A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 43-28-18.2 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to an individual's ability to file a complaint.
HB 1512 would amend North Dakota’s dental licensing laws in two main ways. First, it would expand and restructure the State Board of Dental Examiners from nine to eleven members, while preserving the board’s mix of dental professionals and public representation. Under the bill, the board would include six dentists, one dental hygienist, one dental assistant, and three independent consumer members, with appointment and term rules continuing to be set by the governor and limited to two five-year terms.
Second, the bill would revise the dental disciplinary complaint process. It would allow an individual to file a written, signed complaint alleging misconduct by a dentist, and it would require the board or a complaint committee to investigate, notify the dentist, and provide the complainant with the dentist’s response if the complaint was filed by an individual. The bill also keeps complaint materials confidential during the investigation stage, authorizes the board to obtain records and expert opinions, and allows the board to recover disciplinary costs from the dentist. It also states that a complainant who results in discipline or a finding of misconduct may recover costs incurred.
The bill would amend sections 43-28-03 and 43-28-18.2 of the North Dakota Century Code, changing the composition of the State Board of Dental Examiners and clarifying who may initiate a complaint against a dentist. It would broaden access to the complaint process by expressly allowing any individual to submit a signed written complaint, while preserving the board’s authority to investigate, maintain confidentiality of records during the investigative phase, and impose costs associated with disciplinary actions.
There is limited recorded debate in the available materials, and no committee transcript or vote detail is provided. Based on the bill’s content, it appears to be a professional-regulatory measure aimed at increasing public access to the complaint process and adjusting board representation, with no clear evidence of broad controversy in the available record. However, the bill ultimately failed, indicating it did not advance to enactment.
The most likely points of contention are the expansion of the dental board and the complaint provisions. Dental professionals may be concerned about adding more consumer representation or about allowing any individual to file a complaint, while consumer advocates may support broader public access and oversight. Another possible issue is the cost-shifting language, which would allow the board to charge dentists for disciplinary costs and permit successful complainants to recover costs, potentially raising fairness and due-process concerns.