Matthews v. Murphy

• Decision Date: 22 June 1901
• Citation: 63 S.W. 785
• Parties: MATTHEWS et al. v. MURPHY. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

63 S.W. 785

MATTHEWS et al. v. MURPHY. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 22, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Warren county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by G. N. Murphy against J. N. Matthews and others for an injunction. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Wright & McElroy, W. S. Pryor, Aaron Kohn, and Edward W. Hines, for appellants.

Lewis McQuown and Wilkins & Bradburn. for appellee.

PAYNTER C.J.

The principal question involved is the validity of section 2615 Ky. St., under which the appellants, the state board of health, undertook, for alleged unprofessional conduct, to revoke the certificate of the appellee, which had been granted him to practice medicine in this state. The section reads as follows: "The state board of health may refuse to issue the certificate provided for in section two thousand six hundred and thirteen of this article to any individual guilty of grossly unprofessional conduct of a character likely to deceive or defraud the public, and it may, after due notice and hearing, revoke such certificates for like cause. In all cases of refusal or revocation the applicant may appeal to the governor, who may affirm or overrule the decision of the board, and this decision shall be final." From the averments of the petition it appears that the appellee received the degree of M. D. from the Kentucky School of Medicine, a reputable medical college chartered under the laws of this state; that he took a post graduate course in New York City and also in Chicago; that he had spent a large sum of money in acquiring his medical education; that after his diploma had been registered in the office of the clerk of the Warren county court, as required by law, he was, on October 3, 1893 granted a certificate by the state board of health, which authorized him to practice medicine in this state. While it is not our purpose to discuss the charges upon which the state board of health proposed to try the appellee, it may be well to give an epitome of them. It is charged--First, that he advertised that he could cure cancer, tapeworm, and piles without the use of the knife; second, by advertising he reflected upon the medical profession; third, practicing osteopathy; fourth, he guaranties a cure or no pay; fifth, that by reason of the alleged acts he has been guilty of unprofessional conduct of a character likely to deceive or defraud the public. Section 2613, Ky. St., authorizes the state board of health, upon application, to issue a certificate to any reputable physician, who is practicing or who desires to begin the practice of medicine in this state, who possesses any of the following qualifications: "(1) A diploma from a reputable medical college legally chartered under the laws of this state. (2) A diploma from a reputable and legally chartered medical college of some other state or country, indorsed as such by the state board of health. (3) A satisfactory evidence from the person claiming the same that such person was reputably and honorably engaged in the practice of medicine in this state prior the February twenty-third, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four. (4) Satisfactory evidence from any person who was reputably and honorably engaged in the practice of medicine in this state prior to February twenty-third, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-four, who has passed a satisfactory practical examination before said board. Applicants may present their credentials by mail or proxy, and the board shall issue its certificate to such applicants as are entitled thereto as though the applicant was present. All certificates shall be signed by the president and secretary, and attested by seal of the board, and not more than two dollars shall be charged for any certificate."

The appellee possessed the requisite qualifications, which entitled him to a license to practice his profession, and the state board of health accordingly gave it to him. It is sought now to deprive him of that license because of the alleged unprofessional conduct. The license which he received is certainly a "right" or "estate." The purpose of our statute, in conferring upon the state board of health the right to grant to persons, possessing certain qualifications, the right to practice medicine, was with the...