Latreille v. Michigan State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners

Decision Date13 October 1959
Docket NumberNo. 27,27
Citation98 N.W.2d 611,357 Mich. 440
PartiesJames W. LATREILLE, D. C., Appellant, v. MICHIGAN STATE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS, Appellee.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

Harold Helper, Detroit, for appellant.

Paul L. Adams, Atty. Gen., Samuel J. Torina, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Gregory H. Frederick, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before the Entire Bench, except KAVANAGH, J.

EDWARDS, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in the circuit court of Genesee county affirming an order of the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners suspending the license of appellant James W. Latreille 'until such time as he complies with the Michigan Basic Science Act No. 59 of the Public Acts of 1937, as amended.'

The action of the State Board was taken after a hearing upon charges that appellant's license to practice chiropractic in Michigan was obtained through fraud and deceit. Appellant appealed to the circuit court. The circuit judge, after hearing the evidence on the fact question involved, found that appellant's license was procured by fraud.

The significant questions posed on appeal are:

1) Do the proofs show fraud in the obtaining of the license in question?

2) Was the suspension barred by the fact that the complaint was filed more than seven years after issuance of the license?

The application for the license, which appellant signed under oath, set forth dates of birth and graduation from high school which appellant admits were false. Attached to the filed application and admitted in evidence was a photostatic copy of a certificate of matriculation in the Ross College of Chiropractic. The date of matriculation thereon stated is September 16, 1936. It is not disputed that on that date James W. Latreille was 13 years of age, and that in fact he never attended Ross College. The significance of this certificate is indicated by comparison with another exhibit--a handwritten Ross College matriculation certificate identical with the photostat except for showing the name of James H. Latreille (the appellant's father, from whose file in the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners' office the exhibit was taken) and except for showing the date of matriculation as September 16, 1931.

The most casual examination of the photostatic copy shows that it has been altered by writing a 'W' over the 'H' of the middle initial in the certificate, and the figure '6' over the last figure in the date September 16, 1931.

At the time of appellant's application a State law, C.L.1948, § 338.1 et seq. (Stat.Ann.1947 Cum.Supp. § 14.791 et seq.), required any person practicing healing in Michigan to take a basic science examination. The statute exempted any person matriculated in any chiropractic school or college on or before October 15, 1937. The false dates and the false certificate of matriculation served to qualify appellant for this exemption.

The burden of appellant's argument is not really a denial that fraud was committed. It is that appellant did not personally commit the fraud and hence should not be penalized for it. His claim is that the application which he signed was filled out by a Dr. Charles Tennant, former secretary of the State Board (now dead), and that appellant did not read it. He also claims that the Ross College matriculation photostat was procured by Dr. Tennant, and that he (appellant) didn't know how it got into the State Board file attached to the application. But, on cross-examination, appellant clearly indicated that he knew, at the time of his application, of the procurement and filing of the Ross College matriculation certificate and that the purpose was to exempt him from the requirement of taking the basic science examination.

The circuit judge was fully justified in finding that 'his [appellant's] license was obtained by a fraud.'

Nor do we believe that the sevenyear lapse between issuance of the license and the complaint barred the suspension entered by the State Board.

The Board acted within a specific statutory grant of power.

'The board shall have power to refuse, or to suspend for a limited period, the license of any chiropractor for any of the following causes:

* * *

* * *

'(c) For fraud or deceit in procuring admission to practice.' C.L.1948, § 338.157 (Stat.Ann.1956 Rev. § 14.597).

No limitation in time is stated as to the Board's right to refuse or suspend under subsection (c).

Generally, a State license to practice a profession creates no vested interest, and the right which the license grants may be withdrawn for proper cause by the authority which granted it. Schireson v. Shafer, 354 Pa. 458, 47 A.2d 665, 165 A.L.R. 1133; State v. Schaeffer, 129 Wis. 459, 109 N.W. 522.

Material fraud in application for a State license is a proper cause for revocation or suspension. Andrews v. Auer, 177 Mich. 244, 143 N.W. 68; Mower v. State Department of Health, 108 Conn. 74, 142 A. 473, appeal dismissed 278 U.S. 570, 49 S.Ct. 82, 73 L.Ed. 511.

See, also, In re Price, 226 App.Div. 460, 235 N.Y.S. 601; In re Leonard, 127 App.Div. 493, 111 N.Y.S. 905, affirmed 193 N.Y. 655, 87 N.E. 1121; Annotation, 165 A.L.R. 1138, Public license as revocable for fraud or other misconduct before, or at the time of, its issuance.

The suspension of a professional license until statutory qualifications are met may not be considered as punishment. Rather it is an exercise of the State's discretion as to whether the person is properly qualified to continue holding the license. Hawker v. People of State of New York, 170 U.S. 189, 18 S.Ct. 573, 42 L.Ed. 1002; Klafter v. State Board of Examiners of Architects, 259 Ill. 15, 102 N.E. 193, 46 L.R.A.,N.S., 532. Our Court has held such actions to be founded upon the State's police powers. Kennedy v. State Board of Registration in Medicine, 145 Mich. 241, 108 N.W. 730; Hanson v. Michigan State Board of Registration in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Dept. of Health v. Vna
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 28 September 2007
    ...arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably impair, interfere with, or eradicate the same"); Latreille v. Mich. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs, 357 Mich. 440, 98 N.W.2d 611, 614 (1959) (stating that a license to practice a profession creates no vested interest and that the license may be ......
  • Nims v. WA. BD. OF REGISTRATION
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 30 August 2002
    ...443 So.2d 373 (Fla.App.1983); Chock v. Bitterman, 5 Hawaii App. 59, 678 P.2d 576 (1984); Latreille v. Mich. State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs, 357 Mich. 440, 98 N.W.2d 611 (1959); Blumberg v. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 96 N.J.L. 331, 115 A. 439 (1921); Corines v. State Bd. for Prof'l Med. C......
  • State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Mauney
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 7 March 1966
    ...may be revoked in the exercise of police power of the state, Fochi v. Splain, Sup., 36 N.Y.S.2d 774; Latreille v. Michigan State Board of Chiropractic Exam., 357 Mich. 440, 98 N.W.2d 611, whether or not the power of revocation is reserved, Vincent Petroleum Corporation v. Culver City, 43 Ca......
  • Nolan v. Michigan Dept. of Licensing & Regulation, Docket No. 80662
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 15 August 1986
    ...by license may be withdrawn for proper cause by the authority which granted the license, Latreille v. Michigan State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, 357 Mich. 440, 444-445, 98 N.W.2d 611 (1959). The state has discretion, founded on its police powers, to determine whether a person is properly......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT