# California Law and Ethics practice questions: Patient care

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

Last updated: 2026-09-29.

## Question 1

A dentist plans a single low oral dose of midazolam — minimal sedation — for an anxious 10-year-old. The dentist holds no sedation permit and notes that adult minimal sedation with a single oral dose requires none. Which permits would make this pediatric case lawful?

- A. None — minimal sedation never requires a Board permit at any patient age.
- B. A PMS permit, a GA permit, or a pediatric-endorsed MS permit issued under §1647.31(a).
- C. Only a "Pediatric Moderate Sedation" permit issued under the SB 1453 framework.
- D. Any current sedation permit, provided written parental consent is first obtained.

**Answer B:** A PMS permit, a GA permit, or a pediatric-endorsed MS permit issued under §1647.31(a).

for a patient under 13, even minimal sedation requires a Board sedation permit — PMS (Pediatric Minimal Sedation) is the dedicated permit, and a GA permit or an MS permit with the pediatric endorsement also qualifies under BPC §1647.31(a).

**Common trap:** PMS expands to Pediatric Minimal Sedation — "Pediatric Moderate Sedation" is a wrong expansion that stale prep repeats, and the adult no-permit rule does not extend below age 13.

Source: [California Business & Professions Code §1647.31 — minimal sedation of a patient under age 13; PMS, GA, or pediatric-endorsed MS permit required](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=1647.31)

## Question 2

A dentist is about to prescribe hydrocodone-acetaminophen (Schedule II) to a patient for the first time. Which CURES step does California require?

- A. Consult CURES within 5 days after the prescription is dispensed by the pharmacy.
- B. Consult CURES only if the patient later requests an early refill of the drug.
- C. Consult CURES within 24 hours before prescribing, then recheck every 6 months.
- D. No consultation is required, because dental prescriptions of fewer than 10 tablets are exempt.

**Answer C:** Consult CURES within 24 hours before prescribing, then recheck every 6 months.

CURES must be consulted within 24 hours or on the previous business day before first prescribing a Schedule II-IV controlled substance, with rechecks at least every 6 months while the drug remains in the treatment plan; Schedule V is excluded from the mandatory consultation.

**Common trap:** stale prep teaches 4-month rechecks or after-the-fact checks — the rule is 24-hours-before plus 6-month rechecks.

Source: [Department of Consumer Affairs CURES overview](https://www.dca.ca.gov/licensees/cures_update.shtml)

## Question 3

A dentist planning her biennial renewal lists 50 CE units: practice-management webinars (8 units), the 2-unit Dental Practice Act course, the 2-unit infection-control course, the 2-unit California opioid course, and an online-only BLS certificate. What is the renewal problem?

- A. The online-only BLS certificate is not acceptable; a hands-on skills course is required.
- B. Practice-management webinars cannot exceed 4 units in any renewal cycle.
- C. The opioid course is a one-time federal requirement, so those 2 units are wasted.
- D. There is no problem here; the portfolio satisfies every current Board rule.

**Answer A:** The online-only BLS certificate is not acceptable; a hands-on skills course is required.

the mandatory CE core is 50 units with 2 DPA, 2 infection control, 2 California opioid (16 CCR §1016), plus a current Basic Life Support course that includes a live, in-person skills practice session, a skills test, and a written examination — online-only BLS is not accepted.

**Common trap:** older "2-2-2" summaries omit the hands-on BLS core course; the repeating state opioid course is also distinct from the one-time federal MATE training.

Source: [Dental Board of California — continuing education, renewal, and permit-maintenance guidance (50-unit cycle; hands-on BLS requirement)](https://dbc.ca.gov/licensees/dentist_continuing_education.shtml)

## Question 4

An 82-year-old patient suffering from advanced, non-communicative dementia presents with severe facial swelling requiring an emergency extraction. The patient has no written Advance Health Care Directive, no court-appointed conservator, and did not designate a surrogate prior to losing capacity. The patient is accompanied by their 50-year-old son and their 45-year-old nephew. Both wish to consent to the procedure, but they disagree on whether to use IV sedation. Under California law, who possesses the primary legal authority to act as the surrogate decision-maker?

- A. The nephew, because he arrived first and volunteered to sign the consent forms.
- B. The adult child (the son), who is the appropriate default surrogate under the AB 2338 framework.
- C. Neither relative; the dentist must proceed under the emergency exception without consent.
- D. Neither relative; treatment must wait until a court appoints a conservator.

**Answer B:** The adult child (the son), who is the appropriate default surrogate under the AB 2338 framework.

Assembly Bill 2338 (Probate Code §§4711–4712) added a default-surrogate framework that follows specified family priorities when no advance directive, designated agent, or conservator exists. Under that framework, a close family member such as an adult child is the appropriate lawful surrogate here, while a nephew is a more remote relative.

**Common trap:** Assuming the dentist can bypass the family entirely using the "emergency exception," which is invalid here because a legally recognized surrogate (the adult child) is reasonably available to provide consent — or assuming a court conservatorship is required before any emergency dental care.

Source: [Probate Code sections 4683, 4711, and 4712 plus AB 2338 surrogate decisionmaker framework for adults lacking capacity](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/)

## Question 5

A 7-year-old child is brought to the dental office by their grandmother for severe pain. The grandmother presents a properly completed Caregiver’s Authorization Affidavit. The dentist begins the examination. Ten minutes later, the child's biological mother arrives at the clinic, demands the exam stop, and states she does not want her child treated at this facility. How must the dentist proceed?

- A. Continue the examination, because the affidavit is a binding legal authorization.
- B. The dentist must immediately halt the examination and defer to the mother's wishes.
- C. Complete the examination but withhold any treatment until the dispute is resolved in writing.
- D. Require the mother to submit a written revocation before stopping the exam.

**Answer B:** The dentist must immediately halt the examination and defer to the mother's wishes.

Under Family Code section 6550, while a properly completed Caregiver's Authorization Affidavit protects the provider from liability for good-faith reliance, the legal authority of a parent instantly overrides the caregiver's consent if the parent expresses contrary wishes.

**Common trap:** Believing the statutory affidavit acts as a legally binding contract that cannot be verbally revoked, or assuming that safely stopping a mid-stream exam constitutes "patient abandonment."

Source: [Family Code section 6550 Caregiver's Authorization Affidavit for relative caregivers authorizing minor medical and dental care](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM&sectionNum=6550)

## Next step

[Take the free 15-question practice test](https://dentovio.com/free-practice-test)

Official reference: [Dental Board of California — Law and Ethics Examination](https://www.dbc.ca.gov/applicants/law_and_ethics_exam.shtml). Original exam-style questions written for study, never recalled exam content. Independent educational preparation, not legal advice, and not affiliated with or endorsed by the Dental Board of California. Confirm current requirements with the Board.