Colorado State Bd. of Medical Examiners v. Saddoris
| Citation | 825 P.2d 39 |
| Decision Date | 03 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 90SC567,90SC567 |
| Parties | COLORADO STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Petitioner, v. Theodora SADDORIS, M.D., and John L. Nieters, M.D., Respondents. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Raymond T. Slaughter, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Eugene C. Cavaliere, Deputy Atty. Gen., Suzanne A. Fasing, First Asst. Atty. Gen., James F. Carr, Kathie A. Clinton, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for petitioner.
Yu, Stromberg, Huotari & Cleveland, P.C., Frederick Y. Yu, Denver, for respondents.
We granted certiorari to consider whether the court of appeals, in Saddoris v. Colorado State Board of Medical Examiners, 802 P.2d 1136 (Colo.App.1990), erred when it held that section 12-36-107 of the Colorado Medical Practice Act, §§ 12-36-101 to -136, 5 C.R.S. (1985) (the Act), which provides the general requirements for medical licensure in Colorado, does not apply to foreign medical school graduates. We reverse. 1
In January 1987, respondents Theodora Saddoris (Saddoris) and John Nieters (Nieters) applied for a license to practice medicine in Colorado. Saddoris and Nieters are graduates of the American University of the Caribbean (AUC). AUC is a foreign medical school located on the island of Montserrat in the British West Indies.
On April 9, 1987, petitioner, the Colorado State Board of Medical Examiners (the Board), denied their applications because Saddoris and Nieters failed to provide sufficient information to establish that AUC was an approved medical college as required by section 12-36-107(2), 5 C.R.S. (1985). Section 12-36-107(2) provides:
No person shall be granted a license to practice medicine as provided by subsection (1) of this section unless he is at least twenty-one years of age, is a graduate of an approved medical college, as defined in section 12-36-108, 2 and has completed an approved internship of at least one year, as defined in section 12-36-109, or has completed at least one year of post-graduate training approved by the board. The board may grant a license subject to terms of probation or may refuse to grant a license to any such person if it has reasonable grounds to believe he has committed any of the acts or offenses defined in this article as unprofessional conduct.
Saddoris and Nieters filed a request for reconsideration with the Board, pursuant to section 12-36-119(1), 5 C.R.S. (1985). On October 8, 1987, the Board, after considering the request, affirmed the prior decision.
Saddoris and Nieters requested and received a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), pursuant to section 24-4-104(9), 10A C.R.S. (1988). They contended that the general statutory provisions concerning licensure in section 12-36-107--specifically, the requirement in subsection (2) that applicants must graduate from an approved medical college--did not apply to foreign medical school graduates. The ALJ concluded that Saddoris and Nieters "must satisfy Section 12-36-107(2)'s requirement of graduation from an approved medical college" and that they had not satisfied this requirement. Accordingly, the ALJ decided that Saddoris' and Nieters' applications should be denied. 3
Saddoris and Nieters filed exceptions to the ALJ's decision with the Board. On February 10, 1989, the Board issued the Final Board Order. In its order, the Board adopted the ALJ's finding that AUC was not an approved medical college and denied the applications. Saddoris and Nieters appealed the Board's final order to the court of appeals, pursuant to section 12-36-119(2), 5 C.R.S. (1985).
The court of appeals reversed the Board's decision. The court determined that "the requirements for licensure in section 12-36-107 did not ... apply to applicants governed by section 12-36-107.6," 5 C.R.S. (1985). Section 12-36-107.6 provides:
Other foreign medical school graduates. The board shall, by regulation, prescribe standards and procedures for the licensing of graduates from medical colleges in other states and territories of the United States and outside of the United States. Such standards and procedures shall be substantially the same as those for graduates from medical colleges in this state. For graduates of schools not approved by the liaison committee for medical education or the American osteopathic association, the board may require two years of postgraduate clinical training approved by the board.
The court reasoned that the General Assembly intended to "establish parallel, yet separate and exclusive, standards and procedures for licensing Colorado and foreign medical school graduates." The court concluded that Saddoris' and Nieters' applications were governed by section 12-36-107.6, and thus section 12-36-107(2)'s requirement that an applicant be a graduate of an approved medical college did not apply to Saddoris and Nieters. The court ordered that Saddoris and Nieters be granted a license to practice medicine in Colorado.
The Board petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari. We granted certiorari to determine whether
the court of appeals err[ed] when it held that section 12-36-107, 5 C.R.S. (1985), does not apply to foreign medical [school] graduates (FMGs) and that FMGs do not need to graduate from an approved medical school, which is a requirement for other applicants for medical licensure in the state of Colorado.
The Board contends that the Act expresses the General Assembly's intent that foreign medical school graduates, such as Saddoris and Nieters, must satisfy the general requirements for medical licensure in section 12-36-107. Saddoris and Nieters contend that the court of appeals was correct in concluding that the Act reflects the General Assembly's intent that section 12-36-107.6 establishes separate and exclusive standards for licensing foreign medical school graduates and, thus, they did not have to satisfy section 12-36-107(2)'s requirement of graduation from an "approved medical college." We agree with the Board.
In resolving the issue raised by the parties, we are called upon to interpret the licensing provisions of the Act: specifically, whether foreign medical school graduates, such as Saddoris and Nieters, must satisfy section 12-36-107's requirement of graduation from an approved medical college.
The principles guiding judicial interpretation of statutes are well settled. "Statutes must be construed as a whole to give consistent, harmonious and sensible effect to all their parts." Adams County Sch. Dist. No. 50 v. Dickey, 791 P.2d 688, 691 (Colo.1990). The "first goal of a court in construing a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the General Assembly." People v. Terry, 791 P.2d 374, 376 (Colo.1990). To ascertain legislative intent, courts look first to the statutory language. People v. District Court, Second Judicial Dist., 713 P.2d 918, 921 (Colo.1986). With these principles in mind, a review of the Act and its purposes supports our conclusion that foreign medical school graduates, such as Saddoris and Nieters, must satisfy the requirements in section 12-36-107.
The Act regulates and controls the practice of medicine in Colorado. Section 12-36-107 provides the "[q]ualifications for licensure" that must be satisfied by all applicants. Section 12-36-107 provides that, "[s]ubject to the other conditions and provisions of this article, a license to practice medicine shall be granted by the board to an applicant therefor only upon the basis of" satisfying certain qualifications. Basically, this section requires an applicant: (1) to pass a board-approved examination, § 12-36-107(1); (2) to be at least twenty-one years old, § 12-36-107(2); (3) to graduate from an approved medical college, 4 § 12-36-107(2); and (4) to complete at least one year of post-graduate training or an internship, § 12-36-107(2).
The General Assembly created an express exception to these general requirements in section 12-36-107.5, 5 C.R.S. (1985). 5 Section 12-36-107.5 establishes an alternative licensing procedure, known as the "fifth pathway program," for Colorado residents who attend a foreign medical school. This section is a detailed and comprehensive program intended to provide alternative standards and procedures for "fifth pathway" applicants and, most importantly, specifically excludes an applicant applying under 12-36-107.5 from the requirements found in section 12-36-107 and the remainder of the Act by prefacing its provisions with the statement, "[a]nything in this article to the contrary notwithstanding." Generally, the requirements are that the applicant (1) was a resident of Colorado prior to medical school; (2) graduated from a college or university in the United States; (3) graduated from a medical school recognized by the world health organization; (4) completed one year of post-graduate training at a hospital affiliated with an approved medical school; and (5) completed the post-graduate hospital training required by the Board for all applicants.
While the General Assembly intended section 12-36-107.5 to operate as an exception to the general requirements in section 12-36-107, the language of the Act does not create such an exception regarding section 12-36-107.6. Section 12-36-107.6 applies to "[o]ther foreign medical school graduates," such as Saddoris and Nieters. The language in this section does not specifically exclude an applicant from the requirements found in section 12-36-107 and elsewhere in the Act. This distinction is even more significant in light of the fact that the General Assembly enacted section 12-36-107.6 after section 12-36-107.5. See Ch. 108, sec. 7, § 12-36-107.6, 1979 Colo.Sess.Laws 507, 510; Ch. 155, sec. 1, § 12-36-107.5, 1977 Colo.Sess.Laws 686. Thus, the General Assembly was aware of the exclusionary language in section 12-36-107.5 when it enacted section 12-36-107.6, yet did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, Dept. of Health v. The Mill
...that gives "consistent, harmonious and sensible effect" to all of the statute's provisions. Colorado State Bd. of Medical Examiners v. Saddoris, 825 P.2d 39, 42 (Colo.1992) (citation omitted). Furthermore, the court must give words their commonly accepted and understood meaning. East Lakewo......
-
Moody v. Corsentino
...statutes, a court's primary task is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. State Bd. of Medical Examiners v. Saddoris, 825 P.2d 39, 42 (Colo.1992); Woodsmall v. Regional Transp. Dist., 800 P.2d 63, 67 (Colo.1990). To do so, the court must look first to the statutory ......
-
Custody of C.C.R.S., Matter of
...to meet the intent of the General Assembly, thus giving meaningful effect to the whole of the statute. Colorado State Bd. of Medical Examiners v. Saddoris, 825 P.2d 39, 42 (Colo.1992) (statutes must be construed as a whole to give consistent, harmonious and sensible effect to all their part......
-
Marriage of Cargill and Rollins, In re, 91SC738
...and construing statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. Colorado State Bd. of Medical Examiners v. Saddoris, 825 P.2d 39, 42 (Colo.1992); Farmers Group, Inc. v. Williams, 805 P.2d 419, 422 (Colo.1991). To determine legislative intent, courts look first......