NEWARK - Attorney General Peter C. Harvey announced today that a Sussex County dentist whose license was suspended in March after allegations arose that he had sexually assaulted nine female patients has agreed to surrender his license, and to undergo a full psychiatric, psychological and medical evaluation, before he can apply for reinstatement.

Joel P. Kurtz, D.M.D., entered into the Consent Order with the State Board of Dentistry prior to the start of a trial before an Administrative Law Judge that was scheduled to begin today. The Board considers the surrender of Kurtz’s license to be a revocation that will be in effect for two years, after which time Kurtz can apply for license reinstatement under terms of the Consent Order, according to Division of Consumer Affairs Director Reni Erdos.

"This Consent Order protects patients, which always is our primary concern," Attorney General Harvey said. "The Board of Dentistry ordered a temporary license suspension on March 4 because of the serious nature of the allegations against Dr. Kurtz. I commend the investigators and DAG Kevin Jespersen for their diligent work on this important matter."

The Board temporarily suspended Kurtz’s license amid allegations that he sexually assaulted nine patients, two of whom were minors at the time, at his office in Newton. The assaults allegedly occurred following dental surgery that included the use of anesthesia. The alleged assaults, which consisted of inappropriate touching of the victims' breasts and genital areas, occurred in 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003.

The State Supreme Court upheld the Board’s temporary license suspension after Kurtz appealed that decision.

"Our licensing boards expect licensees to obey the law, as well as adhere to professional standards of conduct," Director Erdos said. "Patients deserve no less, and we cannot tolerate actions such as the ones that Dr. Kurtz allegedly committed."

Kurtz also must pay approximately $50,000 in costs to the State, under terms of the Consent Order.

The Consent Order is not considered to be an admission of liability in any pending or future civil cases.

###