Court Opinion

ID: 9912036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 16:10:26.365348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:56:21.788351
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Joshua Haentges, D.D.S.,                  :
                            Petitioner    :
                                          :
           v.                             :   No. 348 C.D. 2022
                                          :   Argued: September 13, 2023
State Board of Dentistry,                 :
                            Respondent    :

BEFORE:      HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
             HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
             HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
             HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
             HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
             HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
             HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

OPINION
BY JUDGE WALLACE                                      FILED: December 21, 2023

      Joshua Haentges, D.D.S. (Dr. Haentges) petitions for review of the March 16,
2022 order of the State Board of Dentistry (Board), denying his application for dental
licensure by endorsement under 63 Pa.C.S. § 3111(a). Dr. Haentges challenges the
Board’s determination that the licensing requirements of New York State, where he
obtained a license and currently practices dentistry, were not substantially equivalent
to the licensing requirements of Pennsylvania. After careful review, we reverse and
remand.
                                   I. Background
      Dr. Haentges attended the University at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine,
graduating in 2016. Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 114a, 232a. He obtained his New
York dental license in 2017 and has been licensed continuously since that time. Id.
at 71a, 105a. According to Dr. Haentges, he began practicing general dentistry in
Addison, New York in 2017. Id. at 147a, 248a. He practiced in Addison until a
brief period of unemployment in 2020 and now operates his own practice in Watkins
Glen, New York. Id. at 147a-48a, 248a. Dr. Haentges explains he purchased his
practice from a retiring dentist. Id. at 149a. The retiring dentist owned two offices,
one in Watkins Glen and another in Elkland, Pennsylvania, and agreed to sell on the
condition that Dr. Haentges purchase both of them. Id. at 149a-150a. Dr. Haentges
now operates his dental practice in Watkins Glen but also owns the second Elkland
office where he is unable to practice because he lacks a Pennsylvania dental license.
Id. at 151a. He filed an application for licensure by endorsement in Pennsylvania
on May 4, 2021. Id. at 227a-29a.
      By way of background, Section 3111(a) provides for licensure of certain out-
of-state professionals. It provides that a licensing board “shall issue” a license if,
among other things, the applicant “[h]olds a current license . . . from another state,
territory or country and the licensing board or licensing commission determines that
state’s, territory’s or country’s requirements are substantially equivalent to or exceed
the requirements established in this Commonwealth.” 63 Pa.C.S. § 3111(a)(1). By
letter dated July 27, 2021, the Board denied Dr. Haentges’ application for licensure.
The Board found New York’s dental licensing requirements were not substantially
equivalent to Pennsylvania’s requirements because New York did not require dental

                                           2
applicants to pass a clinical examination. R.R. at 394a-95a. It described a clinical
examination as “integral” to the licensure process in Pennsylvania. Id. at 394a.
       Dr. Haentges filed a written request appealing the Board’s determination. He
contended that, although New York did not require its applicants to pass a dental
clinical examination, it did require the successful completion of “a clinically-based
postdoctoral general practice or specialty dental residency program, of at least one
year’s duration” as well as a “formal outcome assessment evaluation of the resident’s
competence to practice dentistry.” R.R. at 391a (quoting N.Y. Educ. Law § 6604(3)
(McKinney 2007)).1 He maintained New York’s residency requirement was “at least
‘substantially equivalent’” to a clinical examination. Id.
       The Board delegated the matter to a hearing examiner, who held a hearing on
October 4, 2021. Dr. Haentges participated in the hearing with counsel and was the
sole witness to testify.2 Primarily, Dr. Haentges testified regarding the value of New
York’s residency requirement based on his experiences and regarding the difficulty
he would face if he attempted to complete a dental clinical examination.
       Dr. Haentges testified he completed a dental residency at the Stratton Veterans
Affairs Medical Center in Albany, New York. R.R. at 120a. He testified New York
law requires residents to perform a specific list of procedures, including “two full
crowns; two endodontically treated teeth; four restorations, meaning two anterior,
two posterior; and one periodontal case.” Id. at 117a. Dr. Haentges contrasted these
minimum requirements with the procedures he actually performed during residency,

1
 New York’s legislature amended Section 6604(3), effective November 21, 2022. The current
version eliminates the words “clinically-based” but is otherwise the same.

2
 Counsel for the Commonwealth also participated in the hearing but did not take a position and
expressed his intent to defer to the hearing examiner and the Board. R.R. at 103a.

                                              3
which included 21 crown preparations, 14 endodontic procedures, 197 restorations,
and 18 periodontal cases. Id. at 135a-42a, 382a.
        Further, Dr. Haentges contrasted his experiences as a dental resident with the
American Board of Dental Examiners (ADEX) examination, a clinical examination
accepted in Pennsylvania. R.R. at 123a-31a, 382a. Dr. Haentges testified the ADEX
examination involves only three crown preparations, two restorations, one complete
root canal, and one partial root canal. Id. In addition, he emphasized his residency
was one year long, while the ADEX examination is only two to three days long. Id.
at 115a, 145a. Dr. Haentges insisted that attempting to take the ADEX examination
now would be an arduous process, which might require him to locate live patients
and transport them to the examination site.3 Id. at 109a-11a. Moreover, he testified
many ADEX examinations are open to dental students but not current dentists.4 Id.
at 112a. Dr. Haentges testified he searched for open ADEX examinations the night
before the hearing and found that only 11 of the 60 or 65 available examinations
were allowing individuals other than dental students to participate. Id. at 168a-69a.
He added: “for the rest of this year there is only maybe one or two that are open –
not open, but have a wait list and are open to outside candidates.” Id. at 169a-70a.
        Despite Dr. Haentges’ concern that it would be difficult to find and transport
live patients, he acknowledged the ADEX examination does not always require
performing procedures on live patients. R.R. at 145a-46a. Dr. Haentges explained

3
  Dr. Haentges explained performing the ADEX examination on a live patient required the patient
to have a “perfect” dental lesion and a certain health history. R.R. at 109a. He testified: “It has to
be this type of lesion, this far in. . . . They have to have a certain blood pressure. They have to . . .
have a certain medical history behind them. It’s very, very stringent as far as getting patients.” Id.

4
 He blamed the COVID-19 pandemic for this situation, explaining: “they used to offer multiple
exams throughout the year, and I believe that the pandemic has changed that. There’s not as many
patients coming into the dental schools for treatment.” R.R. at 112a.

                                                   4
applicants perform the crown preparation and root canal portions of the ADEX
examination “on manikins,” which means “[t]here’s no cheek. There’s no patient
moving around. There’s no coughing or tongue. . . . Which is a big deal in dentistry.
. . . there’s no patient that needs to be numb.” Id. at 145a. He explained many ADEX
examinations did not require live patients at all but were instead performed entirely
using “plastic teeth . . . on a manikin.”5, 6 Id. at 170a.
       On December 20, 2021, the astute hearing examiner, Michael T. Foerster,
Esquire, issued a thorough and carefully crafted proposed adjudication and order
granting licensure to Dr. Haentges under Section 3111(a). The hearing examiner
concluded New York’s dental licensing requirements equaled or exceeded those in
Pennsylvania. R.R. at 73a. Specifically, the hearing examiner noted the “extensive”
requirements of a New York dental residency and found persuasive Dr. Haentges’
testimony that a residency is superior to a clinical examination because it focuses on
treating live patients.      Id. at 80a-81a.        The hearing examiner also noted the
procedures Dr. Haentges performed during his residency, which exceeded both the
requirements of New York law and the procedures performed during the ADEX
examination. Id. at 84a. The hearing examiner found these procedures showed the

5
  The ADEX examination includes a diagnostic computer simulation in which applicants review
“some radiographs or maybe a couple pictures . . . and maybe what the patient is saying on the
screen” to discern “the proper route of treatment planning.” R.R. at 142a. Dr. Haentges questioned
the merits of the simulation as well, explaining “you can’t ask questions. . . . and you can’t feel
motion through a computer screen. So . . . it’s one of those things where [with] live patients it’s
just totally different.” Id. at 143a.

6
  Based on the Department of State’s website, it would appear the Board began accepting entirely
manikin-based examinations during the COVID-19 pandemic. See Pa. Dep’t of State, Waived and
Suspended Licensing Regulations, https://www.dos.pa.gov/Pages/COVID-19-Waivers.aspx (last
visited Dec. 12, 2023). When the Court first heard this case as a three-judge panel on December
12, 2022, counsel for the Board explained manikin-based examinations were approved going
forward at the Board’s September 2022 meeting.

                                                5
value of New York’s residency requirement because they “are done over a period of
time with a resulting professional maturity that would come with such an endeavor.”
Id. at 85a (footnote omitted). The hearing examiner discussed the legislative intent
behind Section 3111(a), which, he asserted, was to “open[ ]up licensure” and remedy
the difficult and time-consuming licensure procedures that may discourage out-of-
state professionals from coming to Pennsylvania. Id. at 85a-86a.
       The Board issued a notice of intent to review on December 27, 2021, followed
by a final adjudication and order on March 16, 2022. The Board listed several New
York licensing requirements it found were substantially equivalent to Pennsylvania
licensing requirements. R.R. at 27a-28a. The Board observed, however, that New
York requires a written examination and residency, while Pennsylvania requires a
written examination and dental clinical examination. Id. at 28a. It concluded New
York’s written examination and residency were not substantially equivalent to, and
did not exceed, Pennsylvania’s written and dental clinical examinations. Id. at 28a-
29a.
       Regarding New York’s residency requirement, the Board reasoned that “[t]he
clinical experience of every resident is different, and competency is measured by the
subjective opinion of the program director or attending dentist.” R.R. at 32a. The
Board contrasted this with the purported objectivity of a dental clinical examination,
observing the ADEX examination requires all applicants to “perform at a minimum
level” and has quantifiable grading standards. Id. It characterized Pennsylvania’s
clinical examination as “an additional measurement of competency in the practice
of dentistry that is absent in New York.” Id. at 29a.
       The Board rejected the idea that it should consider Dr. Haentges’ “individual
experiences,” such as the number of procedures he performed during his residency,

                                          6
to determine substantial equivalency. R.R. at 30a. From the Board’s perspective,
Section 3111(a)(1) permitted it to compare the text of New York’s licensing statute
and regulations against the text of Pennsylvania’s licensing statute and regulations.
Id. at 30a-32a. Considering anything but the “plain letter of the licensing laws”
would be improper, burdensome, and perhaps even “violative of . . . constitutional
protections.” Id. at 30a-31a. The Board rejected the hearing examiner’s reliance on
public policy considerations as well, asserting there was no reason to believe Section
3111(a)’s purpose was to lower the “quality standard for professionals” licensed in
Pennsylvania.7 Id. at 33a.
       Dr. Haentges filed a petition for review in this Court. He raises interrelated
challenges to the Board’s determination that New York’s licensing requirements are
not “substantially equivalent” to Pennsylvania’s licensing requirements.8
                                         II. Discussion
       This Court reviews the Board’s order for violations of constitutional rights,
violations of agency practice and procedure, and other legal errors. 2 Pa.C.S. § 704.
In addition, we review whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s necessary
factual findings. Id. We may disturb the Board’s order if it committed an abuse of
its discretion, exceeded its authority, or misapplied the law. Hammad v. Bureau of
Pro. & Occupational Affs., State Bd. of Veterinary Med., 124 A.3d 374, 380 n.7 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2015) (citing Nelson v. State Bd. of Veterinary Med., 863 A.2d 129, 132
n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)).

7
 Because the Board found no substantial equivalency, it declined to address the other factors at
Section 3111(a)(2)-(5), giving the evidence in support of them “no weight.” R.R at 33a.

8
  Although it is absent from the certified record, the reproduced record contains an application for
reconsideration Dr. Haentges filed on March 30, 2022. Dr. Haentges and the Board state in their
respective briefs that the Board did not rule on the application. Dr. Haentges’ Br. at 7; Board’s
Br. at 23.

                                                 7
       Our research has uncovered no previous decisions applying Section 3111(a)
or Pennsylvania’s predecessor licensure by endorsement statute, which contained
the same language.9 Section 3111 provides as follows:

       (a) General rule.--Notwithstanding any existing provisions related to
       licensure by endorsement or licensure by reciprocity in an applicable
       licensing statute, a licensing board or licensing commission shall issue
       a license, certificate, registration or permit to an applicant to allow
       practice in this Commonwealth if, upon application to the licensing
       board or licensing commission, the applicant satisfies all of the
       following conditions:

              (1) Holds a current license, certificate, registration or
              permit from another state, territory or country and the
              licensing board or licensing commission determines that
              state’s, territory’s or country’s requirements are
              substantially equivalent to or exceed the requirements
              established in this Commonwealth.

              (2) Demonstrates competency in the profession or
              occupation through methods determined by the licensing
              board or licensing commission, including having
              completed continuing education or having experience in
              the profession or occupation for at least two of the five
              years preceding the date of the application under this
              section.

              (3) Has not committed any act that constitutes grounds for
              refusal, suspension or revocation of a license, certificate,
              registration or permit to practice that profession or
              occupation in this Commonwealth unless the licensing
              board or licensing commission determines, in its
              discretion, that the act should not be an impediment to the
              granting of a license, certificate, registration or permit to
              practice in this Commonwealth.

9
 The language now found at 63 Pa.C.S. § 3111 originally appeared in the Act of July 2, 1993, P.L.
345, as amended, added by Section 1 of the Act of July 1, 2019, P.L. 292, formerly 63 P.S. §
2206.1. The General Assembly repealed and replaced the Act of July 2, 1993, P.L. 345, by the
Act of July 1, 2020, P.L. 575, resulting in the current codification at 63 Pa.C.S. § 3111.

                                               8
             (4) Is in good standing and has not been disciplined by the
             jurisdiction that issued the license, certificate, registration
             or permit unless the licensing board or licensing
             commission determines, in its discretion, that the
             discipline should not be an impediment to the granting of
             a license, certificate, registration or permit to practice in
             this Commonwealth.

             (5) Pays any fees established by the licensing board or
             licensing commission by regulation.

      (b) Provisional endorsement license.--A licensing board or licensing
      commission may issue a provisional license, certificate, registration or
      permit to an applicant for licensure by endorsement while the applicant
      is satisfying remaining requirements for the licensure by endorsement
      as determined by the licensing board or licensing commission. The
      holder of a provisional endorsement license issued under this
      subsection may practice until any of the following occurs:

             (1) A license, certificate, registration or permit is denied
             by the licensing board or licensing commission under this
             section.

             (2) The expiration of the provisional endorsement license
             as established by the licensing board or licensing
             commission by regulation.

             (3) The holder of the provisional endorsement license fails
             to comply with the terms of the provisional license.

      (c) Construction.--Nothing in this section is intended to supersede or
      replace existing statutory provisions relating to licensure by
      endorsement or licensure by reciprocity applicable to licensing boards
      and licensing commissions through their respective enabling statutes.
63 Pa.C.S. § 3111.
      As we have summarized, New York law at the time of the proceedings below
required that applicants “pass a written examination” and successfully complete “a
clinically-based postdoctoral general practice or specialty dental residency program,
of at least one year’s duration, in a hospital or dental facility accredited for teaching

                                           9
purposes by a national accrediting body approved by the department.” N.Y. Educ.
Law § 6604(3) (McKinney 2007). Additionally, it required that residencies “include
a formal outcome assessment evaluation of the resident’s competence to practice
dentistry acceptable to the department.” Id. For applicants completing a “general
practice” residency,10 this evaluation required a “notarized written statement by the
residency program director attesting that the applicant” successfully completed the
residency “and is in the director’s judgment competent to practice dentistry.” N.Y.
Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8, § 61.18(b)(3)(i)(a) (2020). The evaluation further
required a notarized statement or statements “by the residency program director who
supervised the dental procedures performed by the applicant, and/or the attending
dentist(s) who supervised the dental procedures,” attesting the applicant performed
“independently, and to generally accepted professional standards for dentistry, two
full crowns, two endodontically treated teeth, four restorations (two anterior, two
posterior) and one periodontal case during the accredited residency program.”11, 12
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8, § 61.18(b)(3)(i)(b) (2020).
          In Pennsylvania, Section 3(c) of The Dental Law13 provides the Board with
the power to license applicants “after examination.” 63 P.S. § 122(c). The Board
may “prescribe the subjects, character, manner, time and place of examinations,”

10
     Dr. Haentges testified he completed a general practice residency. R.R. at 177a.

11
  For specialty residencies, an attestation regarding the procedures an applicant performed was
not necessary. N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8, § 61.18(b)(3)(ii) (2020). Despite this, New
York law defined a specialty residency as one where “at least 50 percent of the accredited residency
program consists of clinical training.” N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8, § 61.18(b)(2) (2020).

12
  As of 2023, New York’s licensing regulations no longer require a residency to include a specific
number of completed procedures.

13
     Act of May 1, 1933, P.L. 216, as amended, 63 P.S. § 122(c).

                                                 10
among other things, and “issue licenses and certificates to such applicants as
successfully pass such examination.” 63 P.S. § 122(e). The Pennsylvania Code
provides that applicants “shall pass the National Board Dental Examination (written
examination) and the dental clinical examination administered by” one of five
testing agencies.14 49 Pa. Code § 33.103(a). Neither the Dental Law nor the
Pennsylvania Code specify the requirements of any dental clinical examination.
       Dr. Haentges argues the Board erred by requiring New York’s dental licensing
requirements to be exactly equivalent rather than “substantially equivalent” to the
licensing requirements in Pennsylvania. Dr. Haentges’ Br. at 14-18. Moreover, he
contends the Board did not consider evidence that New York’s requirements exceed
Pennsylvania’s requirements. Id. at 19-20. Dr. Haentges maintains that both New
York and Pennsylvania seek to ensure the clinical competency of applicants, but that
New York relies on a year-long residency with “live patients in real life scenarios”
while Pennsylvania relies on “a two-day clinical examination in a controlled and
sterile environment.” Id. at 16-19 (footnote omitted). He describes the numerous
procedures he completed during his residency and dental practice as “evidence of
the validity of New York’s approach to clinical competency” and asserts the Board’s
reasoning that a residency is more subjective than a dental clinical examination lacks
evidentiary support. Id. at 17-19, 22-23, 26-27. Dr. Haentges discusses legislative
history underlying Section 3111(a), including statements by members of the General

14
   Agencies listed include the “North East Regional Board of Dental Examiners, Inc. (NERB).”
49 Pa. Code § 33.103(a)(1). At the hearing, Dr. Haentges agreed the NERB changed its name to
the Commission on Dental Competency Assessments in 2015, and it is the agency that administers
the ADEX examination. R.R. at 124a.

                                             11
Assembly regarding the statute’s goal of helping qualified professionals from other
states obtain licensure in Pennsylvania.15 Id. at 11-13.
       An applicant is entitled to licensure under Section 3111(a)(1) if “the licensing
board . . . determines” that licensing requirements of an applicant’s state, territory,
or country are “substantially equivalent to or exceed the requirements established in
this Commonwealth.”16 63 Pa.C.S. § 3111(a)(1). It is therefore within the Board’s
discretion to determine substantial equivalency. Nonetheless, we agree with Dr.
Haentges that the Board exercised its discretion in this matter based on an erroneous

15
   Dr. Haentges relies in part on a report of the American Dental Association, among other entities,
entitled “Report of the Task Force on Assessment of Readiness for Practice.” Dr. Haentges’ Br.
at 19-26. Dr. Haentges did not present this report during the hearing but apparently included it for
the first time as an attachment to his application for reconsideration. R.R. at 6a. The parties agree,
as noted, that the Board did not rule on Dr. Haentges’ application. Dr. Haentges’ Br. at 7; Board’s
Br. at 23. Accordingly, the report was never admitted into the record, and we do not consider it in
this appeal.

16
   The Dissent focuses on language in Section 3111(c), explaining the licensure by endorsement
provisions in Section 3111(a) do not “replace or supersede” any previously existing licensure by
endorsement or reciprocity provisions. 63 Pa.C.S. § 3111(c). The problem with this reasoning is
that Section 3111(a) applies “[n]otwithstanding any existing provisions related to licensure by
endorsement or licensure by reciprocity in an applicable licensing statute.” 63 Pa.C.S. § 3111(a)
(emphasis added). Section 3111(c) simply means that the General Assembly did not intend Section
3111(a) to prevent applicants from obtaining licensure under any previous statutory provisions. In
other words, if an applicant was eligible for reciprocity under a previous provision, he or she would
remain eligible for reciprocity and would not need to pursue licensure under Section 3111(a). We
note our interpretation is consistent with guidance on the Department of State’s website, describing
licensure under Section 3111 as “yet another option for the boards to consider applicants licensed
in other jurisdictions,” which applies “[i]f a board’s existing endorsement/reciprocity options do
not provide a means of licensure.” Pa. Dep’t of State, Applying for a professional license from
outside Pennsylvania, https://www.dos.pa.gov/ProfessionalLicensing/Pages/Act-41-2019.aspx
(last visited Dec. 12, 2023). The Dissent’s view, that Section 3111(a) applies “[n]otwithstanding
any existing provisions”—except when those provisions are different—renders the language
meaningless. See 63 Pa.C.S. § 3111(a). The only relevance the previous licensure by endorsement
provision at Section 3(f) of The Dental Law, 63 P.S. § 122(f), has to our analysis today is to
illustrate the type of unduly burdensome licensing requirements our General Assembly moved
away from by enacting Section 3111(a) into law.

                                                 12
interpretation of Section 3111(a)(1)’s statutory language. “Substantially equivalent”
simply means the licensing requirements of an applicant’s state, territory, or country,
when viewed as a whole, must be equal in their essential respects, or largely equal,
to Pennsylvania’s licensing requirements.17 For example, Section 2 of the CPA
Law18 expressly defines “substantial equivalency.” Substantial equivalency includes
the fact that “the education, examination and experience requirements contained in
the statutes and regulations of another jurisdiction are comparable to or exceed the
education, examination and experience requirements contained in this act.” 63 P.S.
§ 9.2.
         This plain language reading of Section 3111(a)(1) supports the conclusion that
New York’s licensing requirements were substantially equivalent to Pennsylvania’s
licensing requirements. Both New York and Pennsylvania required applicants to
complete a written examination and a clinical component—a residency in New York
and a clinical examination in Pennsylvania. These clinical components sought to
ensure that only applicants with established clinical skills received licensure. They
served the same purposes and were functionally interchangeable. This is particularly
clear because New York previously required a clinical examination. A review of
New York law reveals the state eliminated its clinical examination and replaced it

17
  An “equivalent” is something “equal in force, amount, or value.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary 392-93 (10th ed. 1997). Other relevant definitions include: “corresponding or virtually
identical esp[ecially] in effect or function” and “equal in might or authority.” Id. at 393. Relevant
definitions of “substantial” include “important, essential,” and “being largely but not wholly that
which is specified.” Id. at 1174.

18
  Act of May 26, 1947, P.L. 318, as amended, 63 P.S. § 9.2. A “CPA” is a certified public
accountant.

                                                13
with a residency, effective December 31, 2006.19 See N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs.
tit. 8, § 61.2(a)(1)(ii), (9) (2006) (requiring individuals who satisfy certain criteria
“on or before December 31, 2006,” to complete an “examination in clinical
dentistry,” but permitting them to “substitute successful completion of a residency
program”). The New York legislature made this change via a series of bills
beginning in 2002.20 See 2002 N.Y. Sess. Laws Ch. 143 (McKinney).
       The Board failed to engage in a plain language reading of Section 3111(a)(1)’s
substantial equivalency requirement when reaching a decision in this case. Instead

19
   Counsel for the Board noted at oral argument that approximately seven states accept either a
clinical examination or a residency, which further signals the requirements are interchangeable.
20
   A legislative memorandum in support of the change provides the following justification:

       This bill would mandate the completion of an accredited clinically-based
       postdoctoral general practice or specialty dental residency programs in order to
       obtain a dental license. The bill recognizes that the extensive and intensive
       supervised practical skills training, as well as the additional academic instructions
       of a postdoctoral dental residency program, establishes competency for purposes of
       licensure. The bill acknowledges the value of the additional clinical training for
       applicants for dental licensure.

       This bill is consistent with the State Education Department’s reliance upon
       approved residency in medicine and podiatry to provide necessary training and
       experience for licensure. There is no rationale for creating a different standard for
       the acceptability of a dental resident’s training as compared to medicine and
       podiatry. Moreover, this bill provides the experience requirement - independent of
       the examination requirement - that had previously been missing for dental
       licensure.

       The bill acknowledges the benefits of measuring dental competency over a period
       of time as opposed to the current one-day clinical examination. Moreover, by
       requiring a residency program for licensure, the public will be better protected and
       the dental profession improved by measuring dental competency over a longer
       period of time and requiring additional experience and training, as is required in the
       medical field. Residents will also benefit from the opportunity to treat patients in
       a setting other than a dental school.

New York State Assembly Memorandum in Support of Legislation, N.Y. Bill Jacket, 2004 A.B.
6065.

                                                14
of considering whether New York’s dental licensing requirements were essentially
equal, largely equal, or in excess of Pennsylvania’s requirements, the Board denied
licensure to Dr. Haentges because a residency and a clinical examination were not
exactly the same. The Board suggests in its brief that no residency, no matter how
stringent, could substitute for a clinical examination. See Board’s Br. at 14 (“A state
whose licensing requirements do not include a clinical dental examination is not
substantially equivalent to Pennsylvania.”).
      The Board also discussed why it believed a residency could not be as effective
as a clinical examination for ensuring the “competency” of applicants. Determining
whether licensing requirements are substantially equivalent will necessarily require
the Board to consider whether a dentist licensed in another jurisdiction can provide
dental care safely and competently to Pennsylvania’s standards. Still, it is significant
that the statute requires review of an applicant’s competency in Section 3111(a)(2),
separate from Section 3111(a)(1)’s substantial equivalency determination. See 63
Pa.C.S. § 3111(a)(2). To the extent the Board believed a one-year residency was
less capable of establishing competency than an examination lasting as little as two
days, our legislature ensured that only applicants who demonstrate competency can
obtain licensure by endorsement. Section 3111(a) provides other safeguards as well,
including requirements that an applicant cannot have committed any act that would
be grounds for the loss of a license in Pennsylvania, and that an applicant must be in
good standing and not subject to discipline in his or her own jurisdiction. 63 Pa.C.S.
§ 3111(a)(3), (4).
      We agree with the Board that Section 3111(a)(1) requires consideration of the
licensing “requirements” of an applicant’s state, territory, or country, rather than an
applicant’s individual experiences. It is important to add, however, that the Board

                                          15
violated its own rule and looked beyond Pennsylvania law to justify a decision that
New York’s licensing requirements were not substantially equivalent. The critical
qualities of a dental clinical examination on which the Board relied, grading criteria
and objectivity, do not appear in Pennsylvania’s licensing statute and regulations.21
Section 3(c) of The Dental Law provides for licensure “after examination.”22 63 P.S.
§ 122(c). The Pennsylvania Code provides applicants must pass “the dental clinical
examination administered by” one of five enumerated testing agencies. 49 Pa. Code
§ 33.103(a). Pennsylvania law does not state what its clinical examination’s grading
criteria must be, nor does it include controls to ensure objectivity. Just as New York
delegates competency assessments to residency programs, Pennsylvania delegates
those assessments to testing agencies.23 If the Board had truly limited its analysis to
the “plain letter of the licensing laws,” R.R. at 31a, it would have compared what
New York’s licensing statute and regulations required—a one-year residency, during
which the applicant performs certain procedures with supervision from experienced
dentists, who then determine if he or she is competent—versus what Pennsylvania’s

21
   At oral argument before this panel, counsel for the Board explained the ADEX examination
eliminates “outlier” scores by using three graders to evaluate each applicant’s performance. We
note the fact that it is possible for an “outlier” score to exist demonstrates the ADEX examination
is not wholly objective.

22
  The Dissent’s discussion of the “examination” requirement in Section 3(c) and (e) of The Dental
Law is misguided. Section 3(c) does not require a “clinical examination,” and both Pennsylvania
and New York require written examinations. More importantly, the same General Assembly that
long ago expressed its preference for an examination in The Dental Law more recently enacted
Section 3111(a)(1), providing for licensure based on “substantially equivalent,” rather than equal
requirements. 63 Pa.C.S. § 3111(a)(1).

23
  Dr. Haentges makes a similar point in his brief and reply brief. See Dr. Haentges’ Br. at 17 n.5;
Dr. Haentges’ Reply Br. at 2 n.2.

                                               16
licensing statute and regulations required—a clinical examination, with no apparent
minimum standards.
       Ultimately, even if the Board did not commit an error of law in interpreting
Section 3111(a)(1)’s statutory language, its decision was an abuse of discretion. We
have emphasized the value of deference to boards and commissions because of their
members’ expertise. See Troiani Grp. v. City of Pittsburgh Bd. of Appeals, 273 A.3d
43, 55-57 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (collecting cases). The fact that this Court may have
a different opinion is insufficient to interfere with an agency’s actions, and we may
not substitute judicial discretion for administrative discretion. Gwynedd Dev. Grp.,
Inc. v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., Bureau of Lab. Standards, 666 A.2d 365, 370 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1995) (citing Lynch v. Urb. Redevelopment Auth. of Pittsburgh, 496 A.2d
1331 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985)). That said, for the reasons discussed above, New York’s
licensing requirements were substantially equivalent to, or exceeded, Pennsylvania’s
licensing requirements by any reasonable measure. Indeed, if given the choice, it is
doubtful anyone would prefer to undergo a dental procedure performed by a newly
licensed dentist who completed a two-day exam on a manikin over a newly licensed
dentist who completed a year-long residency training and performing procedures on
live patients. Although the Board attempts to justify its decision by implying that
Dr. Haentges and other similarly situated dentists would lower the “quality standard
for professionals” licensed in Pennsylvania, R.R. at 33a, we can find no support for
the Board’s concerns under the applicable law and the circumstances of this case.24

24
  Our decision applies only to New York’s residency requirement as it existed when Dr. Haentges
obtained his dental license and applied for licensure by endorsement in Pennsylvania. We express
no opinion on the substantial equivalence of New York’s current residency requirement.

                                              17
                                III. Conclusion
      Accordingly, we must reverse the Board’s March 16, 2022 order, denying Dr.
Haentges licensure by endorsement under Section 3111(a)(1). Because the Board
considered only Section 3111(a)(1) when reaching its decision, we remand for the
Board to consider the remaining factors at 63 Pa.C.S. § 3111(a)(2)-(5). The Board
shall issue a new order from which appeal may be taken within 45 days of the date
of this decision.

                                            ______________________________
                                            STACY WALLACE, Judge

                                       18
          IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Joshua Haentges, D.D.S.,                   :
                            Petitioner     :
                                           :
           v.                              :   No. 348 C.D. 2022
                                           :
State Board of Dentistry,                  :
                            Respondent     :

                                         ORDER

      AND NOW, this 21st day of December 2023, the State Board of Dentistry’s
(Board) March 16, 2022 order is REVERSED with respect to 63 Pa.C.S. §
3111(a)(1). The case is REMANDED for the Board to consider the factors at 63
Pa.C.S. § 3111(a)(2)-(5). The Board shall issue a new order from which an appeal
may be taken within 45 days of the date of this decision.
      Jurisdiction relinquished.

                                           ______________________________
                                           STACY WALLACE, Judge
             IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Joshua Haentges, D.D.S.,                        :
                               Petitioner       :
                                                :
                v.                              :
                                                :
State Board of Dentistry,                       :   No. 348 C.D. 2022
                               Respondent       :   Argued: September 13, 2023

BEFORE:         HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
                HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
                HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
                HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge
                HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
                HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge
                HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge

DISSENTING OPINION
BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON                                         FILED: December 21, 2023

                I respectfully dissent. I do not believe the Board committed any error
of law or abused its discretion in denying the license application of Joshua Haentges,
D.D.S. (Dr. Haentges).
                As the majority observes, Section 3(c) and (e) of The Dental Law1
empowers the State Board of Dentistry (Board) to issue licenses to applicants “after
examination”2 – specifically, “to such applicants as successfully pass such
examination.” 63 P.S. § 122(c) & (e). Section 3(f) of The Dental Law allows the

       1
           Act of May 1, 1933, P.L. 216, as amended, 63 P.S. §§ 120-130l.
       2
          Pursuant to the examination requirement of this enabling statute, the Board’s
implementing regulation requires that “[c]andidates for licensure shall pass the National Board
Dental Examination (written examination) and the dental clinical examination administered by one
of the [designated examining agencies].” 49 Pa. Code § 33.103(a).
Board to accept and endorse as valid a license issued in another state, where that
state’s standards “are, in the opinion of the [B]oard, equal to the standards of this
Commonwealth . . . .” 63 P.S. § 122(f) (emphasis added).
               Section 3111(a)(1) of Title 63 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated
Statutes provides generally for reciprocal professional licensure where “the licensing
board or licensing commission determines that state’s . . . requirements are
substantially equivalent to or exceed the requirements established in this
Commonwealth.” 63 Pa.C.S. § 3111(a)(1). However, Section 3111(c) provides
guidance on the proper construction of Section 3111 by stating that “[n]othing in this
section is intended to supersede or replace existing statutory provisions relating to
licensure by endorsement or licensure by reciprocity applicable to licensing boards
and licensing commissions through their respective enabling statutes.” 63 Pa.C.S. §
3111(c).3
               Here, the legislature’s specific requirement of an examination in The
Dental Law defines the parameters of the Board’s discretion in determining whether
another state’s standards are equal to those of Pennsylvania. The Board did not
commit an error of law by determining that a residency and an examination are not
equal within the meaning of Section 3(f).4

       3
          Although, as the majority observes, Section 3111(a) applies notwithstanding other
statutory provisions, Section 3111(c) is specifically titled “Construction.” Thus, in guiding the
construction of Section 3111, Section 3111(c) effectively limits the effect of Section 3111(a)
where, as here, an enabling statute imposes an express requirement that differs from the substantial
equivalency provision of Section 3111(a). See 63 Pa.C.S. 3111(c). In any event, Section 3111(a)
does not eliminate the Board’s discretion to determine substantial equivalency, which is discussed
below.
       4
         Regarding the majority’s suggestion that The Dental Law’s examination requirement
lacks grading criteria and objectivity requirements, I note that Dr. Haentges has not raised that
issue.

                                             CFC - 2
               The Board likewise did not abuse its discretion in determining that New
York’s residency requirement is not substantially equivalent to Pennsylvania’s
clinical examination requirement. The majority cites the definition of “substantial
equivalency” in Section 2 of the CPA Law,5 63 P.S. § 9.2, as illustrating that
licensing requirements in different jurisdictions need not be identical to be
substantially equivalent. I do not disagree with that general premise. Nonetheless,
the Board has broad discretion in considering whether another jurisdiction’s
licensing requirements are substantially equivalent to those in Pennsylvania.
Specifically, the Board had discretion here to determine whether a residency is
substantially equivalent to Pennsylvania’s clinical examination.
               The majority correctly recognizes the high level of deference courts
owe to the Board because of its expertise in applying its enabling statute. However,
the majority’s opinion then weighs the relative desirability of a residency versus a
clinical examination in evaluating an applicant’s qualifications for licensure and
concludes that the Board’s (and, by implication, the legislature’s) preference for an
examination is not reasonable. Respectfully, I believe that in doing so, the majority’s
analysis has impermissibly substituted this Court’s judgment for that of the Board.
               In short, I do not believe the Board committed legal error or abused its
broad discretion in determining that fulfilling New York’s residency requirement
did not entitle Dr. Haentges to forgo Pennsylvania’s clinical examination in seeking
a license to practice dentistry in Pennsylvania. For that reason, I dissent.

                                            ___________________________________
                                            CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

      5
          Act of May 26, 1947, P.L. 318, as amended, 63 P.S. §§ 9.1-9.16b.

                                           CFC - 3