Dugdale v. Bd. of Registration in Med.
| Decision Date | 16 January 1930 |
| Citation | 270 Mass. 65,169 N.E. 547 |
| Parties | DUGDALE v. BOARD OF REGISTRATION IN MEDICINE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County; Pierce, Judge.
Petition by Frederick Dugdale to reverse a decision of the Board of Registration in Medicine revoking petitioner's registration as a practitioner of medicine. From a decree of a single justice, dismissing petition, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.
J. J. Higgins, of Boston, for appellant.
C. F. Lovejoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
This is an appeal from a final decree of a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court dismissing the petition brought under G. L. c. 112, § 64, which seeks to reverse a decision of the board of registration in medicine revoking the petitioner's registration as a practitioner of medicine. Section 64 of G. L. c. 112 provides that the Supreme Judicial Court upon petition of a person whose certificate, registration, license or authority has been suspended, revoked or cancelled, may revise or reverse the decision of the board, if it appears that the decision was clearly wrong. The decision of the board was made under G. L. c. 112, § 61, St. 1921, c. 478, § 1.
The hearing before the board was based on charges of gross misconduct in connection with two patients, a Mrs. Caton and a Mrs. Whitehouse. The board found in the Caton case that for ten weeks or more preceding the death of Mrs. Caton the petitioner gave her no personal attention and, ‘by falsely representing to her and to her family that the symptoms brought to his attention were favorable, caused the patient to be deprived of any personal medical attention during this period of her last illness.’ The board found in the matter of Mrs. Whitehouse that ‘for the purpose of procuring money from Nellie M. Whitehouse * * * Dr. Dugdale falsely represented to the said Nellie M. Whitehouse that she was suffering from a cancer of the stomach and from a tumor of the uterus of a cancerous nature, and that he could positively cure her of such complaints.’
At the hearing before the single justice, the record of the evidence before the board was presented and the petitionerintroduced additional evidence. The requests of the petitioner in the Caton case, to the effect that the evidence was insufficient to support the charge, were granted, and certain requests in the Whitehouse case were refused. A final decree was entered dismissing the petition. The petitioner appealed.
On a hearing in the Supreme Judicial Court on a petition to revoke a decision of the board of registration in medicine, the decision must stand unless it appears that it ‘was clearly wrong.’ G. L. c. 112, § 64. There was evidence that Dr. Dugdale told Mrs....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gurry v. Board of Public Accountancy
...758 (1948); Ott v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 276 Mass. 566, 572-573, 177 N.E. 542 (1931); Dugdale v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 270 Mass. 65, 67, 169 N.E. 547 (1930). See also Lawrence v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 239 Mass. 424, 427, 132 N.E. 174 Section 64 further......
-
Ott v. Bd. of Registration in Med.
...and of the proposed action of such a board.’ A petition under section 64 was before the court in Dugdale v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 270 Mass. 65, 68, 69, 169 N. E. 547. It there was said, 270 Mass. 68, 169 N. E. at page 548: ‘The petitioner, in our opinion, was given a full, fair......
-
Hellman v. Board of Registration in Medicine
...to this case. See Forziati v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 333 Mass. 125, 128 N.E.2d 789 (1955); Dugdale v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 270 Mass. 65, 169 N.E. 547 (1930). These cases involved dishonesty and fraud. Such conduct is not involved in this case. See also Raymond v. B......
-
Forziati v. Board of Registration in Medicine
...by the board. Lawrence v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 239 Mass. 424, 428-430, 132 N.E. 174. See Dugdale v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 270 Mass. 65, 169 N.E. 547; Flynn v. Board of Registration in Optometry, 320 Mass. 29, 33, 67 N.E.2d 846, 166 A.L.R. 571; Walker v. Corwin, 21......