Brein v. Connecticut Eclectic Examining Board
| Decision Date | 30 July 1925 |
| Citation | 103 Conn. 65,130 A. 289 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | BREIN v. CONNECTICUT ECLECTIC EXAMINING BOARD ET AL. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; L. P. Waldo Marvin and Christopher L. Avery, Judges.
Proceeding by Arnold H. Brein to review action of the Connecticut Eclectic Examining Board and State Board of Health in revoking plaintiff's license to practice medicine. From a judgment of the superior court, accepting report of referee recommending dismissal of petition, plaintiff appeals. No error.
Petition to review the action of the Connecticut eclectic examining board and the state board of health in revoking the plaintiff's license to practice the profession of medicine in this state, taken to the superior court in Fairfield county and referred to Hon. Marcus H. Holcomb, a state referee, who heard the parties and reported the facts. The court (Avery, J.) accepted the report and rendered judgment dismissing the petition, from which the plaintiff appealed. No error.
This petition, together with four others substantially alike, was referred by stipulation to Hon. Marcus H. Holcomb, state referee. All were heard together, and one report, containing the facts pertinent to all the cases, was filed. Each petition alleges that the petitioner satisfactorily passed the examinations set by the eclectic examining board on a date named, and received a certificate to that effect, and that the board of health thereafter issued to the petitioner a license to practice medicine in this State in the form of a certificate of registration; that on a date named the eclectic examining board thereafter requested the state board of health to revoke the petitioner's certificate, and that board did revoke the same and notified the petitioner to that effect. It is also alleged that the eclectic examining board voted to request the board of health to revoke the petitioner's certificate without giving him any notice, hearing or opportunity to be heard. The foregoing states the substance of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 of the petition, all of which paragraphs are admitted by the respondents and found to be true.
It is further alleged, and denied by the respondents, that no evidence was presented to the eclectic examining board upon which its request for the revocation of the petitioner's certificate was based; that petitioner was deprived of his constitutional rights by the eclectic board's failure to give him notice of the charges against him, and by proceeding in his absence and without hearing to request the board of health to revoke his certificate; that upon the facts alleged as to absence of evidence, any finding by the eclectic board that the petitioner had procured his certificate by fraud was void, and furnished no basis for the revocation of the certificate by the board of health; that the written request to the board of health was not signed by all the members of the eclectic board, as required by section 2859 of the General Statutes; and that the petitioner did not procure his certificate of registration by fraud. On these allegations and denials the issues are found for the respondents. The petition concludes by alleging that the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the eclectic examining board and the state board of health, and by praying that the superior Court inquire into the truth of the matters alleged and order that the petitioner's certificate of registration be returned and restored, etc. The referee's report, after finding that the admitted allegations of the several petitions are true, proceeds as follows:
" (4) The licenses of said petitioners to practice medicine in this state were revoked by the commissioner of health because so requested in three letters dated, respectively November 28, 1923, December 6, 1923, and January 10, 1924 each letter containing a list of persons whose licenses were to be revoked and included these petitioners. Said letters were signed by the four members of the Connecticut eclectic medical examining board, a vacancy caused by the death of the fifth member not then having been filled.
(5) Said letters were laid in evidence at said hearing and were marked Defendants' Exhibits B, C, and D; Exhibit D containing a copy of a letter from Hugh M. Alcorn, state's attorney for Hartford county, requesting said action. He made a similar request in said letters to said board containing other lists.
(6) The members of said examining board had previously met said state's attorney at the county court house in Hartford, and been informed by him that the grand jury had evidence that the men named in said lists had been guilty of fraud in obtaining their licenses, and that he expected said board to promptly take the necessary action to have said licenses revoked.
(7) Said requests by said board to the commissioner of health were made because of said request to said state's attorney, and not upon any investigation or finding of fraud made by the said eclectic medical examining board.
(8) The applications of said petitioners were made to said eclectic medical examining board, and said Board examined and passed them, and said petitioners received from the state department of health a certificate of registration stating that they were qualified to practice medicine in this state.
(9) Said petitioners did not present to said medical examining board a certificate of good moral character signed by two reputable citizens of this state, but the certificates of good moral character which they did file were signed by two persons who were not residents of this state, except that filed by Gerald Richardson which was signed only by D. R. Alexander, who is a resident of Kansas City, Mo.
(10) Neither of said petitioners presented to said examining board evidence that before beginning the study of medicine he completed at least nine months' course of study which included chemistry, physics, and general biology.
(11) Said examining board made no investigation to determine the truth of the statements made by the petitioners in their applications as to having had a high school education, or its equivalent, or as to their medical education, but assumed all such statements to be true, because sworn to by the applicant.
(12) Said examining board made no investigation to determine what school of medicine or practice was taught in the medical college or school from which the applicant graduated or received his diploma.
(13) The St. Louis College of Physicians and Surgeons belonged to the regular or allopathic school of medicine, and was so known to the secretary of said examining board, and he so testified at said hearing. The majority of said petitioners claimed to be graduates of that college.
(14) Said examining board never filed with the commissioner of health, until the spring of 1923, a list of medical colleges or institutions recommended as legal and reputable by its society.
(15) Dr. Frederick W. Waite, of Cleveland, Ohio, a professor in the Medical School of the Western Reserve University of Ohio, in 1923, was requested by the Governor of Missouri to assist as an expert on medical education, the state board of Missouri, in investigating the medical schools of that state.
(16) Said committee investigated the St. Louis College of Physicians and Surgeons, of which college Dr. Waldo Briggs is the dean and manager. A copy of the report made by said committee of their examination of this college was laid in evidence and is marked State's Exhibit 9.
(17) This college claims to require a four years' course for graduation, but in fact frequently graduates its students after two years' attendance, and about 80 per cent. of its graduates attended its school one year or less, coming there from other medical schools. It appears to have been the harbor for derelicts from the weakest medical schools in the country. In 42 of the United States its graduates are not recognized by the medical examining boards as graduates of a reputable school of medicine. It claims to belong to the regular or allopath school of medicine.
(18) Said committee investigated the Kansas City College of Medicine and Surgery, of which college Dr. Date R. Alexander is the secretary and active manager. A copy of the report of said examination made by said committee was laid in evidence and marked State's Exhibit 8. Said committee had difficulty in examining the records of this college. Dr. Alexander said the records were in the custody of the prosecuting attorney of the county.
(19) The graduates of this college are not recognized by the medical examining boards of 41 of the United States. Its salaried force are paid no more than $2,000 in the aggregate, and Dr. Alexander told Dr. Waite that he knew his school amounted to nothing, but that the honorary degree was what he was interested in, and said: ‘ I will keep my school going, if I have only one student and have to pay him to stay here,’ as that would exempt his property from taxation, and as long as he kept one student there he could continue to give honorary degrees, and that was his chief business. He said that two of the Connecticut eclectic board were his graduates, and said that in 1923, out of a total of 60 of his graduates, 23 were in practice in Connecticut, and others had reciprocated from Connecticut to Kansas, Arkansas, and Nebraska that he knew of, and there might be others.
(20) Said committee investigated the Kansas City University of Physicians and Surgeons, and made a report thereon, a copy thereof being laid in evidence, and marked State's Exhibit 10.
(21) The dean and owner of this school is Dr. A. L. Mckenzie, who is a graduate of the school, which was chartered in 1903 as the Central College of Osteopathy. Its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levinson v. Connecticut Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners
...all bodies charged with the performance of public duties continue to function though a vacancy exists." Brein v. Connecticut Eclectic Examining Board, 103 Conn. 65, 87, 130 A. 289 (1925). A board may act as long as there exists a quorum equal to a majority of all the actual members of the b......
-
Sassone v. Lepore
...hearing that addresses the validity of the applicable statute violates the principles of due process; Brein v. State Eclectic Examining Board, 103 Conn. 65, 85, 130 A. 289 (1925), appeal dismissed, 273 U.S. 640, 47 S.Ct. 97, 71 L.Ed. 817 (1926); as well as this court's repeated injunction t......
-
Jennings v. Connecticut Light & Power Co.
...to all parties in interest. One hearing before final action satisfies the constitutional requirement. Brein v. Connecticut Eclectic Examining Board, 103 Conn. 65, 85, 130 A. 289; Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742, 791, 68 S.Ct. 1294, 92 L.Ed. Where the only hearing required is an ex pa......
-
Jaffe v. State Dep't Of Health.
...to a physician and surgeon is just as much an administrative matter as is the original grant of it. Brein v. Connecticut Electric Examining Board, 103 Conn. 65, 83, 130 A. 289; Kram v. Public Utilities Commission, 126 Conn. 543, 549, 12 A.2d 775. Neither directly nor in the guise of an appe......
-
The Creation and Evolution of the Office of Connecticut Attorney General
...of Health, 108 Conn. 88 (1928); Mower v. State Department of Health, 108 Conn. 74 (1928); Brein v. Connecticut Eclectic Examining Board, 103 Conn. 65 (1925). The Hartford State's Attorney held a grand jury in 1925 on medical licenses and referred cases to civil authorities. 29. See,e.g.,Gui......