Rosenfeld, Dds v. St. of Ct. Dental Comm., No. Cv 00 0500259s (Mar. 2, 2000)

Connecticut Superior Court

Rosenfeld, Dds v. St. of Ct. Dental Comm., No. Cv 00 0500259s (Mar. 2, 2000)

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 3482

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 2, 2000

DocketNo. CV 00 0500259S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 3482 (Rosenfeld, Dds v. St. of Ct. Dental Comm., No. Cv 00 0500259s (Mar. 2, 2000)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosenfeld, Dds v. St. of Ct. Dental Comm., No. Cv 00 0500259s (Mar. 2, 2000), 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 3482 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR STAY The plaintiff appeals to this court for a stay of a decision of the State of Connecticut Dental Commission pending a decision on his appeal. The Commission conducted two days of hearing on charges plaintiff violated C.G.S. § 20-114 (10) (abuse or excessive use of drugs). It issued a decision placing plaintiff's license to practice dentistry on probation for one year with certain conditions: Plaintiff to undergo monthly urine tests for drugs, to take a pharmacology course, and to be monitored in his practice for seven months by another competent dentist. Plaintiff's license was not suspended or revoked.

After reading the parties' briefs and hearing oral argument, the court finds that the plaintiff has failed to make a "strong showing" (Waterbury Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals andCT Page 3483Health Care, 30 Conn. Sup. 352, 354-55 (1974)) that he will prevail on the merits of this appeal, that pending the appeal, he will be irreparably harmed by the implementation of the Commission's orders and that the public interest in protecting plaintiff's patients from plaintiff's excessive use of a controlled drug will not be jeopardized.

The application for stay is denied.

Robert Satter Judge Trial Referee

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR STAY The plaintiff appeals to this court for a stay of a decision of the State of Connecticut Dental Commission pending a decision on his appeal. The Commission conducted two days of hearing on charges plaintiff violated C.G.S. § 20-114 (10) (abuse or excessive use of drugs). It issued a decision placing plaintiff's license to practice dentistry on probation for one year with certain conditions: Plaintiff to undergo monthly urine tests for drugs, to take a pharmacology course, and to be monitored in his practice for seven months by another competent dentist. Plaintiff's license was not suspended or revoked.

After reading the parties' briefs and hearing oral argument, the court finds that the plaintiff has failed to make a "strong showing" (Waterbury Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals andCT Page 3483Health Care, 30 Conn. Sup. 352, 354-55 (1974)) that he will prevail on the merits of this appeal, that pending the appeal, he will be irreparably harmed by the implementation of the Commission's orders and that the public interest in protecting plaintiff's patients from plaintiff's excessive use of a controlled drug will not be jeopardized.

The application for stay is denied.

Robert Satter Judge Trial Referee

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 3482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenfeld-dds-v-st-of-ct-dental-comm-no-cv-00-0500259s-mar-2-connsuperct-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack