Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GREGG M. CORSELLO v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (06/09/83)

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: June 9, 1983.

GREGG M. CORSELLO, D.M.D., PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE DENTAL COUNCIL AND EXAMINING BOARD, RESPONDENT

Appeal from the Order of the State Dental Council and Examining Board in case of In Re: Gregg Michael Corsello, D.M.D., dated April 15, 1982.

COUNSEL

Robert I. Grigsby, with him Scott E. Becker and Alan S. Baum, Thomson, Rhodes & Grigsby, for petitioner.

David J. Felicio, Assistant Counsel, with him Edward D. Frank, II, Chief Counsel, David F. Phifer, Chief Counsel, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Blatt, Craig and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 16]

Gregg M. Corsello, D.M.D. (petitioner) appeals here from an order of the Pennsylvania State Dental Council and Examining Board (Board) which denied his request for special relief in the form of a grant of licensure to practice dentistry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Board regulations provide that "to secure a license to practice dentistry, a person shall sequentially pass a written (National Boards) examination, a clinical (Northeast Regional Board) examination, and a Pennsylvania Dental Law Examination."*fn1 The petitioner successfully passed the first, but, after three attempts, failed to pass the sequel. He then requested the Board to waive its requirement for successful completion of the clinical examination.*fn2 The Board's denial of this request is presently before us.

The petitioner argues that the Board abused its discretion.*fn3 He contends that, inasmuch as his failure on each occasion was based on a different reason, the

[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 17]

Board should have considered these three examinations "cumulatively" and held that his allegedly substantial compliance justifies the waiver he now seeks.

The Board argues that the petitioner has failed to complete the clinical examination successfully, and that, inasmuch as this requirement is a reasonable requirement for those seeking licensure in the Commonwealth, it may require the petitioner to fulfill this requirement before granting him licensure. See Reisinger v. State Board of Medical Education and Licensure, 41 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 553, 399 A.2d 1160 (1979); Oliver v. Pennsylvania Board of Psychologists Examiners, 45 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 195, 404 A.2d 1386 (1979). We agree.

There is no doubt that the petitioner has failed to complete the restorative portion of the clinical examination successfully. This clearly has a substantial and reasonable relationship to his ability to practice dentistry successfully, and is a prerequisite to obtaining licensure in this Commonwealth.

We believe, therefore, that the Board did not commit any error of law*fn4 or abuse of discretion in refusing to waive this requirement. Reisinger.

We will affirm the order of the Board.

Order

And Now, this 9th day of June, 1983, the order of the State Dental Council and Examining Board in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.

Disposition

Affirmed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.