Davis v. Board of Registration in Med.

• Decision Date: 24 February 1925
• Citation: 251 Mass. 283
• Parties: GEORGE HEALY DAVIS v. BOARD OF REGISTRATION IN MEDICINE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

251 Mass. 283

GEORGE HEALY DAVIS v. BOARD OF REGISTRATION IN MEDICINE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

February 24, 1925

November 10, 1924.

Present: RUGG, C.

J., BRALEY, PIERCE CARROLL, & WAIT, JJ.

Physicians and Surgeons. Board of Registration in Medicine. Constitutional Law, Police power. The provisions of G.L.c. 112, Section 2 are constitutional.

The notice to be issued to a registered physician of a hearing before the board of registration in medicine under G.L.c. 112, Section 2, is not to be construed with technical strictness, and where no specification is requested with respect to a notice stating, as the charge made, "Alleged association with an unregistered person, to wit . . . [giving the name and address of such person]" no right of the physician can be said to have been disregarded.

It cannot be said that assisting an unregistered person in practising medicine is not a sufficient ground for the revocation or cancellation of a registration under G.L.c. 112, Section 2.

BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Superior Court on August 6, 1924, and afterwards amended, seeking to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with a hearing against the plaintiff.

In the Superior Court, the suit was heard by Weed, J., upon the return of an order of notice. By his order there was entered an interlocutory decree denying an "application for a temporary injunction" and dissolving a restraining order which was issued on the filing of the bill. The judge then reported his action to this court under G.L.c. 214, Section 30.

The case was submitted on briefs. A.A. Tyler, for the plaintiff.

J.R. Benton, Attorney General, & A.C. York, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendants.

RUGG, C.J. The plaintiff seeks by this suit in equity to enjoin the defendants, who constitute the board of registration in medicine, G.L.c. 13, Section 10, from proceeding with a hearing against him pursuant to a notice issued for him to show cause why his registration as a practitioner of medicine in this Commonwealth should not be revoked. The case is reported on the bill and an order for an interlocutory decree, which it is agreed contains all essential facts.

It is assumed that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury in his property and personal rights if the defendants should proceed to revoke his registration, and that therefore in this suit he may question the constitutionality of the statute under which they are proceeding. Moneyweight Scale Co. v McBride, 199 Mass. 503 , 506. Shuman v. Gilbert, 229 Mass. 225 , 228. Warr v. Collector of Taxes of Taunton, 234 Mass. 279 , 283. Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197, 214, 215.

The statute regulating the practice of medicine and conferring powers of registration of physicians and of revocation of such registration for cause, has been before the court in numerous cases. Commonwealth v. Porn, 196 Mass. 326 . Commonwealth v. Jewelle, 199 Mass. 558 . Commonwealth v. Houtenbrink, 235 Mass. 320 . Commonwealth v. Zimmerman, 221 Mass. 184 . Commonwealth v. De Lon, 219 Mass. 217 . Commonwealth v. Lindsey, 223 Mass. 392. Commonwealth v. Dragon, 239 Mass. 549 . Its constitutionality, although decided or assumed in all of those decisions, was examined at large in Lawrence v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 239 Mass. 424 . After a detailed analysis of the statute and a review of many authorities, its constitutionality was upheld. It would be vain repetition to go over that ground again. No argument not then considered has now been addressed to us. Further reflection affords no ground to doubt the soundness of that adjudication. It is affirmed. It is supported in principle by Douglas v. Noble, 261 U.S. 165, and Lehmann v. State Board of Public Accountancy, 263 U.S. 394, both decided since.

The statute requires a hearing before a public board, at which the plaintiff may be represented by counsel and call witnesses with provision for further hearing in court and for...