California Law and Ethics practice questions: Dental practice owners

Answer C: The manual is defective: California recognizes only direct supervision and general supervision.

BPC §1741 recognizes only direct and general supervision — direct requires the dentist physically present in the facility and a check of the work before dismissal; general requires advance authorization via a written treatment plan.

Common trap: "indirect supervision" is an automatic wrong answer on any California supervision question.

Source: California Business & Professions Code §1741 — direct and general supervision definitions

Answer B: Yes, under direct supervision only, per BPC §1750(f)(4) and the Board's current duties table.

under BPC §1750(f)(4) and the Board's permitted-duties table, a DA who completed the 8-hour infection-control course, holds current BLS, and earned the Board-approved coronal polishing certificate may polish under direct supervision only.

Common trap: "coronal polishing is RDA-only" was true before SB 1453 took effect 1/1/2025.

Source: California Business & Professions Code §1750 — DA definition, BSDP, the pre-exposure infection-control course-or-examination prerequisite (as amended…

Answer D: The dentist must personally phone immediately and file a written report within 36 hours.

CANRA (Penal Code §11166) requires the mandated reporter personally to make an immediate or as-soon-as-practicable telephone report and a written report within 36 hours; the duty is individual and non-delegable, and failure is a misdemeanor.

Common trap: option C imports the elder/dependent-adult and assaultive-injury written timeline (2 working days) onto CANRA's 36-hour clock.

Source: California Penal Code §11166 — child-abuse reporting under CANRA (immediate phone, written within 36 hours)

Answer D: None of these specific clinical or operational control provisions are legally enforceable.

Senate Bill 351 (effective January 1, 2026, codified at HSC §1191) prohibits private equity groups and hedge funds from interfering with professional dental judgment — including imposing patient quotas and making clinical staffing decisions. Because this MSO is private equity-backed, the prohibitions reach the arrangement through its controlling investors. Furthermore, non-compete and non-disparagement clauses in these provider employment agreements are explicitly void and unenforceable.

Common trap: Assuming that setting patient quotas or enforcing geographic non-competes are standard, legally binding business practices in California healthcare contracts — and note the statute's precise scope: HSC §1191 names private equity groups and hedge funds, not MSOs as such; an MSO without private equity or hedge fund control is reached by other rules, not §1191.

Source: Senate Bill 351 (2025), codified at HSC section 1191 — Corporate Practice of Dentistry restrictions on private equity groups and hedge funds;…

Answer C: No; an infection-control course or exam must come before exposure-prone work.

Senate Bill 1453 repealed the previous one-year grace period for DA infection control training. Under current Business and Professions Code section 1750(c), the employer is responsible for ensuring that an unlicensed DA has completed an infection-control course or examination under section 1755(b) before any potential clinical exposure occurs. Since SB 1311 (effective September 14, 2026) that can be the DANB Infection Control exam, a Board-approved 8-hour course, or a video-based course of at least 4 hours didactic plus 2 hours laboratory from an approved provider.

Common trap: Relying on stale prep materials that still mention the old one-year grace period for new dental assistants.

Source: BPC section 1750 dental assistant definition, BSDP, and infection-control prerequisites