Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

GARY LIESNER v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (03/05/86)

decided: March 5, 1986.

GARY LIESNER, D.D.S., 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 The Matter of the Suspension or Revocation of the License to Practice Dentistry, No. DS-10857-L, issued to Gary Liesner, D.D.S., dated October 26, 1984.

COUNSEL

Michael B. Tolcott, with him, Gilbert B. Abramson, Philip L. Blackman and Sharon M. Friel, Abramson, Cogan, Kogan, Freedman & Blackman, P.C., for petitioner.

Gwendolyn T. Mosley, Deputy Attorney General, with her, Allen C. Warshaw, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Chief, Litigation Section, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Craig, Barry, and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.

Author: Palladino

[ 95 Pa. Commw. Page 436]

This is an appeal by Gary Liesner (Petitioner) from an order of the State Dental Council and Examining Board (Board) which suspended Petitioner's license to practice dentistry for a period of six months. We affirm.

On November 15, 1982, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to twenty-four counts of violating Sections 3(a)(12) and 3(c)(2) of the Fraud and Abuse Control Law.*fn1 Thereafter, on June 6, 1983, the Board served Petitioner with a Citation and Notice of Hearing which charged Petitioner with having violated Section 3 of The Dental Law*fn2 by reason of being guilty

[ 95 Pa. Commw. Page 437]

    of a crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, engaging in fraudulent or unlawful practices, and by engaging in unprofessional conduct. After a full hearing, the Board, by order dated October 26, 1984, found that Petitioner had committed the violations of The Dental Law with which he had been charged and suspended his license to practice dentistry for six months. It is from this order that Petitioner appeals.

Petitioner's primary argument is that the Board erred as a matter of law in concluding that Petitioner was guilty of a crime of moral turpitude. It is Petitioner's contention that violations of Section 1407(a)(12) and (c)(2) of the Fraud and Abuse Control Law are not crimes of moral turpitude. We disagree.

As a general rule, all crimes of which fraud is an element are looked upon as involving moral turpitude. . . . '[M]oral turpitude' has also been frequently defined as 'anything done knowingly contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals.'

Moretti v. State Board of Pharmacy, 2 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 121, 125-26, 277 A.2d 516, 518 (1971) (citations ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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