Capland v. Board of Dental Examiners
| Decision Date | 04 March 1939 |
| Docket Number | 34031.,34030 |
| Citation | 149 Kan. 352,87 P.2d 597 |
| Parties | CAPLAND v. BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS. [*] BROWN v. SAME. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
In suits by dentists to enjoin Board of Dental Examiners from enforcing orders revoking dentists' licenses, evidence failed to establish "dishonorable conduct" on part of dentists within meaning of statute, so as to warrant revocation of their licenses, and dentists were entitled to enjoin enforcement of board's orders. Gen.St.1935 65-1407; Gen.St.Supp.1937, 65-1417, 65-1418.
Though administrative bodies, such as Board of Dental Examiners, may exercise wide discretion in performance of duties, discretion cannot be abused, but must be reasonably exercised in view of all facts involved.
Though courts are not permitted to substitute their judgment for that of administrative bodies, such as Board of Dental Examiners, they are charged with duty of determining whether judgment rendered is unreasonable, arbitrary, oppressive discriminatory, or in excess of administrative powers.
In determining what constitutes "dishonorable conduct," within meaning of statute permitting Board of Dental Examiners to refuse to issue license or to revoke a license, every case must be determined on its own particular facts. Gen.St.1935, 65-1407.
The term "dishonorable" as used in statute providing that Board of Dental Examiners may refuse to issue license or may revoke license for "dishonorable" conduct, must be construed as having been used in its generally accepted sense by Legislature. Gen. St.1935, 65-1407.
The term "dishonorable" means wanting in honor; not honorable; bringing or deserving dishonor; staining the character, and lessening the reputation; shameful disgraceful; base.
1. While administrative bodies may exercise a wide discretion in the performance of their duties the discretion cannot be abused but must be reasonably exercised in view of all and not merely some of the facts involved.
2. While courts are not permitted to substitute their judgment for that of administrative bodies, they are definitely charged with the duty of determining whether the judgment rendered is unreasonable, arbitrary, oppressive discriminatory or in excess of administrative powers.
3. No invariable rule can be stated by which to measure dishonorable conduct and every case must be determined on the basis of its own particular facts.
4. The record of hearings before the state board of dental examiners involving the revocation of licenses of two dentists, upon which record the district court enjoined that board from enforcing its orders revoking the licenses, examined and held, under the circumstances narrated in the opinion (a) the evidence did not establish dishonorable conduct; (b) the orders revoking their licenses were unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive; (c) the district court did not err in granting the injunction.
Appeal from District Court, Wyandotte County, Division No. 4; J. E. McFadden, Judge.
Separate actions by S. I. Capland and by Gordon G. Brown against the Board of Dental Examiners to enjoin the defendant from enforcing its orders which revoked the plaintiffs' respective licenses to practice dentistry in Kansas. From judgments in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendant appeals.
In suits by dentists to enjoin Board of Dental Examiners from enforcing orders revoking dentists' licenses, evidence failed to establish "dishonorable conduct" on part of dentists within meaning of statute, so as to warrant revocation of their licenses, and dentists were entitled to enjoin enforcement of board's orders. Gen.St.1935, 65-1407; Gen.St.Supp.1937, 65-1417, 65-1418.
J. S. Parker, Atty. Gen., and Eldon Wallingford, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
George H. West and P. W. Croker, both of Kansas City, and Joe E. Burris, of Kansas City, Mo., for appellees.
Wm. H. McCamish, of Kansas City, amicus curiae.
Separate actions were brought in the district court of Wyandotte county by S. I. Capland and G. G. Brown, licensed and practicing dentists in Kansas City, to enjoin the board of dental examiners of Kansas from enforcing its orders which revoked their respective licenses to practice dentistry in Kansas. The plaintiffs prevailed and the defendant has appealed.
While the cases were not consolidated in the trial below nor on appeal, they were argued together here, and we were informed by the parties that the issues to be determined were substantially the same. We shall, therefore, consider the cases together and shall refer to the appellees, Capland and Brown, as the plaintiffs, and to the appellant, the board of dental examiners, as the board. Under stipulation of the parties the transcript of the proceedings, in each case, had before the board, was submitted to the trial court as the evidence in the instant cases. The plaintiffs introduced the transcript and the board demurred to plaintiffs' evidence, and also moved for judgment on the pleadings and the evidence. Defendant's motion for a new trial, as well as the previous demurrer and motion, was overruled. From those rulings and from the judgment granting the injunction, the board has appealed.
The complaints were signed by four practicing dentists in Wyandotte county, who were also officers in various dental societies. We shall first consider the Capland case, as the appeal in that case was first docketed in this court. The parties agree the proceedings were instituted under the statute which authorizes the board to revoke the license of a dentist, namely, G.S.1935, 65-1407. The pertinent portion of that statute reads: "The board may refuse to issue the license provided for in this act, or may revoke such license if issued to the individuals who have by false or fraudulent representations obtained or sought to obtain said license or money or any other thing of value or have practiced under names other than their own, or for any other dishonorable conduct." (Italics inserted.)
It is conceded by the parties that neither of the plaintiffs were charged with the violation of the above statute unless the specific acts charged constituted dishonorable conduct. The substance of the general charge contained in the Capland complaint was: "These complainants charge that one S. I. Capland is now and for many months last past, has been engaged in the practice of dentistry at No. 538 Minnesota Avenue, in Kansas City, Kan., and is now and for many months last past, has been conducting his said business in an unprofessional and unlawful manner and in a manner prohibited by law and contrary to public policy, and in such manner as to be inimical to the public and to bring the practice of the profession of dentistry into disrepute, and to destroy the confidence of the public in the profession."
The specific acts pleaded in support of the general charge were three in number. The first pertained to an advertisement printed and published in an advertising medium known as "The Shopper". This medium is not a newspaper but is printed in newspaper form and is distributed weekly, free of charge, to homes and places of business in Kansas City, Kansas. The advertisement read:
The second specific act charged pertained to an advertisement published in the Kansas City Kansan, a daily newspaper of general circulation in the city. It read:
We are told this advertisement also contained a cut of an officer who was apparently signaling for a stop. The complaint further alleged: "That all of said advertisements are what are known in the dental profession as 'come to me' advertisements; are for the purpose of attracting attention to the respondent and are published for the purpose of direct solicitation of business; they are contrary to the statutes, law and public policy, and have a tendency to deceive the public."
The third specific act charged was as follows: "That said S I. Capland also advertises and solicits patronage now and for many months last past, by means of a street sign on the building where his office is located, and a glass case on the outside of the building on the sidewalk space, in which is contained specimens of dental work, false teeth, plates, etc., which is lighted by Neon light at night, and also underneath a painted sign announcing Doctor Capland and Dental Laboratories; which acts and conduct are in violation of the law and considered as dishonorable and unprofessional conduct by the public in general, and have a tendency to deceive and mislead the public." The plaintiff Brown was charged with having similarly advertised in the Kansas City Kansan. He was also charged with a similar display in a glass case at the foot of the stairway of the building in which his office was located. Brown was also charged with displaying his name at the foot of the stairway and with displaying in large letters, the words, "G. G. Brown, Dentist", on four of the risers on the stairway leading to his office. The complaint alleged the glass case and the sign on the risers could he seen from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Sanborn v. Unified School Dist. 259
...for such expenses would be beyond the authority or jurisdiction of the county election commissioner. In Capland v. Board of Dental Examiners, 149 Kan. 352, 87 P.2d 597, the court 'While courts are not permitted to substitute their judgment for that of administrative bodies, they are definit......
-
Morra v. State Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists, 46748
...684, 129 P. 1128; Mid-West Photo Play Corporation v. Kansas State Board of Review, 102 Kan. 356, 169 P. 1154; Capland v. Board of Dental Examiners, 149 Kan. 352, 87 P.2d 597; Timmons, Administrator v. McGaughey, 193 Kan. 171, 392 P.2d 835; Kansas State Board of Healing Arts v. Foote, 200 Ka......
-
Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts v. Acker, 51343
...to jeopardize the interest of the public. . . . ' " (Emphasis added) pp. 453-454, 436 P.2d pp. 833-834. In Capland v. Board of Dental Examiners, 149 Kan. 352, 87 P.2d 597 (1939), two dentists had been charged by the Board with dishonorable conduct for advertising their services in Kansas Ci......
-
State Bd. of Dental Examiners v. Bohl
...this case were started. On behalf of appellee it is argued that because some general definitions of dishonorable conduct were stated in the Capland case the Board had no authority embody in its rules a definition of dishonorable conduct. The point is not well taken. The general definitions ......