Crum v. State Board of Medical Registration and Examination

• Decision Date: 03 November 1941
• Docket Number: 27546.
• Citation: 37 N.E.2d 65,219 Ind. 191
• Parties: CRUM v. STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL REGISTRATION AND EXAMINATION.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

37 N.E.2d 65

219 Ind. 191

CRUM v. STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL REGISTRATION AND EXAMINATION.

No. 27546.

Supreme Court of Indiana

November 3, 1941

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; Herbert E Wilson, judge.

Faust Faust & Faust, of Indianapolis, for appellant.

Claycombe & Stump, of Indianapolis, Geo. N. Beamer, Atty. Gen., and Walter O. Lewis, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

SHAKE Judge.

The appellee, the State Board of Medical Registration and Examination, revoked, for alleged gross immorality, three certificates issued by it to the appellant entitling him to licenses to practice chiropractic, naturopathy, and electro-therapy. The appellant prosecuted what has been termed an appeal to the circuit court, which likewise found him guilty as charged. He has appealed to this court assigning that the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer to the complaint and in denying him a new trial, and also that it was without jurisdiction of the subject-matter. The claim of want of jurisdiction is unique inasmuch as the appellant, rather than the appellee, invited the soc of the court.

The gist of the complaint was that in the practice of the professions for which he was licensed, the appellant employed a mechanical contrivance called an 'etherator' or 'co-etherator,' which was totally devoid of any therapeutic value whatever, other than the possible mental effect on the persons uninformed regarding such machines, devices and practices; that he falsely and fraudulently represented that he could treat and relieve, and in some instances cure, such diseases as cancer, tumors, and blindness, by having his patients deposit slips of paper moistened with saliva into said machine; that appellant claimed that by means of said machine he was able to administer curative treatments at great distances; and that he could also give 'financial treatments,' by means of which money would come into the hands of his patients. It was alleged by way of conclusion that appellant's practices were inimical to the public health and welfare and constituted gross immorality.

The appellant obtained his licenses by virtue of the provisions of chapter 248 of the Acts of 1927, § 63-1312, Burns' 1933, § 10713, Baldwin's 1934, which was an amendment of chapter 169 of the Acts of 1897, as amended by chapter 211 of the Acts of 1901. The title of the act of 1897 was one 'regulating the practice of medicine, surgery and obstetrics, providing for the issuing of licenses to practice,' etc., to which the title of the act of 1901 added, 'also providing for the issuing of certain limited licenses to practice.' Licenses to practice chiropractic, naturopathy, and electro-therapy may be said to be limited licenses to practice medicine, and the provisions of the act of 1927 are therefore within the title. There is no basis for the claim that the statute upon which the charge was predicated is invalid. State ex rel. Board, etc. v. Cole, 1939, 215 Ind. 562, 20 N.E.2d 972.

Gross immorality is one the statutory grounds for revoking a license to practice medicine or healing, § 63-1306, Burns' 1933, § 10707, Baldwin's 1934, but the appellant contends that the allegations of the complaint do not amount to a charge of gross immorality. He reasons that since the State Board authorized him to be licensed to practice chiropractic, naturopathy, and electro-therapy, it recognized and legalized his right to do the things charged in the complaint. We do not find it necessary to undertake to define what properly constitutes the practice of chiropractic, naturopathy, or electro-therapy, or to enter into any extended discussion as to what conduct is forbidden by the term 'gross immorality' as used in the Medical Practice Act. It is enough to say that this court will not judicially presume that the General Assembly intended to authorize a course of conduct so reprehensible and revolting as to shock the sensibilities of reasonable men; on the contrary, it must be assumed that in providing for these licenses, the Legislature intended that the methods employed thereunder should bear some rational relationship to the alleviation of human ills. In Indiana Board, etc. v. Haag, 1916, 184 Ind. 333, 111 N.E. 178, this court fully considered what constitutes gross immorality on the part of one intrusted with a license to practice a profession in this state. What was there said is applicable to the case at bar, and gross immorality was sufficiently charged.

The appellant also calls attention to §§ 63-1306 and 63-1310 Burns' 1933, §§ 10707 and 10711, Baldwin's 1934, by which the board is forbidden to discriminate against any school or system of medicine, and says that to brand his practices as described in the complaint as immoral would require that his conduct be measured by the standards exacted by other schools of medicine, and that this in turn would call for mere expressions of opinion, rather than facts, as to the curative value of his so-called...