Jacobsen v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners
| Decision Date | 06 April 1959 |
| Citation | 337 P.2d 233,169 Cal.App.2d 389 |
| Parties | George JACOBSEN, Petitioner and Appellant, v. BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS of the State of California, Emmett E. Wilent, Thomas J. Earley, Homer York, Edward C. Poulson, Leo Montenegro and John F. Barron, Respondents. Civ. 9494. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Colley & Sakuma, Sacramento, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., by Willard A. Shank, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Petitioner herein was charged with a violation of Section 10(a) of the Chiropractic Act, an initiative act adopted in 1922, which now appears as Sections 1000-1 through 1001, Business and Professions Code. By the decision of the board petitioner was found guilty of having violated said section 10(a) by the following advertisement in the Sacramento Union:
'Run Down?
'For many years Dr. Jacobsen has specialized in the treatment of chronic ailments--the diseases that are said to be responsible for 93% of the ill health of the nation. The years of research and experience have enabled us to develop treating methods that are highly skillful and restful. Many patients have been successfully treated here which is your best insurance that we can do the same for you.
Liver
Colon
Stomach
Gall Bladder
Constipation
Backache
Dizziness
Headaches
Depression
Frustration
Overweight
Rectal Disorders
Skin Disorders
Sterility
Sleeplessness
Prostate
Ulcers
Mental Upsets
Piles
Rheumatism
Nerves
Marital Problems
Lumbago
Fears
Glands
Lack of Vigor
'Laboratory and Physical Examination.
* * *' The charge was that by the said advertisement, petitioner 'did advertise directly and indirectly, and in substance, that he, as the holder of a chiropractic license, would treat, cure, or attempt to treat or cure, any person, for loss of manhood, sexual weakness or sexual disorder, or any disease of the sexual organs, namely female disorders and sterility.'
Section 10(a) of the Chiropractic Act provides in part as follows:
'The board shall refuse to grant, or may suspend or revoke, a license to practice chiropractic in this State upon any of the following grounds, to wit:
'* * * the advertising, directly, indirectly or in substance, upon any card, sign, newspaper advertisement, * * * that the holder of such license * * * will treat, cure, or attempt to treat or cure, any venereal disease, or will treat or cure, or attempt to treat or cure, any person afflicted with any sexual disease, for lost manhood, sexual weakness or sexual disorder or any disease of the sexual organs * * *.'
The principal issue is whether the words 'female disorders', 'sterility' and 'lack of vigor' as used by the petitioner in his advertisement come under the ban of section 10(a) quoted above.
Petitioner, appellant here, contends that the specified words used do not come within the prohibition of the statute. He challenges the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the section and, finally, he charges that the hearing officer committed error in refusing to admit certain proffered testimony.
Webster's New International Dictionary defines 'chiropractic' as 'A system, or the practice, of adjusting the joints, esp. of the spine, by hand for the curing of disease.' The term itself is one of art, which makes use of 'chiro', a Greek combining form meaning 'hand'. It is apparent that the electors in approving the initiative measure known as the Chiropractic Act believed that practitioners ought not to advertise concerning treatment of venereal disease, or sexual disease or disorder. The act did not forbid the actual treatment, but it was clearly intended that the licentiates should not be permitted to advertise that they would treat such ailments. The language is general, as is usual--even necessary--in such legislation. The terminology is that of common usage and appears to have been well selected to inform the voters as to just what was being forbidden. A clear intent to eliminate any subterfuge by the use of slightly different verbiage having the same tenor is shown by the language which forbids such advertising, whether done directly, indirectly or in substance. Obviously, it was intended to wholly forbid the sort of 'bait advertising' so often used to prey upon the weak and credulous by offering 'cures' for sexual disorders, diseases or abnormalities. The advertisement published by appellant appears to us to be a crass attempt to evade the ban of the statute by indirection and subterfuge. The heart of the advertisement is a 27-item list of bodily organs and bodily ailments, with one or two social problems thrown in. Significantly, however, at the beginning, the middle and the end of the list, we find unmistakable references to what in common language may be termed sexual disorders, diseases and ailments. Although it seems to us that expert testimony was not needed to ascertain here the intent to evade the law and to indulge in the very sort of advertising which the law intended to prevent, nevertheless there was expert testimony introduced that the word 'sterility' is primarily related to the function or lack of function of the male testes, that the term 'loss of vigor' connotes sexual inability of the male, and that 'female disorders' embrace various types of malfunction of the female sex organs. We hold that the appellant was properly found guilty of violating the law in that he did advertise that he would treat, and attempt to cure, loss of manhood, sexual weakness, sexual disorder and diseases of the sexual organs.
Appellant contends that Section 10(a) of the Chiropractic Act is not a valid constitutional enactment because (1) it is void for vagueness, and, (2) it unlawfully deprives appellant of his right to follow a lawful calling. As to the legislation being void for vagueness, we think little need be said as we have already stated the language used was properly that of common speech and common understanding. So far as the people who adopted the legislation are concerned, there is nothing of vagueness about it. Appellant attempts to create vagueness by reasoning that because any bodily ill-health or mental disturbance can affect sexual organs and functions, the legislation can be used to prevent any and all advertising offering to cure any malady. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crees v. California State Bd. of Medical Examiners
...476.) 'The terminology [of the 1922 initiative Chiropractic Act] is that of common usage * * *.' (Jacobsen v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 169 Cal.App.2d 389, 392, 337 P.2d 233, 235.) '[T]he term 'chiropractic' includes only the meaning of that term as it was generally understood in 192......
-
People v. Cantor
...designated sexual disorder or diseases, was held to be a constitutional enactment. In Jacobsen v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners (1959), 169 Cal.App.2d 389, at p. 394, 337 P.2d 233, at p. 236, the court stated: 'But a statute attacked for vagueness will be upheld if its terms may be reason......
-
Stevenson v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners
...California State Board of Medical Examiners (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 195, 207--208, 28 Cal.Rptr. 621; Jacobsen v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 389, 395, 337 P.2d 233.) Although the term 'the practice of medicine' is not defined as such by statute, the conduct referred ......
-
Duskin v. State Bd. of Dry Cleaners, Dept. of Professional and Vocational Standards
...will be upheld if its terms may be reasonably certain by reference to its legislative purpose.' (Jacobsen v. Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 389, 394, 337 P.2d 233, 236.) '* * * all presumptions and intendments are in favor of the constitutionality of a statute enacted b......