A dentist plans to dismiss a chronically abusive patient whose active treatment has reached a safe stopping point. The question asks what BPC §1680(u) itself requires for a lawful dismissal — as distinct from risk-management best practice. Which answer is correct?

Written notice, ample opportunity to find another dentist, and no jeopardy to health.

Written notice, 30 days of guaranteed emergency coverage, and dual certified mailing.

A face-to-face termination meeting documented in writing by a staff witness.

Advance Dental Board approval whenever the patient remains in active treatment.

Dr. Vance is treating a non-compliant patient, Mr. Geller, who is midway through root canal therapy on tooth #19 with only a temporary filling covering the access cavity. Frustrated by Mr. Geller's profanity toward the front desk staff, Dr. Vance hands him a formal dismissal letter, states he will no longer be seen at the clinic, and refuses to schedule the obturation appointment. Which statement best describes Dr. Vance’s legal standing under California law?

Dr. Vance committed patient abandonment because care was discontinued without ample opportunity to secure another dentist and the endodontic therapy was not brought to a safe clinical stopping point, jeopardizing the patient's health.

Dr. Vance acted lawfully, because abusive behavior toward staff justifies immediate dismissal.

Dr. Vance acted lawfully, because the dismissal letter satisfied the written-notice requirement.

Dr. Vance committed abandonment only if Mr. Geller can prove an actual injury resulted.

Dr. Lin enters into a written "marketing tracking agreement" with a local oral surgery center. Dr. Lin places the center's brochures in her waiting room and receives a $75 "marketing fee" from the center for every patient she refers who undergoes a third-molar extraction. Over six months, she refers 20 patients and receives $1,500. How does California law classify this arrangement?

An unlawful violation of BPC section 650 because the compensation is directly tied to the volume of patients she steers to a specific provider.

A lawful advertising expense, because the contract labels the payments as marketing fees.

A lawful arrangement under the BPC section 650(h) safe harbor for internet-based advertising and booking services.

A lawful arrangement, provided Dr. Lin discloses the payments to each referred patient in writing.

A new patient presents to Dr. Alvarez with severe recurrent decay under a massive amalgam restoration. The patient states Dr. Smith placed it two years ago. Without requesting the prior clinical notes or pre-operative radiographs, Dr. Alvarez tells the patient, "Dr. Smith completely botched this filling. This is sheer malpractice, and he clearly cut corners." Under the ADA and CDA Codes of Ethics, Dr. Alvarez’s statements are:

Unethical, because the criticism was not informed by an understanding of the prior clinical conditions under which the treatment was rendered.

Ethical, because the dentist truthfully described what the current clinical examination revealed.

Ethical, because the mandatory duty to report faulty treatment requires candid statements to the patient.

Unethical, because a dentist may never discuss another dentist's work with a patient.

A patient in her third trimester of a complex pregnancy requires specialized, ongoing periodontal maintenance tightly coordinated with her obstetrician. Suddenly, her dental HMO terminates the treating periodontist's contract for standard network-rebalancing reasons (unrelated to fraud or discipline). The patient requests to stay with her periodontist. Under the Knox-Keene Act, what continuity rights apply?

The HMO must allow the patient to remain with the terminated periodontist for the full duration of the pregnancy and the immediate postpartum period.

The HMO must offer only a 60-day transition period to an in-network periodontist.

The HMO must allow the patient to remain with the terminated periodontist for up to 12 months from the termination date.

The patient has no continuity rights because the periodontist's contract was lawfully terminated.

Dentovio

Loading…

Dentovio

California Dental Law and Ethics exam · Free practice questions

California Law and Ethics practice questions: Continuity of care, charts and referrals

Five original California Law and Ethics practice questions on continuity of care, charts and referrals, each answered on this page with a rationale and a source.

Last updated 2026-09-29

Question 1 of 5
A dentist plans to dismiss a chronically abusive patient whose active treatment has reached a safe stopping point. The question asks what BPC §1680(u) itself requires for a lawful dismissal — as distinct from risk-management best practice. Which answer is correct?
Show the answer
Answer B: Written notice, ample opportunity to find another dentist, and no jeopardy to health.
BPC §1680(u) itself requires written notice that treatment is to be discontinued, ample opportunity for the patient to secure another dentist, and no jeopardy to the patient's health; the Board-recommended 30-day transition and private mailing practices sit on top of that statutory floor.
Common trap: stems that ask what "the statute requires" want the §1680(u) elements—not every familiar risk-management step.
Source: California Business & Professions Code §§1680, 1684.1, and 1684.5 — unprofessional conduct, Board records demands, patient-of-record rules, and…
Question 2 of 5
Dr. Vance is treating a non-compliant patient, Mr. Geller, who is midway through root canal therapy on tooth #19 with only a temporary filling covering the access cavity. Frustrated by Mr. Geller's profanity toward the front desk staff, Dr. Vance hands him a formal dismissal letter, states he will no longer be seen at the clinic, and refuses to schedule the obturation appointment. Which statement best describes Dr. Vance’s legal standing under California law?
Show the answer
Answer B: Dr. Vance committed patient abandonment because care was discontinued without ample opportunity to secure another dentist and the endodontic therapy was not brought to a safe clinical stopping point, jeopardizing the patient's health.
Under California Business and Professions Code (BPC) section 1680(u), discontinuing treatment without written notice, without ample opportunity for the patient to secure another dentist, and without ensuring the patient's health is not jeopardized constitutes abandonment. Leaving a temporary filling in an un-obturated root canal directly jeopardizes the patient's health, so handing over a letter mid-treatment fails the statute even though it is "written." The Board-recommended 30-day transition is guidance layered on top of that statutory floor, not the statutory test itself.
Common trap: Believing that abusive behavior or profanity instantly waives the dentist's duty to safely bridge the clinical transition — or treating the written letter alone as full compliance when the statute also demands ample opportunity and no jeopardy to the patient's health.
Source: BPC sections 1680, 1684.1, 1684.5, and related enforcement and patient-of-record provisions
Question 3 of 5
Dr. Lin enters into a written "marketing tracking agreement" with a local oral surgery center. Dr. Lin places the center's brochures in her waiting room and receives a $75 "marketing fee" from the center for every patient she refers who undergoes a third-molar extraction. Over six months, she refers 20 patients and receives $1,500. How does California law classify this arrangement?
Show the answer
Answer C: An unlawful violation of BPC section 650 because the compensation is directly tied to the volume of patients she steers to a specific provider.
BPC section 650 prohibits offering, delivering, receiving, or accepting any rebate, commission, or consideration as compensation for patient referrals. Per-patient compensation that scales with the volume of patients steered to a specific provider is a kickback regardless of the "marketing fee" label. The statute's §650(h) safe harbor (added by AB 457, effective 2022) covers only consideration paid to neutral, non-endorsing internet advertising or appointment-booking services — it does not protect a dentist personally endorsing and steering her own patients to one surgery center.
Common trap: Assuming the §650(h) internet-platform safe harbor or a written disclosure cures this fee. Disclosure belongs to BPC section 654.2, which governs referrals to entities the dentist owns — and for the services enumerated in BPC section 650.01, even disclosure cannot cure an ownership self-referral. BPC section 650.2 is a separate group-advertising/referral-service rule with patient-initiation, fee-structure, registration, filing, concentration-disclosure, and paid-advertising safeguards.
Source: BPC section 650 anti-kickback and referral compensation limits, including the section 650(h) safe harbor for neutral, non-endorsing internet…
Question 4 of 5
A new patient presents to Dr. Alvarez with severe recurrent decay under a massive amalgam restoration. The patient states Dr. Smith placed it two years ago. Without requesting the prior clinical notes or pre-operative radiographs, Dr. Alvarez tells the patient, "Dr. Smith completely botched this filling. This is sheer malpractice, and he clearly cut corners." Under the ADA and CDA Codes of Ethics, Dr. Alvarez’s statements are:
Show the answer
Answer B: Unethical, because the criticism was not informed by an understanding of the prior clinical conditions under which the treatment was rendered.
ADA Section 4.C.1 requires that evaluating another dentist's work must be Truthful, Informed, and Justifiable (TIJ). Declaring prior work to be "malpractice" or speculating on financial motives without knowing the clinical context (e.g., patient cooperation, financial limitations at the time) fundamentally fails the "Informed" standard.
Common trap: Confusing the mandatory duty to report gross or continual faulty treatment (which originates in ADA Code Section 4.C and is mirrored by the CDA Code) with a license to make inflammatory, uninformed statements directly to a patient.
Source: ADA Principles of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct (current online edition)
Question 5 of 5
A patient in her third trimester of a complex pregnancy requires specialized, ongoing periodontal maintenance tightly coordinated with her obstetrician. Suddenly, her dental HMO terminates the treating periodontist's contract for standard network-rebalancing reasons (unrelated to fraud or discipline). The patient requests to stay with her periodontist. Under the Knox-Keene Act, what continuity rights apply?
Show the answer
Answer C: The HMO must allow the patient to remain with the terminated periodontist for the full duration of the pregnancy and the immediate postpartum period.
Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 1373.96 (the Knox-Keene continuity of care provision) requires plans to offer completion of covered services with a provider terminated without cause. While serious chronic conditions carry an up-to-12-month window, pregnancy is one of the full-duration categories: continuity extends through the duration of the pregnancy and the immediate postpartum period.
Common trap: Selecting the general "12-month rule" distractors instead of applying the pregnancy category — and remember that specified Medi-Cal Dental transitions under DHCS APL 25-002 have a separate, more protective framework that may continue treatment beyond 12 months through completion.
Source: HSC section 1373.96 — Knox-Keene continuity of care after provider contract termination (12-month chronic/newborn/maternal-mental-health windows;…

Free · no signup

The full free practice test samples every area and shows which ones to review first.

Take the free 15-question practice test

Loading…

California Dental Law and Ethics exam · Free practice questions

California Law and Ethics practice questions: Continuity of care, charts and referrals

Five original California Law and Ethics practice questions on continuity of care, charts and referrals, each answered on this page with a rationale and a source.

Last updated 2026-09-29

Question 1 of 5
A dentist plans to dismiss a chronically abusive patient whose active treatment has reached a safe stopping point. The question asks what BPC §1680(u) itself requires for a lawful dismissal — as distinct from risk-management best practice. Which answer is correct?
Show the answer
Answer B: Written notice, ample opportunity to find another dentist, and no jeopardy to health.
BPC §1680(u) itself requires written notice that treatment is to be discontinued, ample opportunity for the patient to secure another dentist, and no jeopardy to the patient's health; the Board-recommended 30-day transition and private mailing practices sit on top of that statutory floor.
Common trap: stems that ask what "the statute requires" want the §1680(u) elements—not every familiar risk-management step.
Source: California Business & Professions Code §§1680, 1684.1, and 1684.5 — unprofessional conduct, Board records demands, patient-of-record rules, and…
Question 2 of 5
Dr. Vance is treating a non-compliant patient, Mr. Geller, who is midway through root canal therapy on tooth #19 with only a temporary filling covering the access cavity. Frustrated by Mr. Geller's profanity toward the front desk staff, Dr. Vance hands him a formal dismissal letter, states he will no longer be seen at the clinic, and refuses to schedule the obturation appointment. Which statement best describes Dr. Vance’s legal standing under California law?
Show the answer
Answer B: Dr. Vance committed patient abandonment because care was discontinued without ample opportunity to secure another dentist and the endodontic therapy was not brought to a safe clinical stopping point, jeopardizing the patient's health.
Under California Business and Professions Code (BPC) section 1680(u), discontinuing treatment without written notice, without ample opportunity for the patient to secure another dentist, and without ensuring the patient's health is not jeopardized constitutes abandonment. Leaving a temporary filling in an un-obturated root canal directly jeopardizes the patient's health, so handing over a letter mid-treatment fails the statute even though it is "written." The Board-recommended 30-day transition is guidance layered on top of that statutory floor, not the statutory test itself.
Common trap: Believing that abusive behavior or profanity instantly waives the dentist's duty to safely bridge the clinical transition — or treating the written letter alone as full compliance when the statute also demands ample opportunity and no jeopardy to the patient's health.
Source: BPC sections 1680, 1684.1, 1684.5, and related enforcement and patient-of-record provisions
Question 3 of 5
Dr. Lin enters into a written "marketing tracking agreement" with a local oral surgery center. Dr. Lin places the center's brochures in her waiting room and receives a $75 "marketing fee" from the center for every patient she refers who undergoes a third-molar extraction. Over six months, she refers 20 patients and receives $1,500. How does California law classify this arrangement?
Show the answer
Answer C: An unlawful violation of BPC section 650 because the compensation is directly tied to the volume of patients she steers to a specific provider.
BPC section 650 prohibits offering, delivering, receiving, or accepting any rebate, commission, or consideration as compensation for patient referrals. Per-patient compensation that scales with the volume of patients steered to a specific provider is a kickback regardless of the "marketing fee" label. The statute's §650(h) safe harbor (added by AB 457, effective 2022) covers only consideration paid to neutral, non-endorsing internet advertising or appointment-booking services — it does not protect a dentist personally endorsing and steering her own patients to one surgery center.
Common trap: Assuming the §650(h) internet-platform safe harbor or a written disclosure cures this fee. Disclosure belongs to BPC section 654.2, which governs referrals to entities the dentist owns — and for the services enumerated in BPC section 650.01, even disclosure cannot cure an ownership self-referral. BPC section 650.2 is a separate group-advertising/referral-service rule with patient-initiation, fee-structure, registration, filing, concentration-disclosure, and paid-advertising safeguards.
Source: BPC section 650 anti-kickback and referral compensation limits, including the section 650(h) safe harbor for neutral, non-endorsing internet…
Question 4 of 5
A new patient presents to Dr. Alvarez with severe recurrent decay under a massive amalgam restoration. The patient states Dr. Smith placed it two years ago. Without requesting the prior clinical notes or pre-operative radiographs, Dr. Alvarez tells the patient, "Dr. Smith completely botched this filling. This is sheer malpractice, and he clearly cut corners." Under the ADA and CDA Codes of Ethics, Dr. Alvarez’s statements are:
Show the answer
Answer B: Unethical, because the criticism was not informed by an understanding of the prior clinical conditions under which the treatment was rendered.
ADA Section 4.C.1 requires that evaluating another dentist's work must be Truthful, Informed, and Justifiable (TIJ). Declaring prior work to be "malpractice" or speculating on financial motives without knowing the clinical context (e.g., patient cooperation, financial limitations at the time) fundamentally fails the "Informed" standard.
Common trap: Confusing the mandatory duty to report gross or continual faulty treatment (which originates in ADA Code Section 4.C and is mirrored by the CDA Code) with a license to make inflammatory, uninformed statements directly to a patient.
Source: ADA Principles of Ethics and Code of Professional Conduct (current online edition)
Question 5 of 5
A patient in her third trimester of a complex pregnancy requires specialized, ongoing periodontal maintenance tightly coordinated with her obstetrician. Suddenly, her dental HMO terminates the treating periodontist's contract for standard network-rebalancing reasons (unrelated to fraud or discipline). The patient requests to stay with her periodontist. Under the Knox-Keene Act, what continuity rights apply?
Show the answer
Answer C: The HMO must allow the patient to remain with the terminated periodontist for the full duration of the pregnancy and the immediate postpartum period.
Health and Safety Code (HSC) section 1373.96 (the Knox-Keene continuity of care provision) requires plans to offer completion of covered services with a provider terminated without cause. While serious chronic conditions carry an up-to-12-month window, pregnancy is one of the full-duration categories: continuity extends through the duration of the pregnancy and the immediate postpartum period.
Common trap: Selecting the general "12-month rule" distractors instead of applying the pregnancy category — and remember that specified Medi-Cal Dental transitions under DHCS APL 25-002 have a separate, more protective framework that may continue treatment beyond 12 months through completion.
Source: HSC section 1373.96 — Knox-Keene continuity of care after provider contract termination (12-month chronic/newborn/maternal-mental-health windows;…

Free · no signup

The full free practice test samples every area and shows which ones to review first.

Take the free 15-question practice test

Questions

A dentist plans to dismiss a chronically abusive patient whose active treatment has reached a safe stopping point. The question asks what BPC §1680(u) itself requires for a lawful dismissal — as distinct from risk-management best practice. Which answer is correct?

Questions

A dentist plans to dismiss a chronically abusive patient whose active treatment has reached a safe stopping point. The question asks what BPC §1680(u) itself requires for a lawful dismissal — as distinct from risk-management best practice. Which answer is correct?