DSOs Present Challenges For Dental Practices Seeking COVID-19 Loans Under the CARES Act

Jordan Uditsky • April 18, 2020

Like almost every other business and profession, dental practices have been decimated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Stay-at-home orders, social distancing, and the limitation of economic activity to “essential services” means that dentists are deferring most routine, elective, or non-emergency procedures. With doors closed and chairs empty, practices find themselves in untenable positions in terms of paying their workforce, rent, utility, and other obligations.

While the federal government’s response to the current crisis has been lacking in many respects, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act passed at the end of March does provide for financial assistance to cash-strapped businesses, including dental practices. Among the many aspects of the CARES act, eligible practice owners can obtain low-interest and potentially forgivable loans for coronavirus losses through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).

But for practices that are part of a dental services organization (DSO), qualifying for a PPP loan can be a particularly tricky endeavor. Loans are only available to businesses with less than 500 employees, so can or how does a small practice qualify for a PPP loan if they are part of or affiliated with a large DSO with too many employees to participate in the program?


Paycheck Protection Loan Basics

The PPP sets aside almost $350 billion in funds for emergency Small Business Association (SBA) loans to help qualifying businesses cover payroll for their workforce as well as pay for other operational costs such as rent and utilities.

Dental practice owners can apply for a PPP loan at any lender approved to participate through the existing SBA 7(a) lending program, as well as at any other institution approved by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Participating lenders began accepting applications on April 3, and businesses can apply for a PPP loan until June 30, 2020.

The maximum amount any small business or practice may borrow is 250 percent of its average monthly payroll expenses incurred during the one-year period before the date on which the loan is made, up to a total of $10 million. This amount is intended to cover eight weeks of payroll expenses and any additional amounts needed to make payments towards debt and certain other identified obligations such as covered mortgage interest payments, covered rent payments, and covered utilities for the eight weeks following the loan.


The purpose of the Paycheck Protection Program is to help businesses retain employees at their current base pay. If the borrower keeps all of its employees and uses the loan proceeds for the above-described purposes, the entire loan may be forgiven. There is no requirement that the employer have work for the employees in order to pay them.


The Problem For Practices In DSOs: Too Many Employees to Qualify For a PPP Loan

With some exceptions, PPP loans are only available for small businesses that employ 500 or fewer employees. For dental practices that are part of a dental services organization, this limitation may or may not pose an insurmountable barrier to loan eligibility as the SBA may count the total number of employees of the DSO, not the individual practice, in determining whether a practice qualifies.


On April 3, 2020, the SBA issued guidance regarding how it treats practice management companies like DSOs when evaluating employee headcount. For purposes of determining the number of employees of a PPP loan applicant, the SBA considers the applicant together with its “affiliates.” As such, eligibility hangs on whether or not the SBA finds a practice and its DSO to be “affiliates.” And that determination centers on control.


As the SBA states in its guidance:

“Concerns and entities are affiliates of each other when one controls or has the power to control the other, or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both. It does not matter whether control is exercised, so long as the power to control exists.”


There are four circumstances in which the SBA will find that there is control over the practice such that the practice would be considered an affiliate. The one most applicable to DSO arrangements involves control of management. Specifically:

“Affiliation… arises where a single individual, concern or entity controls the management of the applicant concern through a management agreement.”



Most dental practices that are part of a DSO are also parties to management agreements that give the DSO a substantial say in the management and operation of the practice. As such, practice owners should consult with an experienced dental practice attorney who can review any agreement as well as the overall relationship with the DSO to determine what, if anything, needs to be changed to reduce the chances that the SBA finds the two entities to be affiliates. As noted, the deadline for applications is June 30, so practices should take all necessary steps as soon as possible to position themselves for approval for these vitally needed funds.

By Jordan Uditsky January 4, 2022
An amendment to the Mechanics Lien Act (the "Act') permits the bonding over of mechanic's liens in the State of Illinois. The bill was signed into law ( 770 ILCS 60/38.1 ) on July 28, 2015, and went into effect on January 1, 2016. This statute is significant because it allows parties to "clear title" to real property that would otherwise be subject to a mechanic's lien. An eligible applicant will be permitted to substitute a bond for the real property subject to the underlying mechanic's lien so that the lien attaches to the bond instead of the real property. Who is Eligible? To take advantage of 770 ILCS 60/38.1 , the party desiring to bond over the lien must be an eligible applicant. The statute defines applicant relatively broadly to include the following parties: An owner; Other lien claimant; A party that has an interest in the property subject to the lien claim; An association representing owners organized under any statute or to which the Common Interest Community Association Act applies; or Any person who may be liable for the payment of the lien claim, including an owner, former owner, association representing owners organized under any statute or to which the Common Interest Community Association Act applies, or the contractor or subcontractor. Process for Filing a Petition To effectively substitute the bond for the real property, the applicant must file a petition with the clerk of the circuit court in the county where the property subject to the underlying lien claim is located. The petition must include the following: The name and address of the applicant and the applicant's attorney, if any; The name and address of the lien claimant; If there is a pending action to enforce the claim, the name of the attorney of record, or if there is no pending claim, but the claim has been recorded, the name of the preparer of the lien claim; The name and address of the owner of record of any real estate subject to the claim or the name and address of the homeowners association or the condominium association; A legal description of the property; A copy of the lien claim; A copy of the proposed eligible surety bond; A certified copy of the surety's certificate of authority from the Department of Insurance or the state agency charged with the duty to issue the certificate; and An undertaking by the applicant to replace the bond with another eligible surety bond in the event that the proposed eligible surety bond ceases to be an eligible bond. After filing a proper petition, the applicant must provide notice and a copy of the petition, either by personal service or certified mail, to every party whose name and address is stated in the petition and the lien party's attorney of record. Jordan Uditsky, an accomplished businessman and seasoned attorney, combines his experience as a legal counselor and successful entrepreneur to advise business owners in the Chicago area.
By Lou Chronowski November 10, 2021
“Pandemic Impact? - New York Federal Court Allows Termination Dispute to Proceed” 
By Lou Chronowski October 19, 2021
Welcome to GHU’s newest blog – On the Move: The Future is Now! This blog focuses on legal and policy issues facing the vehicle industry. The future is now for the vehicle industry. Some states (CA and MA) have issued mandates requiring that vehicle manufacturers stop selling new ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles by 2035. Most legacy vehicle manufacturers have made various announcements stating that their respective product portfolios will move from ICE to zero emission vehicles (EVs) over the next 10-14 years. Another significant issue facing the issue relates to how vehicles are purchased. Over the past several years, Tesla has charted a distribution model that rejects traditional dealerships and uses direct sales and service. Other EV manufacturers like Rivian and Lucid appear to be headed in a similar direction. It is well known that Apple and Amazon have plans to enter the vehicle space as well. Consumers will have a large role in determining how they want to purchase vehicles and vehicle services (much the same as they did with respect to on-demand transportation with the likes of Uber and Lyft). The question is whether traditional manufacturers will be kept on an uneven playing field with these newer market entrants. Finally, autonomous vehicles (AVs) are right around the corner as well. In addition to consumer adoption and acceptance of EVs, it is still unknown how consumers will react to AVs and whether AVs have a large role in America. The future is now. The changes in the industry are happening now and happening at fast pace. This blog will continue to explore issues facing the vehicle industry. For 20 years, Lou Chronowski has represented motor vehicle manufacturers helping them navigate complex laws and regulations and litigating disputes against dealers. If you have any questions, please contact Lou at lchronowski@ghulaw.com .
Show More