7.1 Unlawful Acts, Practice Names & the Corporate Practice Bar
Key Takeaways
- MN Stat. § 150A.11, subd. 1 makes four things unlawful: enabling an unlicensed person to practice dentistry, practicing or attempting to practice without a license, practicing dentistry under the name of a corporation or company, and practicing under any name that may tend to deceive the public or imply professional superiority.
- A dentist practicing under their own name must include the initials of the dental degree — D.D.S. or D.M.D. — on any public display or cards; a dentist practicing under another name must include a designation making clear that dentistry is being practiced, and all participating dentists must be clearly identified on letterheads and building or office signs.
- MN Stat. § 150A.11, subd. 4 makes fee division unlawful: a dentist may not divide fees with, promise part of a fee to, or pay a commission to any dentist or other person who refers patients — but bona fide partnerships and the employment of dental therapists, hygienists, and other dentists are expressly preserved.
- MN Rules 3100.6400 provides that a practice name connoting unusual or superior dental ability, or likely to create a false or unjustified expectation of favorable results, violates MN Stat. § 150A.11, subd. 1 and § 319B.05.
- MN Stat. § 150A.12 punishes any violation of §§ 150A.01 to 150A.12 for which no specific penalty is provided as a gross misdemeanor — a fine of not more than $3,000, imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 364 days, or both — and places the burden of proving a valid license on the defendant.
7.1 Unlawful Acts, Practice Names & the Corporate Practice Bar
Most of Chapter 150A tells you what licensees may do. Section 150A.11 tells you what no one may do, and § 150A.12 tells you what happens when someone does it anyway. These two sections are the enforcement backbone of the Minnesota Dental Practice Act, and they are heavily represented on the jurisprudence examination because their language is short, quotable, and counterintuitive in places.
1. The Four Prohibitions in § 150A.11, Subdivision 1
The subdivision opens with a single sentence containing four distinct prohibitions. Read them as a list:
"It is unlawful for any person to: enable an unlicensed person to practice dentistry; to practice or attempt to practice dentistry without a license; to practice dentistry under the name of a corporation or company; or to practice under any name that may tend to deceive the public or imply professional superiority to or greater skill than that possessed by another dentist."
Notice what the second prohibition reaches — "practice or attempt to practice." An attempt is enough. And notice that the first prohibition applies to "any person," not merely to dentists: an office manager who schedules an unlicensed person to perform licensed duties is within its reach.
The naming rules that follow immediately
| Situation | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Dentist practices under their own name | "any public display or cards shall include the initials of the dentist's dental degree, such as D.D.S. or D.M.D., following the name." |
| Dentist practices under another name | "the name shall include some designation which makes clear that the person is practicing dentistry or a specialty of dentistry"; and "the names of all of the participating dentists practicing under the name be clearly identified on letterheads and building or office signs that display a name other than the dentist's own name." |
| Every patient communication | "Any communication between dentist and patient shall clearly indicate the name of the dentist treating the patient." |
| Rulemaking authority | "The board may promulgate rules regarding the name under which a dentist may practice" — the hook for MN Rules 3100.6400. |
2. The Corporate Practice Bar — and Its Three Exceptions
The middle of subdivision 1 states one of the oldest doctrines in dental law:
"No corporation shall practice dentistry or engage in it, or hold itself out as being entitled to practice dentistry, or furnish dental services or dentists, or advertise under or assume the title of dentists or dental surgeons or equivalent title. No corporation shall furnish dental advice, or advertise or hold itself out with any other person or alone, that it has or owns a dental office or can furnish dental service, dentists, or dental surgeons, or solicit, through itself, or its agents, officers, employees, directors or trustees, dental patronage for any dentist or dental surgeon."
The statute then carves out three exceptions, and each one matters:
- Teaching institutions. The section "does not apply to any licensee while acting as an instructor in or under the University of Minnesota, the Mayo Foundation, or any other school in the state recognized by the state Board of Dentistry."
- Professional corporations. It "does not prohibit dentists from incorporating their practice of dentistry for business purposes under the special provisions of a corporate practice act for dentistry" — in modern terms, the Minnesota Professional Firms Act, MN Stat. §§ 319B.01 to 319B.12, which is why registered professional firms are lawful and why the Board reviews their annual reports under MN Rules 3100.9100.
- Lawful practice organizations and service contracts. It "shall not be construed to change or amend the right of licensed dentists to provide dental care under any form of organization that is lawful under the laws of this state, or to contract to sell their services in any manner that is lawful."
The synthesis to carry into the exam. A general business corporation may not practice dentistry, hold itself out as able to furnish dentists, or solicit patients. A professional firm registered under Chapter 319B may — because the legislature said so in the second exception. That distinction, not a blanket ban, is the actual state of Minnesota law.
3. Improper and Unjustified Names — MN Rules 3100.6400
The Board's rule is one sentence and it links the two statutes:
"A name used for a dental practice that connotes unusual or superior dental ability, or is likely to create a false or unjustified expectation of favorable results is in violation of Minnesota Statutes, sections 150A.11, subdivision 1, and 319B.05."
MN Rules 3100.9500 then makes the connection explicit for entities: "The names of professional firms are governed by part 3100.6400 and Minnesota Statutes, section 319B.05."
Two independent tests are stated. A name can fail either one:
- Superiority. "Minnesota's Finest Dentistry," "Master Implantologists," "Premier Elite Dental Experts."
- Unjustified expectation of results. "Painless Dental," "Perfect Smile Guaranteed," "Forever Teeth."
A geographic or descriptive name — "Lake Street Family Dental," "North Loop Oral Surgery" — implicates neither test.
4. Advertising Dental Appliances — § 150A.11, Subdivision 3
This subdivision governs anyone advertising the sale, supply, construction, reproduction, relining, or repair of dentures, bridges, plates, or other appliances without a written work order from a licensed dentist. Two hard requirements:
- The mandated legend: "All such advertisements shall contain the words 'A written work order from a licensed dentist is required' in at least 10-point type size." Both the wording and the type size are stated in the statute.
- The sales restriction: except for advertising permitted under the subdivision, "a person not licensed to practice dentistry in this state shall not sell or offer any such service or products to other than the dental profession or its ancillary trades." Merely delivering a finished product to the consumer for transport to the dentist who wrote the work order does not violate the subdivision, and mailings and displays distributed primarily to the profession are excluded.
Subdivision 2 separately confirms that "public advertising by dentists may be controlled by reasonable rules of the board," and that those rules "shall include permission" for professional cards, reasonable signs on or about the place of business, announcements of changes or openings of offices, and telephone listings. The Board may regulate advertising; it may not forbid these basics.
5. Fee Division — § 150A.11, Subdivision 4
"It shall be unlawful for any dentist to divide fees with or promise to pay a part of the dentist's fee to, or to pay a commission to, any dentist or other person who calls the dentist in consultation or who sends patients to the dentist for treatment, or operation, but nothing herein shall prevent licensed dentists from forming a bona fide partnership for the practice of dentistry, nor to the actual employment by a licensed dentist of a licensed dental therapist, a licensed dental hygienist, or another licensed dentist."
Three regulatory layers reach the same conduct, and a well-drafted exam item will make you pick the right one:
| Source | Framing |
|---|---|
| MN Stat. § 150A.11, subd. 4 | Makes fee division for referrals unlawful — a statutory prohibition carrying the § 150A.12 gross misdemeanor penalty. |
| MN Rules 3100.6200, item G | Makes accepting or offering "rebates, split fees, or commissions ... from or to any person other than a partner, employee, employer, associate in a dental professional firm, or professional subcontractor or consultant authorized to practice in dentistry" conduct unbecoming a licensee. |
| MN Rules 3100.6900 | "A licensee shall not offer, give, receive, or agree to receive any fee or other compensation to or from a third party for the referral of a patient." It then preserves two things: "Nothing contained in this part shall prohibit a licensee from providing a gift to a patient or from providing a credit for dental services to a patient." |
The carve-outs are the tested part. Paying an associate dentist a percentage of collections is employment, not fee splitting. Sharing profits among partners in a bona fide partnership is expressly preserved. Giving a patient a gift or a service credit is expressly permitted by 3100.6900. Paying an outside marketing firm a bounty per new patient is none of those things.
6. The Penalty and the Burden Shift — § 150A.12
"Every person who violates any of the provisions of sections 150A.01 to 150A.12 for which no specific penalty is provided herein, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor; and, upon conviction, punished by a fine of not more than $3,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 364 days or by both such fine and imprisonment. In the prosecution of any person for violation of sections 150A.01 to 150A.12, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove lack of a valid license to practice dentistry, dental hygiene, dental therapy, or dental assisting, but shall be a matter of defense to be established by the defendant."
Four features to fix in memory:
- 364 days, not 365 and not "one year." The figure is in the statute's own text.
- $3,000, not $10,000 — the $10,000 figure is the Board's civil penalty per separate violation under § 150A.08, subd. 3a, an entirely different mechanism.
- Residual application. It applies only where "no specific penalty is provided." Section 150A.06, subd. 5 separately makes fraud in securing or renewing a license a gross misdemeanor.
- Burden shifting. The state need not prove the absence of a license; possessing one is an affirmative defense the defendant must establish.
Under Minnesota Statutes § 150A.11, subdivision 1, which arrangement is expressly permitted despite the general prohibition on a corporation practicing dentistry?
A Minneapolis dentist plans to rebrand her solo practice. Under Minnesota Rules 3100.6400 and Minnesota Statutes § 150A.11, which proposed name is lawful?
Which payment arrangement violates Minnesota Statutes § 150A.11, subdivision 4 and Minnesota Rules 3100.6900?
A denture-repair business advertises relining services to the general public without a dentist's work order. Under Minnesota Statutes § 150A.11, subdivision 3, what must the advertisement contain?