Munroe v. Wall

• Decision Date: 26 June 1959
• Docket Number: No. 6496,6496
• Citation: 1959 NMSC 54,340 P.2d 1069,66 N.M. 15
• Parties: Dr. D. R. MUNROE and Dr. Marion B. Munroe, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. J. Embry WALL, Gordon K. Greaves, T. E. Mears, Jr., Billy Schumpert and L. D. Hays, as Members of the Board of Trustees of the Roosevelt Generl Hospital, Defendants- Appellees.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Page 1069

340 P.2d 1069

66 N.M. 15

Dr. D. R. MUNROE and Dr. Marion B. Munroe Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. J. Embry WALL, Gordon K. Greaves, T. E. Mears, Jr., Billy Schumpert and L. D. Hays, as Members of the Board of Trustees of the Roosevelt Generl Hospital Defendants- Appellees.

No. 6496.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

June 26, 1959.

C. Melvin Neal, Hobbs, Hartley, Buzzard & Patton, Clovis, for appellants.

Frank B. Zinn, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Pyatt, Fred M. Calkins, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., James C. Compton, Dist. Atty., Portales, for appellees.

CARMODY, Justice.

Appellants seek a reversal of the action of the trial court in dismissing their complaint in a case filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 1953 Comp. Sec. 22-6-1 et seq., seeking a judicial declaration of the legality of a regulation promulgated by the Board of Trustees of the Roosevelt General Hospital, appellees here.

The trial court sustained appellees' motion to dismiss, on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The findings of fact made by the trial court were as follows:

'1. The parties to this action are all residents of Roosevelt County, New Mexico.

'2. The defendants constitute the governing body of the Roosevelt General Hospital, Portales, New Mexico, a public county hospital validly organized and operating under the laws of the State of New Mexico.

'3. Plaintiffs are qualified Doctors of Osteopathy, licensed to practice medicine under the laws of the State of New Mexico, and are presently practicing as such.

'4. Defendants, in their official capacity as the governing body of the Roosevelt General Hospital, have enacted a certain hospital regulation, as follows:

"The Board of Trustees shall appoint a Medical Staff composed of physicians who are graduates of medical schools approved by the American Medical Association, and shall see that they are organized into a responsible administrative unit.'

'5. Plaintiffs are not graduates of a medical school approved by the American Medical Association. Pursuant to the terms of the regulation quoted above, plaintiffs have been denied membership on the medical staff of such hospital for such reason and have thereby also been denied the use of the professional facilities of the hospital by defendants.'

There is no consitutional question involved in the case, the appellants having specifically stated that they are not contending that any constitutional right has been denied them, this question having been determined by the Supreme Court of the United States adversely to the position taken by appellants here, Hayman v. City of Galveston, 273 U.S. 414, 47 S.Ct. 363, 71 L.Ed. 714. The sole and only question is, therefore, one of statutory construction. The statute, being Sec. 67-8-12, 1953 Comp., 1957 Supp., provides as follows:

'Osteopathic physicians and surgeons licensed hereunder shall have equal rights, privileges, and obligations in the handling of cases and rendering of medical services in all branches and phases of the healing arts as are accorded or permitted physicians and surgeons of other schools of practice; that such general rights shall extend to the rendering of medical services under the provisions of public health, welfare, assistance laws and other fields of public medicine, and no regulations shall be made with respect thereto limiting, excluding or discriminating against osteopathic physicians and surgeons.

'Osteopathic physicians and surgeons shall also have the right to register under the laws of the United States governing narcotics. Osteopathic physicians shall observe and be subject to all state and municipal regulations relative to the reporting of births and deaths and all matters pertaining to the public health with equal rights and obligations as physicians and surgeons of other schools of medicine, and such reports shall be accepted by the officers of the departments to which they are made.

'(a) The rights, benefits and obligations conferred by this act upon licensed osteopathic physicians and surgeons shall not be construed as taking from the governing authorities of all state, county and municipal hospitals, or from any publicly supported hospital either in whole or in part the complete control and management of such hospitals with power to make rules and regulations for the operation of such hospitals and to determine who will be on the staff of such hospitals; nor shall this act be construed as taking from the governing authorities of any hospital or other institution owned, operated, or maintained by any religious, industrial or fraternal group or organization the absolute right of complete control and management of such hospitals and institutions.'

Appellants urge that this law requires the governing board of a public hospital to offord to osteopathic surgeons and physicians the same treatment as is given to doctors of medicine who are graduates of American Medical Association approved colleges or, in other words, that the legislature intended to place osteopathic physicians on the same footing as medical doctors in every respect.

One guide in the construction of a statute that has been found to be most useful to the courts is the consideration of the history and prior condition of a particular law. Chapter 117, Sec. 12, Session Laws of 1933, provided generally that osteopaths were to be accorded the same general rights as medical doctors in the handling of cases. Chapter 79, Sec. 4, Session Laws of 1945, contained a similar provision, but there was added to the same '* * * no plan, program, or other matter * * *' could be approved by public officials if it discriminated against osteopaths. Chapter 117, Sec. 1, Session Laws of 1947, carried forward the provisions of the 1945 Act and added a new proviso which read as follows:

'Provided, however, if the presence of any osteopathic physician on the staff of any tax supported hospital will under federal law or regulation prevent such hospital from receiving any federal funds the governing authority of such hospital will have the power to remove all osteopathic physicians from the staff of such hospital.'

The present law above quoted, which was enacted as Chapter 42, Sec. 1, Session Laws of 1955, contains the 'equal rights in regard to handling cases,' but the antidiscrimination provision and the above proviso were eliminated and the above subsection (a) was added. What the legislative reasons were in adding this section, we of course do not know, but all of the statutes mentioned relate solely to the practice of osteopathy and nowhere else in these statutes are public hospitals mentioned. Actually, the operation of county hospitals is dealt with in an entirely different section of our law, being Sec. 15-48-10, 1953 Comp., 1957 Supp., which gives to the trustees full authority to manage and operate the hospital.

Therefore, it would appear to us that, based upon the history of the osteopathic statutes, a fair analysis of the statute in question would be that the first two paragraphs thereof place osteopaths on equal footing with medical doctors, but that the third paragraph reserves to the governing boards of public hospitals full control over the making of regulations to determine who should be on the staff, irrespective of the so-called equal rights given to osteopaths. If it were otherwise, there would have been no reason for the elimination of the 'anti-discrimination' and 'permissive removal from the staff' provisions of the 1947 law.

Appellants also contend that the title to the act in question should give an indication...