Davis v. Calderwood

• Decision Date: 27 February 1925
• Citation: 146 N.E. 708,251 Mass. 283
• Parties: DAVIS v. CALDERWOOD et al., Board of Registration in Medicine.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

251 Mass. 283

146 N.E. 708

DAVIS

v.CALDERWOOD et al., Board of Registration in Medicine.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden.

Feb. 27, 1925.

Report from Superior Court, Hampden County; A. R. Weed, Judge.

Suit by George Healy Davis against Samuel H. Calderwood and others, to enjoin defendants, as the Board of Registration in Medicine, from proceeding with hearing on notice to show cause why plaintiff's registration as practitioner of medicine should not be revoked. Case was reported on bill and order for interlocutory decree. Bill dismissed.

A. A. Tyler, of Springfield, for plaintiff.

J. R. Benton, Atty. Gen., and A. Chesley York, Asst. Atty. Gen., for 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, § 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, 85 N. E. 870;Shuman v. Gilbert, 229 Mass. 225, 228, 118 N. E. 254, L. R. A. 1918C, 135, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 793;Warr v. Collector of Taxes, 234 Mass. 279, 283, 125 N. E. 557;Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 214, 215, 44 S. Ct. 15, 68 L. Ed. 255.

[1] 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, 82 N. E. 31,17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 94,13 Ann. Cas. 569;Commonwealth v. Jewelle, 199 Mass. 558, 85 N. E. 858;Commonwealth v. Houtenbrink, 235 Mass. 320, 126 N. E. 669;Commonwealth v. Zimmerman, 221 Mass. 184, 108 N. E. 893, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 858;Commonwealth v. De Lon, 219 Mass. 217, 106 N. E. 846;Commonwealth v. Lindsey, 223 Mass. 392, 111 N. E. 869;Commonwealth v. Dragon, 239 Mass. 549, 132 N. E. 356. 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, 132 N. E. 174. 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, 43 S. Ct. 303, 67 L. Ed. 590, and Lehmann v. State Board, 263 U. S. 394, 44 S. Ct. 128, 68 L. Ed. 354, both decided since.

[2] 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 revision and reversal of the finding of the board if justice demands such action. Every constitutional right is protected. In re Stevens, 228 Mass. 368, 117 N. E. 588.

It was stated in the notice of hearing to be given to the plaintiff that the specific charge against him was ‘alleged association with an unregistered person, to wit, James P....