Parsons v. Chasse

• Decision Date: 21 November 1963
• Citation: 195 A.2d 72,159 Me. 463
• Parties: Neil L. PARSONS v. Richard L. CHASSE et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 72

195 A.2d 72

159 Me. 463

Neil L. PARSONS v. Richard L. CHASSE et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Nov. 21, 1963.

Richard B. Sanborn, Augusta, for plaintiff.

Leon V. Walker, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, for defendant.

Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, SULLIVAN, SIDDALL and MARDEN, JJ.

SULLIVAN, Justice.

Plaintiff, a physician and surgeon, filed a complaint against the members of the Board of Registration in Medicine. R.S. c. 66, as amended. Defendants responded by filing a motion, asserting a lack of jurisdiction in the Superior Court to review a decision of the Board, which had denied the Plaintiff's petition for reinstatement as a licensed physician and surgeon. Maine Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b), (1), 155 Me. 500. The parties at the hearing upon the motion sought from the Court the subjection of the complaint to the more comprehensive test, whether Plaintiff had stated any claim upon which relief could be granted. M.R.C.P., Rule 12(b), (6). The Justice of the trial court granted Defendants' motion and dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.

The complaint is extensive almost to prolixity and in certain important details is neither helpfully informative nor expositive. Therefore in preference to the hazarding of a condensed statement we elect to quote verbatim here the body of the complaint.

'1. The Petitioner-Plaintiff graduated from Tufts Medical School in 1922, was licensed to practice as a physician and surgeon in Maine in 1924, and carried on a very active and respected medical practice in Damariscotta and its region for about 33 years.

'2. On or about the year 1955 a small group of local doctors complained against him before said Board seeking revocation of his license.

'3. On July 12, 1955 the Board, acting upon the recommendation of the Attorney General's department, voted that the matters were not grounds for a revocation of license and that no hearing should be held.

'4. On July 10, 1956 following further pressure from said small group the Board voted that said doctors be informed that the Petitioner had done nothing to warrant revocation.

'5. On March 14, 1957 after further complaint on the same matters from the same group the Board tabled the complaint in consideration of the Petitioner voluntarily leaving his practice and the state, which he did.

'6. On May 27, 1957 the Board stated 'it has no charges of any kind pending against him at this time,' that 'he is a licensed practitioner in this State,' and 'is a bright man, well trained, intelligent and very personable.

'7. The Petitioner in 1957-1959 attempted to practice in Massachusetts, but was denied access to use of hospital facilities because of action taken by the above local group of doctors.

'8. Following further pressure to the Board by said group, on July 8, 1958 the Board Stated to them that it 'could not revoke his license at the present time inasmuch as we have insufficient evidence under our Law of Revocation.'

'9. On March 10, 1959 after the renewal of pressure by said doctors the Petitioner, discouraged and under duress, turned in his certificate to the Board, no findings being made.

'10. As a result said Petitioner has not practiced his profession in Maine for approximately 5 years and has sustained a penalty in the loss of income of about $100,000.

'11. In June, 1961 said Petitioner contacted the Secretary of the Board with regard to reinstatement and was informed that he had paid sufficient penalty and that if he could secure the consent of the Damariscotta doctors, his certificate would be reinstated.

'12. The Damariscotta doctors refused to give their consent upon being requested to do so.

'13. Over 900 residents of the Damariscotta region have filed petitions with the Board requesting that the Petitioner be permitted to practice, they stating they have complete confidence in his ability as a practicing physician and surgeon.

'14. On December 16, 1960 when said Petitioner filed a petition with the Board for a hearing and reinstatement, The Board without giving the Petitioner any hearing tabled the same for several meetings and then after a year of delay denied it without hearing or without giving any reason on January 10, 1962.

'15. On June 12, 1962 when again said Petitioner filed a petition with the Board for reinstatement, the matter was delayed until November 13, 1962, at which time the Board refused to permit the Petitioner to present any witnesses to testify on his behalf, informed him that the Damariscotta doctors still objected to his reinstatement and then on said date denied his petition without giving any reason therefor.

'Said Petitioner is entitled to practice his profession in the State of Maine and actions of the Board in denying his right to practice and in refusing reinstatement are null and void, unreasonable, arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to the statute and to due process, for the following reasons:

'1. The alleged charges against the Petitioner do not constitute grounds for suspension or revocation under Ch. 66, Sec. 6 of the Revised Statutes.

'2. Said Petitioner was never served with proper specific charges thereof.

'3. The Board acknowledged and well knew it had no valid charges of any kind pending against him, yet improperly brought pressure to bear to force an alleged 'resignation.'

'4. The alleged 'resignation' on March 10, 1959 was invalid and incomplete as even were it to constitute revocation of the certificate it did not constitute cancellation of the registration, as required by Ch. 66, Sec. 6.

'5. The action of the Board of March 10, 1959 was invalid as the Board's records indicate the meeting was called without proper notice and the 2/3 vote of the entire Board required by said statute was not obtained.

'6. The alleged 'resignation' was invalid as said statute provides for suspension and revocation, but not for resignation.

'7. Said actions of the Board are invalid as it never enacted proper rules and regulations for the enforcement of its authority and the performance of its duties as required by Ch. 66, Sec. 2, nor followed the same.

'8. Said actions of the Board are invalid as it has always failed and refused to file with the office of the Secretary of State a record of the names and residences of all persons registered by it, as required by Ch. 66, Sec. 5, and there is no valid registration of doctors in the State, for the Petitioner or for anyone, the Petitioner being registered as much as any doctor.

'9. Said actions of the Board are invalid as it has always failed and refused to file annually with the Governor a report containing a full and complete account of all its official acts during the preceding year, as required by Ch. 66, Sec. 5, and its alleged official acts are invalid.

'10. Even if the tabling of the complaint against the Petitioner in 1957 and the 'resignation' in 1959 were valid and even if they constituted a denial of his right to practice his profession, which is herein denied, the loss of the right to practice from then to date constitutes an unjust and unfair penalty and punishment the severity of which is far heavier and is not commensurate with the alleged charges, considering the Petitioner's tremendous financial loss, his wife and five children, and his present age and life expectancy.

'11. The consideration of the Board in leaving the Petitioner's right to practice dependant upon his securing assent of his competitors and particularly a group who have been antagonistic to him for years renders the action of the Board null and void and prevents an impartial decision.

'12. The action of the Board in his 1960 petition for reinstatement in delaying consideration of the same, refusing a hearing, and denying the same without cause or giving reasons is arbitrary and contrary to due process.

'13. The action of the Board on his 1962 petition for reinstatement in refusing him the right to present his own witnesses, in considering improper evidence, and in denying the same without cause or giving reasons is arbitrary and contrary to due process.

'14. The actions of the Board are invalid and arbitrary for various and sundry other reasons.

'WHEREFORE, your Petitioner prays that,

'1. This Court enter its decree that the Petitioner is authorized to practice as a licensed physician and surgeon, both hithertofore and after the date hereof.

'2. That a writ issue from this Court to said Richard L. Chasse, George E. Sullivan, Stephen A. Cobb, J. Paul Nadeau, Martyn A. Vickers and George L. Maltby, commanding them to appear before this Court and show cause, if any they have, why the Petitioner should not have a certificate and registration as a physician and surgeon.

'3. That he may have such other relief as may be reasonable and proper.'

The issues trajected here are commemorative of that unmourned era of the demurrer and joinder. Under our sagacious civil rules more definite statement, discovery devices, clarifying amendment, accommodative reapproachment and pretrial exchange probably would have obviated the expenditure of the pains and time here demanded for the determination of a merely liminal problem as to whether the encompassing complaint in this case, suggestive of a medley of problems and alternatives discloses fairly a claim supportive of litigation.

Certain rules of procedure are regulative for the performance of our abstruse and confused task.

'* * * They (the civil rules) shall be construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.' Rule 1, M.R.C.P., 155 Me. 479.

'* * * All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice.' Rule 8(f), M.R.C.P., 155 Me. 496.

Maine Civil Practice, Field and McKusick, pp. 167, 168, comments with respect to Rule 12(b), M.R.C.P., 155 Me. 500, in part, as follows:

'* * * All well-pleaded material allegations are taken as admitted for the purposes of the motion, but not conclusions of law from the facts alleged.

'* * * On a...