SmileDirectClub Allegations of the Unauthorized Practice Dentistry Class Action

This class action brings suit against SmileDirectClub, Inc. (SDC, Inc.), SmileDirectClub, LLC (SDC, LLC), and Jeffrey Sulitzer, alleging these practitioners of “teledentistry” engage in the unauthorized practice of dentistry. “Specifically,” the complaint alleges, these defendants “provide dental services … without the care, supervision, oversight, and legal necessity of having a licensed dentist involved in every step of providing medical services.”

The class for this action is all persons who keep an address in California with the defendants in this case, at any time between December 3, 2017 and the present, who did not disclaim California citizenship, and who enrolled to receive the defendants’ services.

SDC, Inc. is a holding company that has an interest in, and controls, SDC Financial. SDC Financial owns SDC, LLC. The companies are supposed to provide “direct-to-consumer” orthodontist services via “teledentistry.” The third defendant, Jeffrey Sulitzer, is a dentist, but the complaint alleges that his business license is “presently listed a ‘cancelled.’”

The complaint alleges that they do their orthodontic business online and through more than 300 brick-and-mortar locations in the US.

The company’s website says consumers start with either a scan, at a “SmileShop,” or an impression made by the consumer with a kit. After that, it promises that “[o]ne of our state-licensed doctors will review your 3D image, photos, and medical history to prescribe and manage your custom aligner treatment plan.” It claims to create custom aligners that patients wear according to one of two schedules, with periodic “regular virtual Smile Check-ins and 24/7 access to our dental care team…”

But the complaint alleges, “The Defendants do not conduct an initial exam of … mouths, gums, roots before a diagnosis and treatment plan is discussed with the patient.” Also, it says, “Defendants falsely represented that [a] smile could be fixed, and [a] mouth could be fixed without in-patient care and without an initial exam, when that is not legal, nor practical.”

It claims that the defendants practiced dentistry by doing an orthodontic diagnosis and treatment, by creating or altering orthodontic appliances, and by operating places where dentistry is performed.

The defendants “contend that they are under an arbitration agreement with [the plaintiff in this case and the members of the class],” the complaint says, but it alleges that the defendants are “clinics” and “Health Care Providers” and that “the purported form arbitration agreement does not comply with [provisions of the] California Code of Civil Procedure…”

The complaint asks for rescission of patient contracts and alleges negligence, fraudulent inducement, and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, among other things.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Permits and Authorizations and So On
Tags: Failure to Register or Get License for Business, Negligence, Unauthorized Practice of Dentistry