Marmer v. Board of Registration of Chiropractors

• Decision Date: 24 June 1970
• Citation: 358 Mass. 13,260 N.E.2d 672
• Parties: Henry I. MARMER v. BOARD OF REGISTRATION OF CHIROPRACTORS.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 672

260 N.E.2d 672

358 Mass. 13

Henry I. MARMER v. BOARD OF REGISTRATION OF CHIROPRACTORS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued March 5, 1970.

Decided June 24, 1970.

Irving Marmer, Boston, for plaintiff.

Lawrence H. Norris, Asst. Atty. Gen., (Walter H. Mayo, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., with him), for defendant.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, CUTTER, KIRK, SPIEGEL, REARDON, and QUIRICO, JJ.

REARDON, Justice.

The plaintiff in this suit in equity was an unsuccessful applicant for registration to practice chiropractic in Massachusetts, having failed the practical technique portion of three qualifying examinations which he took in March, September and December of 1967. He passed the written portion the first time he took the examination. His bill relates among other charges that due to the interrelationship of certain officers and directors of the Massachusetts Chiropractic Association and the Board of Registration of Chiropractors, which had in its membership an individual who had been president of the Massachusetts Chiropractic Association, there has been a concerted attempt to prevent the plaintiff's registration. He alleges that '(h)aving failed to preclude the * * * (plaintiff's) written examination by the Board, they now seek to prevent his registration by making it impossible for him to ever demonstrate his proficiency in practical chiropractic techinque, using the inherently vague character of the practical demonstration to accomplish this purpose.' He further charges 'that the Board used arbitrary, capricious and differing standards of proficiency for each candidate, or no defined administrative standards at all, during the examinations of practical technique it conducted on March 30, September 20 and December 14, 1967.' He alleges that while others were examined only superficially or not at all the examination which he underwent was minute and intensive and so arranged 'that he could never successfully demonstrate his chiropractic technique to this Board's satisfaction.' He asks that the defendant board be required to evaluate his results in the practical examinations which he took 'according to standardized procedures, using the same criteria and achievement levels applied to all other examination candidates on those dates.' Further, he prays that the court order the defendant to evaluate his examinations' results 'according to defined administrative standards, applied impartially and uniformly to the results achieved by other examination candidates on those same dates,' and that the defendant should be ordered to register him as a chiropractor on the payment of the statutory fee.

The defendant demurred on two grounds; first, that the plaintiff's bill had failed to set forth facts sufficient to entitle him to relief in equity, and, second, that the bill was so vague and indefinite as 'to fail to inform the * * * (defendant) of the claim or claims intended to be asserted against * * * (it).'

An interlocutory decree sustaining the demurrer on ground one without leave to amend and a final decree dismissing the bill were entered in the Superior Court. The plaintiff appealed from both decrees.

The question posed by the appeals is whether the plaintiff was entitled to equitable relief instead of proceeding for relief through some other means.

General Laws c. 30A, § 1(1), defines an adjudicatory proceeding as a 'proceeding before an agency in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of specifically named persons are required by constitutional right or by any provision of the General Laws to be determined after opportunity for an agency hearing.' There can be no doubt that the Board of Registration of Chiropractors is an agency as defined in G.L. c. 30A, § 1(2), as amended by St.1965, c. 725. ¹ Under G.L. c. 112, § 93, there is conferred upon the board express authority to conduct adjudicatory proceedings. ² Milligan v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy, 348 Mass. 491, 494, 204 N.E.2d 504. In applying for registration each applicant must fulfill certain educational and character requirements (G.L. c. 112, § 91) prior to being given under G.L. c. 112, § 94, a written examination as well as an examination on the 'practical demonstrations of chiropractic technique. * * * Every applicant whom the board finds qualified to practice chiropractic shall be registered as a chiropractor by the board.' In the event that an applicant fails in his examination the statute is silent as to any procedures providing for reevaluation of his examination results. We are of the belief, however, that an opportunity for an agency hearing relative to those results should be afforded where there is a question of arbitrary and capricious conduct in grading examinations on the part of the board as alleged by the plaintiff. In our view the plaintiff is entitled to such a hearing which is 'required by constitutional right' within the meaning of c. 30A, § 1(1).

As we stated in Milligan v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy, supra, 495, 204 N.E.2d 508, 'There is growing recognition (1) that administrative decisions on applications for licenses and permits to engage in a lawful occupation * * * directly affects the personal rights, property, or economic interests of the applicant, and (2) that fundamental considerations of fairness require such decisions * * * to be made objectively, under reasonable procedures, and with appropriate opportunity for judicial review' (emphasis supplied). We there noted that this opportunity is important 'because of the increasingly large number of...