California Law and Ethics practice questions: Patient education

Answer C: Provide the DMFS and obtain a signed acknowledgment before the restorative work.

BPC §1648.15 requires the dentist to provide the Dental Materials Fact Sheet to every new patient, and to patients of record, before performing dental restoration work, with the signed acknowledgment placed in the permanent record; §1648.10 only directs the Board to develop the DMFS.

Common trap: citing §1648.10 for the provide-and-sign duty is a known prep error — the duties live in §1648.15.

Source: California Business & Professions Code §1648.15 — duty to provide the Dental Materials Fact Sheet before restoration work, with signed acknowledgment…

Answer B: The warning must use the statutory language, and the consent must precede the anesthesia.

BPC §1682(e)(1) requires written consent before moderate sedation, deep sedation, or GA. The additional information in (e)(2) applies specifically to general anesthesia in a minor and includes the consultation phrase naming the dentist, family physician, and pediatrician.

Common trap: "consult a pediatrician" alone is stale — AB 1622 (2019) amended the language to name all three professionals.

Source: BPC §1682 — written consent for moderate/deep/GA; additional information for a minor’s general anesthesia, §1682(e)(2); monitoring and recovery,…

Answer B: The dentist violated California law by not providing the DMFS before the restoration.

Two companion statutes split the DMFS duties: BPC §1648.10 directs the Dental Board to develop the fact sheet, while BPC §1648.15 requires the dentist to give the DMFS to every new patient (and to patients of record) before performing dental restoration work, with the patient's signed acknowledgment of receipt placed in the permanent dental record before the restorative treatment. Generic consent forms do not satisfy this requirement.

Common trap: Assuming the DMFS is only required when placing amalgam due to mercury warnings, believing that providing the fact sheet at the next hygiene visit cures the regulatory breach, or citing §1648.10 for the provide-and-sign duty — that duty lives in §1648.15.

Source: BPC section 1648.10 — Dental Board duty to develop the dental materials fact sheet

Answer B: Reject both directives, because they are illegal corporate interference in clinical judgment.

Senate Bill 351 (codified at HSC §1191, effective January 1, 2026) prohibits a private equity group or hedge fund from interfering with a dentist's clinical judgment — including exercising control over patient volume and the selection of clinical equipment and supplies. Because this MSO is backed by a private equity group, the prohibitions reach its directives through the controlling investors.

Common trap: Believing that corporate management has the legal right to control material overhead costs and scheduling, overriding the clinician's autonomy — and note the statute's scope: HSC §1191 names private equity groups and hedge funds, not MSOs by name; a PE-backed MSO is reached indirectly through its investors.

Source: Senate Bill 351 (2025), codified at HSC section 1191 — restrictions on private equity and hedge fund clinical interference; effective 1/1/2026

Answer C: The dentist began remote services before obtaining and documenting telehealth consent.

BPC §2290.5 mandates that telehealth consent—whether verbal or written—must be obtained and documented prior to the delivery of services, not retroactively.

Common trap: Believing that because the patient initiated the video call, "implied consent" bypasses the strict statutory documentation requirement of BPC §2290.5.

Source: BPC section 2290.5 telehealth consent and parity