorless 

and durable.” In other words, laying aside all modesty, his 

claim is that his is the place to obtain “modern dentistry.” 

Exhibit 40 is clearly a violation of Section (h) 

of Article 752b by reason of the statement “Volume Business 

-- Lowest Prices” and other material which may be construed 

as a violation of Section (h), forbidding “ad.vertising bargains, 

cut rates or special values. 

The same may be said of Exh%bit 41 which contains 

the statement “Good Plates Need Not Be Expensive” and “We have 

always tried to make as good plates as humanly possible and at 

the same time keep our prices within the reach of the masses” 

-- “Easy Payments $10 -- $15 -- $20.” Likewise the statement 

in Exhibit 41 “Dental Laboratories” is a violation of Section 

(9) which forbids “advertising to the public any commercial 

dental laboratory or dental c1ini.c .” 

Exhibit 42 clearly contains statements in violation 

of Section (h) forbidding bargains. Some of these are: “I 

have ever tried and shall continue to try to give the people 

of Texas good but inexpensive dentistry;” “Remember: Good 

dentistry need not be expensive.” It is not enough to authorize a conviction that a dentist’s advertisement violates the 

spirit of the Penal Code -- it must do more -- it must violate 

the plain import of the language of the statute. We think this 

ad of Dr. Mayo does both. Undoubtedly, throughout its length 

it violates the spirit of the statute, but specifically it 

violates the plain import of its language with respect to 

“superior service” and the offering of a “bargain.” 

In commenting upon the forty-two exhibits of sample 

dental advertisements which you have submitted to us, we have 

attempted to give you our opinion of whether or not a criminal 

prosecution under Article 752b or any other article relating 

to dental advertising would be sustained when based on each 

one of these forty-two advertisements. We are not and cannot 

be concerned in this opinion with the desirability or propriety 

of a particular advort.iscment judgod on the basis of the accepted canons of ethics of the dental profession. Our opinion 
.’ . 

Honorable R. T. Weber, Page 9 

giving approval or disapproval of these advertisements is 

based solely upon the language of the statutes prescribing 

unlawful advertisement and the decisions of the court applicable thereto. 

We hope that this lengthy dissertation may be of 

some help to you in carrying out the official duties of the 

Texas State Board of Dental Examiners. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Walter R. Koch 

Assistant 

WRK:RS 

ENCLOSURE 

APPROVED FEB. 3, 19'41 THIS OPINION 

GERALD C. MANN, CONSIDERED AND APPROVED 

ATTORNEY .GENERAL OF TEXAS IN LIMITED CONFERENCE