Adam v. Connecticut Medical Examining Bd.

• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Writing for the Court: Before BROWN; O'SULLIVAN
• Citation: 79 A.2d 350,137 Conn. 535
• Parties: ADAM v. CONNECTICUT MEDICAL EXAMINING BOARD et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 27 February 1951

Page 350

79 A.2d 350 137 Conn. 535 ADAM
v.
CONNECTICUT MEDICAL EXAMINING BOARD et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut. Feb. 27, 1951.

[137 Conn. 536]

Page 351

Harry L. Brooks, Asst. Atty. Gen. (William L. Hadden, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for the appellants-appellees (defendants).

James W. Carpenter, Hartford (David Cramer, Litchfield, on the brief), for the appellant-appellee (plaintiff).

Before [137 Conn. 535] BROWN, C. J., JENNINGS, BALDWIN, and O'SULLIVAN, JJ., and EDWARD J. DALY, Superior Court Judge.

[137 Conn. 536] O'SULLIVAN, Judge.

On November 12, 1947, the state commissioner of health filed with the named defendant, hereinafter to be called the board, a verified complaint charging the plaintiff with improper conduct in his practice as a physician and surgeon. The complaint was served upon the plaintiff, and he was summoned to appear to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. After a protracted hearing, the board found him guilty of five charges. [137 Conn. 537] It recommended to the defendant state department of health that his license to practice be revoked. The recommendation was carried out. The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, which found the issues in his favor. From the judgment entered thereon, the plaintiff and the defendants have appealed. The question for determination on the appeal of the latter is whether the court erred in concluding that the defendants acted illegally. Jaffe v. State Department of Health, 135 Conn. 339, 353, 64 A.2d 330, 6 A.L.R.2d 664; Brein v. Connecticut Ecletic Examining Board, 103 Conn. 65, 87, 130 A. 289.

It is unnecessary to recite the subordinate facts which the board found. Since there was evidence to suport them, they must be considered proved. The credibility of witnesses and the determination of factual questions were matters for the board to pass upon. Jaffe case, supra, 135 Conn. at page 343, 64 A.2d at page 333.

The General Assembly has specified the grounds and outlined the procedure for the revocation of a license to practice medicine and sugery. General Statutes, §§ 4358, 4359. The statute requires the department of health to file with the board a verified written charge against the licentiate. § 4359. It further provides that, if the board, after proper notice and hearing, shall by a majority vote find him guilty of any charge preferred, it may, among other available choices, recommend to the department of health that his license be revoked. Ibid.

In arriving at a decision, the board is called upon to weigh evidence and to reach conclusions. In this respect it acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. City of Norwalk v. Connecticut Co., 88 Conn. 471, 478, 91 A. 442. It remains, nevertheless, an administrative agency. McNiff v. City of Waterbury, 82 Conn. 43, 45, 72 A. 572; Meffert v. State Board of Medical Registration & Examination, 66 Kan. 710, 715, 72 P. 247, 1 L.R.A.,N.S., 811. It possesses[137 Conn. 538] no inherent power. Its authority is found in a legislative grant, beyond the terms and necessary implications of which it cannot lawfully function. Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643, 649, 51 S.Ct. 587, 75 L.Ed. 1324; State ex rel. Woolridge v. Morehead, 100 Neb. 864, 872, 161 N.W. 569, L.R.A.1917D, 310.

While it is stated in various ways, the plaintiff's basic claim is that the recommendation was illegal because the board exceeded its authority. The statute in effect when the commissioner of health filed his complaint listed as grounds for the revocation of a license (1) conviction of certain crimes; (2) immoral, fraudulent,...