Lettieri v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners

Citation131 A.2d 518,24 N.J. 199
Decision Date06 May 1957
Docket NumberNo. A--102,A--102
PartiesMario LETTIERI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Defendant-Respondent. The STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Plaintiff, v. Mario LETTIERI and Concetta Mango Lettieri, also known as Concetta Grace Mango, Defendants.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

Victor S. Kilkenny, West New York, for plaintiff-appellant (Cullum & Cullum, Union City, attorneys; Joseph V. Cullum, Union City, and Victor S. Kilkenny, West New York, of counsel).

John F. Crane, Trenton, for defendant-respondent (Grover C. Richman, Jr., Atty. Gen. of New Jersey, Christian Bollermann, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

WEINTRAUB, J.

Plaintiff Mario Lettieri appeals from a judgment of the Law Division dismissing his complaint in lieu of prerogative writ wherein he sought to compel the State Board of Medical Examiners to issue a license for the practice of medicine. By stipulation below, a companion action by the Board to restrain Lettieri from practicing medicine depends upon the outcome of these proceedings. We certified the appeal on our motion prior to consideration of it by the Appellate Division.

Plaintiff's saga begins Circa 1945 when he entered the Essex College of Medicine and Surgery. About two years later he entered the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Boston, Mass., apparently because of the demise of the Essex College. He completed his studies successfully, and thereafter a year's internship at the Hudson County General Hospital in this State. He applied to take the June 1950 medical examination but was found ineligible because the Massachusetts college was not registered by the Board.

In 1953 the Legislature enacted chapter 363, N.J.S.A. 45:9--8.2, to relieve a group of residents who were graduates of unapproved schools, presumably upon a finding of equities peculiar to them and compatibility with the basic concept of fitness. The statute, so far as Dr. Lettieri is concerned, required proof to the Board that:

'he has received a diploma from a legally incorporated professional school or college in the United States, after completing a four years' course in study, conferring upon him the degree of Doctor of Medicine, and has completed an internship acceptable to the board of at least one year in a hospital approved by the board; and * * * in addition has * * * (c) received a diploma conferring upon him a graduate pharmacist degree of Ph.G. and is the holder of a certificate of registration permitting him to practice pharmacy in the State of New Jersey.'

The statute provides that upon proof of the foregoing the applicant 'shall * * * be admitted to examination by said board * * * and upon passing such examination, shall be entitled to receive from the board a license to practice medicine and surgery in all its branches in this State.' Application had to be made within 90 days of the effective date of the act, August 11, 1953, and the statute provided for its own expiration, i.e., 'shall become void and of no effect six months after the effective date thereof.'

Dr. Lettieri indisputably satisfied all prerequisites other than 'an internship acceptable to the board of at least one year in a hospital approved by the board,' and his difficulties revolved about that provision.

When the Board rejected the 1950 application it did not comment upon the sufficiency of the internship. His application under the 1953 act was returned by letter of October 15, 1953, which cryptically advised 'that you do not meet the requirements of Chapter 363, P.L.1953.' An inquiry by counsel resulted in a telegram two days later from the Board's secretary to Dr. Lettieri to 'kindly report for examination * * * on Tuesday Oct. 20th.' He did, and passed, finishing sixth among the 21 who participated.

On October 30, 1953 the secretary wrote plaintiff that he was admitted to the October examination 'on condition that, if successful, license (will) be withheld until you meet the requirements of Chapter 363.' The letter stated the difficulty to be that the Hudson County General Hospital was not approved for intern training, and hence 'you will be required to complete one year of general rotating internship in a hospital approved by the Board.' Thereupon Dr. Lettieri contacted Dr. O'Hanlon, who apparently had been director of both the Hudson County General Hospital and the Jersey City Medical Center, an approved hospital, and who agreed to advise the Board that the two hospitals had been operated as a unit, meaning, we gather, that interns at the county hospital were sent to the Medical Center for tours of duty to satisfy the requirements of the rotating internship.

On November 11, 1953 the secretary of the Board sent plaintiff a formal notification that 'It affords me much pleasure to inform you that the result of the examination of No. 18 (plaintiff's assigned number at the examination) before the board at Trenton, N.J., on the 20, 21, 22 and 23 of October 1953 is satisfactory, and that a certified copy of your Certificate of License will be mailed to you on or about December 1st.' Dr. Lettieri invested some $5,000 in office appointments and equipment.

The certified copy of the license not having arrived, plaintiff visited the secretary of the Board in December. The secretary telephoned Dr. O'Hanlon with respect to the status of the county hospital, and according to plaintiff he understood that upon receipt of a letter from Dr. O'Hanlon the matter would be satisfactorily concluded. Dr. O'Hanlon did write in harmony with his oral representations, and we find that the Board withdrew the objection it had theretofore advanced. However, it then determined that the internship was inadequate with respect to obstetrics and invited plaintiff to attend its meeting of February 10, 1954, at which it stipulated that he pursue six weeks in obstetrics at a maternity hospital.

Dr. Lettieri claims he had already met the obstetrics requirement at the Margaret Hague Maternity Hospital and by other experience at Massachusetts hospitals, but if that were the nub of the dispute, he would be loathe to question the Board's evaluation. At any rate, Dr. Lettieri readily agreed to the additional period of internship and promptly entered upon. However, five weeks after its commencement, the secretary of the Board wrote to him that on March 10 the Board reviewed his internship 'and it now appears that it is unacceptable as it was not served before October 14, 1953,' and 'We are informing you in order that you may not spend six weeks time in obstetrical training, which was suggested at the last meeting of the Board.' Dr. Lettieri completed the six weeks of training.

Dr. Lettieri again sought aid to work out his problem and the matter drifted into 1955. On March 7, 1955 his counsel formally demanded a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • State v. Terry
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • March 14, 2018
    ...("This Court may ... accept a constitutional question not raised below." (citing 179 A.3d 386 Lettieri v. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 24 N.J. 199, 206, 131 A.2d 518 (1957) ) ). When the trial court has applied the proper legal principles at a suppression hearing, we defer to its factual find......
  • Monks v. New Jersey State Parole Bd.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • May 10, 1971
    ...N.J., 34 N.J. 430, 433--436, 170 A.2d 12 (1961); Schack v. Trimble, 28 N.J. 40, 49, 145 A.2d 1 (1958); Lettieri v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 24 N.J. 199, 206, 131 A.2d 518 (1957). We granted certification not because of the timeliness question but because we were concerned with whet......
  • Deerfield Estates, Inc. v. East Brunswick Tp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • January 24, 1972
    ...real public importance. Where both these characteristics are lacking, review will normally be denied. Lettieri v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 24 N.J. 199, 206, 131 A.2d 518 (1957); 536 Broad St. Corp. v. Valco Mortgage Co., Inc., 5 N.J. 393, 395, 75 A.2d 865 (1950); Roberts Elec., Inc......
  • Kent v. Borough of Mendham
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • July 9, 1970
    ...becomes subject to challenge as though it had been newly enacted. We find the rationale expressed in Lettieri v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 24 N.J. 199, 206, 131 A.2d 518 (1957), cited by plaintiffs, to be inapplicable here. At the time summary judgment was granted, ordinance 1--68 h......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT