Hake v. Arkansas State Medical Bd., 5-3086
| Decision Date | 13 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-3086,5-3086 |
| Parties | Dr. Orin Joseph HAKE, Appellant, v. ARKANSAS STATE MEDICAL BOARD, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Brown, Compton & Prewett, El Dorado, for appellant.
Warren & Bullion, Little Rock, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order revoking a license to practice medicine. On June 11, 1962, appellant Orin Joseph Hake was sent a letter by appellee's secretary advising appellant that a complaint had been filed with appellee, the Arkansas State Medical Board, relative to an alleged malpractice and requesting appellant to appear before that board on June 14th. The letter stated in part that, Appellant appeared at this meeting. Thereafter a formal complaint was filed against appellant and an order to show cause and an order of suspension were issued, with hearing set for July 26, 1962, before the appellee board. Appellant appeared at this reported hearing with counsel and at a later hearing on November 15, 1962. On November 21, 1962, an order revoking appellant's license to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Arkansas was served upon allellant. Appellant then petitioned Pulaski Circuit Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted. Upon review, the Circuit Court on April 12, 1963, affirmed the action of the board, from which appellant has prosecuted this appeal.
For reversal appellant urges that the circuit court erred in affirming the Medical Board's action in revoking appellant's license to practice medicine in the State of Arkansas.
The Medical Practice Act, at Ark.Stat.Ann. § 72-613 (Repl.1957), sets out fifteen grounds for revocation, suspension or refusal to issue licenses. More than one of these grounds were included in the serious and somewhat sensational charges against appellant. Section 72-614 provides for the filing of complaints, hearing and appeal. The last of this section reads as follows:
The Order of Revocation recites:
The consensus of appellant's argument is that there is absolutely no evidence in the record to substantiate the findings and rulings of the board. Appellee urges that the board, as an administrative body, and as is also provided in the Medical Practice Act in § 72-614, '* * * shall not be bound by strict or technical rules of evidence * * *'; that the board's finding of mental and emotional incompetency is the medical opinion of the nine doctor-members which they are competent, as doctors, to make. We cannot say that either argument as such is completely without merit. We fully understand the justice of informal hearings on complaints to determine whether a formal complaint should be filed, and that the power to suspend a doctor's license pending hearing on a formal complaint is necessary for the safety of the community where a doctor practices. However, we are equally cognizant that the right to practice medicine is a valuable property right not to be treated lightly.
In Bockman v. Ark. State Medical Board, 229 Ark. 143, 313 S.W.2d 826, this court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levinson v. Connecticut Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners
...testimony in administrative licensing cases. The plaintiffs cite cases requiring such expert testimony. See Hake v. State Medical Board, 237 Ark. 506, 374 S.W.2d 173 (1964); Franz v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance, 31 Cal.3d 124, 181 Cal.Rptr. 732, 642 P.2d 792 (1982); McKay v. State Bo......
-
Martin v Sizemore
...action against Mr. Martin. 10 Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-2-201(b). 11 Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-2-201(a)(2). 12 Hake v. Arkansas State Med. Bd., 374 S.W.2d 173, 175-76 (Ark. 1964); Franz v. Board of Med. Quality Assurance, 642 P.2d 792, 798-99 (Cal. 1982); McKay v. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 86 P.2d 2......
-
Martin v. Sizemore
...action against Mr. Martin. 10. Tenn.Code Ann. § 62-2-201(b). 11. Tenn.Code Ann. § 62-2-201(a)(2). 12. Hake v. Arkansas State Med. Bd., 237 Ark. 506, 374 S.W.2d 173, 175-76 (1964); Franz v. Board of Med. Quality Assurance, 31 Cal.3d 124, 181 Cal.Rptr. 732, 642 P.2d 792, 798-99 (1982); McKay ......
-
Thebaut v. Georgia Bd. of Dentistry, No. A98A1130
...omitted). 31. Supra, 133 Ga.App. at 789-790(1), 213 S.E.2d 49. 32. Id. at 789, 213 S.E.2d 49. 33. See Hake v. Arkansas State Med. Bd., 237 Ark. 506, 374 S.W.2d 173, 175-176 (Ark.1964); Franz v. Bd. of Med. Quality Assurance, 31 Cal.3d 124, 181 Cal.Rptr. 732, 642 P.2d 792, 798-799 (Cal. 1982......