Martin v. Baldy

• Decision Date: 19 April 1915
• Docket Number: 52
• Citation: 249 Pa. 253,94 A. 1091
• Parties: Martin v. Baldy, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

94 A. 1091

249 Pa. 253

Martin v. Baldy, Appellant

No. 52

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April 19, 1915

Argued March 29, 1915 [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeal, No. 52, Jan. T., 1915, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. No. 4, Philadelphia Co., June T., 1914, No. 4163, in equity, enjoining defendants from enforcing certain regulations against plaintiffs in case of Alexander Martin and Otto G. Haussmann v. John M. Baldy, Nathan C. Schaeffer, Samuel G. Dixon, William Alvah Stewart, Daniel P. Maddux, Calvin L. Johnstonbaugh, Adolph Koenig, Members of the Bureau of Medical Education and Licensure, of the Department of Public Instruction of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and together constituting such Bureau; John M. Baldy, as President of said Bureau, and Nathan C. Schaeffer, as Secretary of said Bureau. Affirmed.

Bill in equity for an injunction to restrain members of the State Bureau of Medical Education and Licensure, of the Department of Public Instruction from enforcing against the plaintiffs the provisions of the Acts of June 3, 1911, P.L. 639, and July 25, 1913, P.L. 1220.

The facts appear from the following opinion by WILLSON, P.J.:

The plaintiffs have been for many years engaged in carrying on business in the City of Philadelphia, as optometrists. This business or profession is one in which those engaged in it, by means of examination of the eyes of patients, sometimes by the aid of instruments of various sorts, endeavor to ascertain the range of vision, visual powers in general, the extent of the visual field, the refractive estate or condition of the eye, and the position and movements of the eye-ball. They also adjust and make lenses to overcome defects of vision.

As we understand the facts of the case, there is no essential difference as to the nature of what is done by optometrists, between the plaintiffs and the defendants.

It is well established by the proofs that optometrists do not use medicines in the performance of their work, nor do they resort to anything of the nature of surgical treatment of eyes.

The defendants, by their regulations, adopted on the 24th of July, 1914, have defined optometry in the following terms: "Optometry is hereby defined to be the employment of any means other than the use of drugs for the measurement of the powers of vision, and the adaptation of the lenses for the correction and aid thereof."

This definition does not radically differ from the plaintiffs' own definition of the nature of their work, as set forth in paragraph 3 of the bill filed. We have, therefore, substantially adopted that definition as fully expressing what we regard to be the nature of the plaintiffs' work.

It appears from the proofs that the business or profession of optometry is one of ancient standing. Until a comparatively recent date, a large part of that which is done by optometrists was exclusively within their province and was not covered in practice by the efforts of the physician or surgeon. Within the last quarter of a century, or thereabouts, it appears from the proofs that, among those who are engaged in the making of lenses to correct or cure defects in eyes, there has arisen a classification or division, whereby some who make lenses confine themselves entirely to the work of making them in accordance with prescriptions given by physicians or oculists. These call themselves or are known as "opticians"; others, who still manufacture the lenses, either according to their own judgment or the prescription of physicians, do not confine themselves to the making of lenses, but also examine the eyes for the purpose of ascertaining whether there are such defects visible as can be corrected by the application of lenses. This class have taken the name of "optometrists," and that is the name by which they are now generally known.

Those who practice under the latter title are many in number and they are recognized in many states of the union as a class by themselves and regulated by statute.

In the year 1911, (Act of June 3, 1911, P.L. 639), there was enacted in this State, a statute which created "a Bureau of Medical Education and Licensure as a bureau of the Department of Public Instruction." The preamble to the statute sets forth the purposes which the legislature had in view in making the enactment, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas, The safety of the citizens of this Commonwealth is endangered by incompetent physicians and surgeons, and due regard for public health and preservation of human life demands that only competent physicians and surgeons shall be permitted to practice their profession."

In the section which follows the preamble it was enacted, "That on and after January first, nineteen hundred and twelve, it shall not be lawful for any person in the State of Pennsylvania, to engage in the practice of medicine or surgery or to hold himself or herself forth as a practitioner in medicine or surgery, or assume the title of doctor of medicine or surgery, or doctor of any specific disease, or diagnose diseases, or to treat diseases by the use of medicine or surgery, . . . excepting those hereinafter exempted, unless he or she has first fulfilled the requirements of this act, and received a certificate of licensure from the Bureau of Medical Education and Licensure, created by this act, which certificate of licensure shall be properly recorded in the office of the superintendent of the Bureau of Public Instruction, at Harrisburg."

The same section further provided that any person wilfully violating the provisions of the section, should, on conviction, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine and imprisonment or both at the discretion of the court. It is not necessary for the purposes of the case to state more fully the penal provisions.

By an Act of Assembly, approved July 25th, A.D. 1913, P.L. 1220, the Act of 1911 was amended in certain respects. The particular in which the amendments have the closest bearing upon the present case is the change of the title of the act. That title, as amended by the later of the two statutes, reads as follows: "An act relating to the right to practice medicine and surgery in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and providing a Bureau of Medical Education and Licensure as a bureau of the Department of Public Instruction; and means and methods whereby the right to practice medicine and surgery and any of its branches, may be obtained, and exemptions therefrom; and providing for an appropriation to carry out the provisions of said act; and providing for revocation and suspension of licenses by said bureau; and providing penalties for violation thereof, and repealing all acts or parts of acts inconsistent therewith." The title as so amended must be regarded as the title of the original act, from the time when the Act of 1913 became operative.

In pursuance of the powers which the defendants, who constitute the Bureau of Medical Education and Licensure, as it was created and empowered by the said enactments, at a meeting of the board, held on the 24th of July, 1914, undertook by regulations, which were then adopted, to bring the optometrists of the Commonwealth within the class of persons who were required by the acts of assembly above referred to, to obtain a license from the said board, before they could lawfully engage in the practice of their business or profession.

These regulations provide that those persons who had been engaged in the practice of optometry within the State for more than two years prior to July 24, 1914, and were of good moral character, should receive a license without examination, and that all other persons practicing optometry within the State, should be subjected to an examination to be held at a date to be fixed thereafter by the board.

It was further provided that applications to practice optometry under the regulations referred to, must be made at the office of the bureau in Harrisburg, on or before the first of November, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and that after January first, nineteen hundred and fifteen, it would be unlawful for any person to practice optometry within the State or to hold himself out as an optometrist, without having first qualified under certain prescribed tests, which were contained in the regulations adopted by the board. The license fee fixed by the board was the sum of $25.00.

Viewing the case as we do, we do not regard it as necessary to enter more fully into a statement or recital of the regulations of the board in the premises.

The plaintiffs have filed the bill in this case for the purpose of enjoining the defendants from carrying into effect the regulations before referred to and from adopting any other regulations or plans, affecting such persons as desire to practice optometry within the State.

We are also asked to decide that the Act of 1911, as amended by the Act of 1913, is unconstitutional, in so far as it attempts to regulate the practice of optometry, if it shall be held that that was covered by the scope of the statute.

We are also asked to decide that the two acts of assembly referred to, do not purport to, and do not in fact, regulate the practice of optometry in any manner whatsoever.

A considerable number of persons who assert that they are practicing optometrists within the State, have through their counsel, in writing, expressed their desire to join as parties plaintiff in the present case.

Before we take up for consideration what we regard as the principal and most substantial questions in the case, we may as well dispose of two preliminary points which have been raised by counsel.

The first is that taken in behalf of the defendants, to the effect that, as a court of equity, we cannot take jurisdiction...