미국치과임플란트학회의 법적인 위상에 대한 기사입니다.

On September 8, 2004, the AAID scored a major victory in its ongoing legal efforts to secure the right of AAID members and ABOI Diplomates to publicly announce their Fellow or Associate Fellow and Diplomate credentials. In the case, which was jointly filed by Michael L. Potts, DDS, a Fellow of the Academy from Camarillo, California, the Academy challenged a recently enacted California statute that only allows the advertising of those dental specialty credentials recognized by the American Dental Association (ADA) or the Dental Board of California. The Academy argued that the statute violates commercial speech protection under the First Amendment because the advertising of Fellow or Associate Fellow and Diplomate credentials, though not recognized by the state dental board or ADA, does not inherently or actually mislead the public. The US District Court for the Eastern District of California, where the case was filed, agreed and ruled in favor of the Academy and Dr. Potts. In his summary judgment, the judge found that, while the State has an interest in preventing the public from being misled by erroneous advertising, the voluntary nature and stringent requirements of the AAID’s and ABOI’s credentialing process do not warrant a prohibition of announcing AAID and ABOI’s credentials. In essence, the District Court judge’s decision effectively reaffirms the Academy’s standing as a bona fide credentialing organization. In reaction to this latest victory, Academy President Kevin J. O’Grady remarked, “we are indebted to Dr. Michael Potts for his willingness to join us in this effort, which has such meaning for our profession.” This case represents the third of its kind in the State of California. Previously, in the 2000 case Bingham v. Hamilton, the Academy challenged a similar California statute prohibiting dentists with AAID credentials from publicly announcing and promoting those credentials. The court ruled in favor of Bingham and the Academy, striking down the prohibition on advertising. However, the court also instigated the required use of a disclaimer on any public listing of the credential as an effort to protect the public. Two years later, the California legislature enacted a new statute that codified substantially the same advertising restrictions as those struck down by the Bingham case in 2000. It was this 2002 statute that led the Academy and Dr. Potts to file suit with the US District Court.

What happens now?
Following the District Court’s ruling, the AAID and the California Dental Board will meet with the presiding judge to discuss the relevancy and practical outcomes of his decision. At the time of this article, the date of that meeting is unknown. A potential source of debate in this discussion may be the role of disclaimers when a dentist announces his credentials, similar to what was implemented as a result of Bingham v. Hamilton. The use of these disclaimers generally becomes an onerous burden on dentists as they develop any form of marketing materials or signage for their practices. If successful in arguing its rationale for the use of disclaimers, the California Dental Board could unquestionably induce a chilling effect on the District Court’s ruling. Following this meeting with the judge and Academy, the California Dental Board will then have 30 days to appeal the District Court’s decision. If such an appeal is filed, Dr. O’Grady is resolute that the Academy will continue its legal efforts to support the rights of its credentialed members. “Without question, the Academy will carry on with these efforts,” he says. “Our credentialed members must have the choice to freely announce their credentials and to do so without undue hardship from state laws or regulations.”