In Painless Parker v. Board of Dental Examiners (1932) 216 Cal. 285, a dentist challenged a finding that his corporation, an unlicensed person, unlawfully practiced dentistry, which led the Board of Dental Examiners to suspend his dentistry license. (Id. at p. 287.) Appellant, who had formed a corporation named Painless Parker Dentist, argued a distinction existed between the practice of dentistry and the purely "business side" of the practice. (Id. at 295.) The California Supreme Court rejected that argument, concluding that "the law does not assume to divide the practice of dentistry into such departments. Either one may extend into the domain of the other in respect that would make such a division impractical if not impossible. The subject is treated as a whole." (Id. at 296.) The court relied on the rationale that the corporation employed the licensed dentist, but the corporation was a purely commercial enterprise and none of its directors needed to be a licensed dentist and could act with or against the dentist's wishes "as may be to their commercial advantage." (Id. at 297.)