Burton v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Burton v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners

571 P.2d 1295, 31 Or. App. 1045, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2866

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 5, 1977

DocketCA 8435

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 571 P.2d 1295 (Burton v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burton v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners, 571 P.2d 1295, 31 Or. App. 1045, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2866 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner’s license to practice dentistry was suspended for six months upon a determination by the Board of Dental Examiners that he had referred a patient to a dental laboratory for the fitting of a denture, in other words, for the purpose of dental treatment by a person not licensed to practice dentistry. On review, petitioner contends only that there was an absence of substantial evidence to so find and that the penalty was excessive.

On the evidentiary question, petitioner argues that the substantial evidence for which we review under ORS 183.482(8)(d) must be clear and convincing. The argument is misconceived. The statutory substantial evidence rule requires us to review for that quantum of evidence. The various standards of proof (e.g., preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond reasonable doubt) are directions to the fact finder as to the degree of certainty which must exist in the mind of the fact finder as to any finding of fact. They are not applicable on appeal and we do not weigh the evidence to assess its degree of persuasiveness. We may only examine the record for the existence of substantial evidence.

Regarding sanction, see, Mary’s Fine Food, Inc. v. OLCC, 30 Or App 435, 567 P2d 146 rev pending (1977).

There being no other challenges to the order, it is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner’s license to practice dentistry was suspended for six months upon a determination by the Board of Dental Examiners that he had referred a patient to a dental laboratory for the fitting of a denture, in other words, for the purpose of dental treatment by a person not licensed to practice dentistry. On review, petitioner contends only that there was an absence of substantial evidence to so find and that the penalty was excessive.

On the evidentiary question, petitioner argues that the substantial evidence for which we review under ORS 183.482(8)(d) must be clear and convincing. The argument is misconceived. The statutory substantial evidence rule requires us to review for that quantum of evidence. The various standards of proof (e.g., preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond reasonable doubt) are directions to the fact finder as to the degree of certainty which must exist in the mind of the fact finder as to any finding of fact. They are not applicable on appeal and we do not weigh the evidence to assess its degree of persuasiveness. We may only examine the record for the existence of substantial evidence.

Regarding sanction, see, Mary’s Fine Food, Inc. v. OLCC, 30 Or App 435, 567 P2d 146 rev pending (1977).

There being no other challenges to the order, it is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 P.2d 1295, 31 Or. App. 1045, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 2866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burton-v-oregon-state-board-of-dental-examiners-orctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack