Beall Medical Surgical Clinic & Hospital, Inc. v. Texas State Bd. of Health, No. 16187

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
Writing for the CourtBATEMAN
Citation364 S.W.2d 755
PartiesBEALL MEDICAL SURGICAL CLINIC AND HOSPITAL, INC., Appellant, v. TEXAS STATE BOARD OF HEALTH.
Decision Date18 January 1963
Docket NumberNo. 16187

Page 755

364 S.W.2d 755
BEALL MEDICAL SURGICAL CLINIC AND HOSPITAL, INC., Appellant,
v.
TEXAS STATE BOARD OF HEALTH.
No. 16187.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Dallas.
Jan. 18, 1963.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1963.

Odeneal & Odeneal, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and John J. Orvis, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, for appellee.

BATEMAN, Justice.

This appeal is from a summary judgment cancelling the temporary license to operate a hospital granted to appellant shortly after the effective date of Art. 4437f, Vernon's Ann.Tex.St., known as the Texas Hospital Licensing Law. Proceedings for the revocation of such license having been instituted in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 9 of said law, a hearing was held by appellee pursuant thereto. Within due time after entry by appellee of its order cancelling appellant's license appellant filed this suit in one of the district courts of Dallas County for the avowed purpose of appealing from such order and 'obtaining a trial de novo' provided for in Sec. 9 of the said Statute.

Appellant's first point assails the constitutionality of the Texas Hospital Licensing Law (Art. 4437f, V.A.T.S.) as being vague, arbitrary and repugnant to the 'due process' clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions, making the action of appellee in cancelling the license and the judgment of the district court affirming such action void and of no effect. Appellant cites Bielecki v. City of Port Arthur (Tex.Civ.App.), 12 S.W.2d 976, City of Houston v. Adams, Tex.Civ.App., 326 S.W.2d 627, err. ref. n. r. e., and Kingsbery v. Phillips Petroleum Company, Tex.Civ.App., 315 S.W.2d 561, err. ref. n. r. e., in support of this point, and argues that the Act is invalid because it authorizes appellee to grant or withhold licenses as it arbitrarily chosses, without setting forth any guide or standard to distinguish between the parties entitled to such licenses and those not so entitled.

The first two cases cited by appellant merely hold that a city cannot by establishing an arbitrary standard declare that to be a nuisance which is not in fact a nuisance; and the Kingsbery case merely holds in this connection that a citizen's right to conduct a business as he pleases is a valuable right and one which the law will protect if to do so does no violence to law, public policies or the rights of others. These cases do not in our opinion support the proposition that the Texas Hospital Licensing Law sets up such an arbitrary standard as to be repugnant to the due process clauses of the State of Federal Constitutions, or that it is too vague to be valid.

The purpose of Art. 4437f is expressed in Sec. 3 thereof as being 'to protect and promote the public health and welfare by providing for the development, establishment, and enforcement of certain standards in the construction, maintenance, and operation of hospitals.' We have carefully studied the entire act and find nothing therein that can properly be said to deprive appellant of its property, or the use of its property, or the right to transact its business, without due process. The Act requires a license to operate a hospital after January 1, 1960. It constitutes the State Board of Health as the 'Licensing Agency'. It establishes a Hospital Licensing Advisory Council consisting of nine members appointed by the Governor who shall advise with the Licensing

Page 757

Agency in adopting, amending, promulgating and enforcing 'such rules, regulations, and minimum standards as may be designed to further the purposes of this Act.' It then provides that such rules, regulations or minimum standards shall be limited to safety, fire prevention, and sanitary provisions of hospitals as defined in the Act, and, further, that all such rules, regulations or standards shall first be approved by the State Board of Health and then by the Attorney General as to their legality, and then filed with the Secretary of State.

The Legislature may properly delegate to an administrative agency the authority to establish rules, regulations or minimum standards which may be said reasonably to carry out the expressed purpose of the Act. Housing Authority v. Higginbotham, 135 Tex. 158, 143 S.W.2d 79, 87, 130 A.L.R. 1053; Southwestern Savings & Loan Ass'n. of Houston v. Falkner, 160 Tex. 417, 331 S.W.2d 917, 921. Accompanying and referred to in the appellee's motion for summary judgment is a certified copy of the rules, rugulations and minimum standards approved by appellee and filed in the office of the Secretary of State which we have carefully examined and which we find to be reasonable and within the guidelines of the Act itself as set forth in Sec. 3 thereof. Appellant's first point is therefore overruled.

In its second point appellant urges alternatively, if the Act is held to be constitutional, that the court below erred in applying the 'substantial evidence rule', the application of which, appellant says, would in effect declare the 'de novo' provisions of Sec. 9 of the Act unconstitutional. Taking the position that the appellee acted in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity in conducting its hearing resulting in the cancellation of appellant's license, appellant asserts that it was entitled to a trial under the 'preponderance of the evidence rule' in the district court.

Sec. 9 of the Act gives the Licensing Agency the authority to deny, cancel, revoke or suspend a license in any case where it finds there has been a substantial failure to comply with the provisions of the Act or the rules, regulations or standards promulgated thereunder, or for the aiding, abetting, or permitting the commission of any illegal act, or for conduct detrimental to the public health, morals, welfare and safety of the people. The procedure for the cancellation, revocation or suspension of a license is then set forth in detail, after which it is provided that any hospital whose license has been cancelled, revoked or suspended may within twenty days appeal to any of the District Courts in the County in which the hospital is located. It is then provided: 'The proceedings on appeal shall be a trial de novo as such term is commonly used and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • State v. Rhine, No. PD-0912-08.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • September 23, 2009
    ...necessary to carry out the expressed purpose of the act. Beall Medical Surgical Clinic and Hospital, Inc. v. State Board of Health, 364 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas, 1963), and cases there Thus, the existence of an area for exercise of discretion by an administrative officer under delega......
  • Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc. v. Lewellen, Nos. 96-0745
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • October 9, 1997
    ...Martin, 471 S.W.2d 100 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Beall Med. Surgical Clinic & Hosp. v. Texas State Bd. of Health, 364 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1963, no But there are some indications that extreme judicial deference to legislative delegation may be declining. ......
  • Ex parte Granviel, No. 56267
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • February 1, 1978
    ...necessary to carry out the expressed purpose of the act. Beall Medical Surgical Clinic and Hospital, Inc. v. State Board of Health, 364 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas, 1963), and cases there Thus, the existence of an area for exercise of discretion by an administrative officer under delega......
  • Cruz v. City of San Antonio, No. 14653
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Civil Appeals
    • January 24, 1968
    ...Peyton, 316 S.W.2d 152 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1958, no writ); Beall Medical Surgical Clinic & Hospital, Inc. v. Texas State Board of Health, 364 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1963, no Summary judgments granted in cases appealed to the district court pursuant to Art. 1269m have been upheld. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • State v. Rhine, No. PD-0912-08.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • September 23, 2009
    ...necessary to carry out the expressed purpose of the act. Beall Medical Surgical Clinic and Hospital, Inc. v. State Board of Health, 364 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas, 1963), and cases there Thus, the existence of an area for exercise of discretion by an administrative officer under delega......
  • Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc. v. Lewellen, Nos. 96-0745
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • October 9, 1997
    ...Martin, 471 S.W.2d 100 (Tex.Civ.App.--Amarillo 1971, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Beall Med. Surgical Clinic & Hosp. v. Texas State Bd. of Health, 364 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1963, no But there are some indications that extreme judicial deference to legislative delegation may be declining. ......
  • Ex parte Granviel, No. 56267
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • February 1, 1978
    ...necessary to carry out the expressed purpose of the act. Beall Medical Surgical Clinic and Hospital, Inc. v. State Board of Health, 364 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas, 1963), and cases there Thus, the existence of an area for exercise of discretion by an administrative officer under delega......
  • Cruz v. City of San Antonio, No. 14653
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Civil Appeals
    • January 24, 1968
    ...Peyton, 316 S.W.2d 152 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1958, no writ); Beall Medical Surgical Clinic & Hospital, Inc. v. Texas State Board of Health, 364 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1963, no Summary judgments granted in cases appealed to the district court pursuant to Art. 1269m have been upheld. ......
  • 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