Raaf v. State Board of Medical Examiners

• Citation: 84 P. 33,11 Idaho 707
• Parties: RAAF v. STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS
• Decision Date: 20 January 1906
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

84 P. 33

11 Idaho 707

RAAF v. STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

Supreme Court of Idaho

January 20, 1906

STATE MEDICAL LAW-BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS-POWERS QUASI JUDICIAL-APPLICANTS FOR EXAMINATION-ACTION OF BOARD IN REFUSING LICENSE MAY BE REVIEWED ON CERTIORARI.

1. Under act approved March 3, 1899 (Sess. Laws 1899, 345) known as the state medical law, the state board of medical examiners, in the the examination of applicants for a license to practice medicine and surgery, is required to exercise judgment and discretion in granting or refusing a license to such applicant, and in so doing exercises quasi judicial functions.

2. The state medical law contains no provision granting the right of appeal from the action of the board of examiners in refusing a license to an applicant, but by the terms of section 9 of the act it is provided that the action of the board in refusing to grant a license under the provisions thereof may be reviewed by the district court on certiorari, provided proceedings therefor be instituted within ten days after notice of such refusal.

3. By conferring the right to have the action of the board in refusing to grant a liceuse reviewed as provided in section 9 of the act, the legislature have indicated an intention to limit and confine the authority and jurisdiction of the courts in considering the action of the board to the procedure and scope of investigation and inquiry usually and ordinarily pursued and exercised by the courts in the issuance and consideration of writs of review.

4. The legislature has provided for a board of experts learned in medicine and surgery for the purpose of examining applicants for license to practice within this state, and the language of the medical act and the purposes and objects thereof preclude any inference that the legislature ever intended that a disappointed applicant might apply to the court and there have his answers re-examined, marked, graded and passed upon as to their correctness by the court.

5. The courts are open to compel action by the state board of medical examiners when they fail or refuse to act, and to review their authority where they have assumed to exercise powers not conferred, but the courts will not review and re-examine matters in which the board is called upon to exercise judgment and discretion and perform quasi judicial functions in reference thereto.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District. Honorable Lyttleton Price, Judge.

Plaintiff instituted proceedings in the district court for review and examination of the action and proceeding of the State Board of Medical Examiners in refusing to grant him a license to practice medicine and surgery within this state, and prayed that the court enter a judgment and decree declaring him rightfully entitled to practice his profession in this state. Judgment for defendant, the State Board of Medical Examiners. From the judgment and an order denying a motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

Judgment of the lower court in denying plaintiff relief affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

P. M Bruner and Sullivan & Sullivan, for Appellant, cite no authorities on the points decided.

Frank Martin and McFadden & Brodhead, for Respondent.

Under the rule of law which has been declared by this court and supported by the weight of authority, the findings of the lower court arrived at from a consideration of conflicting evidence will not be disturbed by this court where there is any competent evidence to support the findings. (Chamberlain v. Woodin, 2 Idaho 642, 23 P. 177; State v. Haverly, 4 Idaho 484, 486, 42 P. 506 People v. Wong Chong Suey, 110 Cal. 117, 42 P. 420; Frankfort v. Coleman, 19 Ind.App. 368, 65 Am. St. Rep. 412, 49 N.E. 474; Smith v. Thomas, 121 Cal. 533, 54 P. 71; Meyer v. Great Western Ins. Co., 104 Cal. 381, 38 P. 82.) The medical law does not provide for any appeal from the action of the board and that this court has held that where no appeal is provided for by statute the proper remedy is by writ of review. (Gans v. Steele, 7 Idaho 143, 61 P. 286.) Upon a writ of review the court will not consider the evidence upon which the inferior tribunal acted for the purpose of deciding a question of fact. (Oregon Coal etc. Co. v. Coos County, 30 Or. 308, 47 P. 851; Smith v. City of Portland, 25 Or. 297, 35 P. 665.) A review can only go to the question as to whether the inferior tribunal or board has regularly pursued its authority. (Farmers' etc. Bank v. Board of Equalization of Los Angeles, 97 Cal. 318, 32 P. 312.) That a judgment of a medical board as to the qualifications of an applicant for a license by examination is largely, if not wholly, discretionary and must of necessity be conclusive. (Van Vleck v. Board etc. (Cal.), 48 P. 223, 224; Keller v. Hewitt, 109 Cal. 146, 41 P. 871.) When a board or tribunal is required by law to pass upon and ascertain some fact, its decision is final, unless some manner of review is provided for by law, and then the manner provided for by law must be followed. (Spaulding v. North San Francisco Homestead Assn., 87 Cal. 40, 45, 24 P. 600, 25 P. 249; Fairchilds v. Wall, 93 Cal. 401, 29 P. 60.) The action of the board in fixing the grades of the plaintiff is not reviewable by the courts so far as facts are concerned. (Iowa Eclectic etc. v. Schrader, 87 Iowa 659, 55 N.W. 24, 20 L. R. A. 355, 359.) It has also been held that the action of the commissioners in assessing the benefits to property of a special assessment was final and could not be inquired into by the courts. (In re Westlake (Wash.), 82 P. 279.) The determination of questions relating to the fitness of an individual to carry on an occupation requiring special knowledge, care and prudence, such as the practice of the professions of law and medicine, devolve everywhere upon boards of inspection composed of experts in the particular occupation in question. (People v. Hasbrouck, 11 Utah 291, 39 P. 918.) In the case of People v. Dental Examiners, 110 Ill. 180, on page 185, the court says: "Whether a college be reputable or not is not a legal question but a question of fact. This question of fact was by the act submitted to the decision of the board, not in so many words, but by the plainest and most necessary implication. . . . No other tribunal is authorized to investigate them. The act of ascertaining and determining what are the facts is in its nature judicial. It involves investigation, judgment and discretion and when such questions are decided by the board the decision is final." (State v. Board of Health, 53 N.J.L. 594, 22 A. 226, 227; State v. Hathaway, 115 Mo. 36, 47, 21 S.W. 1081; Wilkins v. State, 113 Ind. 514, 516, 16 N.E. 192.) Where a board has discretionary power, such as the state medical board, its action on matters of fact is not revisable by the courts. (State etc. v. Gregory, 83 Mo. 123, 136, 137, 53 Am. Rep. 565.)

AILSHIE, J. Stockslager, C. J., concurs. Sullivan, J., expresses no opinion.

OPINION

The facts are stated in the opinion.

AILSHIE, J.

The plaintiff, J. J. Raaf, applied to the State Board of Medical Examiners on October 1, 1904, for a license to practice medicine and surgery under the laws of this state, and on the fourth and fifth days of October, took the examination as provided by law. On the twenty-sixth day of October he was notified by the board that he had failed to pass the examination for the reason that he had only answered fifty-five and seven-tenths per cent of the questions submitted to him. Thereafter and within ten days after receiving notice, the appellant filed his complaint in the district court in and for Blaine county, setting forth that he was a graduate from a regularly chartered and reputable medical college in good standing, and that he was a citizen of the United States and of the state of Idaho resident within the county of Blaine, and that he had regularly made application to the board for examination, and had thereafter taken the examination. The real cause of his complaint against the board, and, in fact, the ground upon which he seeks relief, is set forth in paragraph 6 of his complaint and is as follows: "That on account of mistakes, oversight, misplacement of papers inadvertence, accident or some wrongful mishap or cause unintentional or otherwise, the said board did not deal with, judge of and decide concerning his answers to said questions submitted and his examination as it dealt with, judged of and decided concerning the answers and examinations of other applicants so then examined, and did not deal with, judge of and decide concerning his said answers and examination by same standard as used concerning the work of the other applicants and did not for his work adopt the reasonable and true standard or a just standard, but wrongfully and in manner above stated, or in some other unjust and wrongful manner applied to his work, answers and examination, a more rigid and exacting standard, with no such leniency as adopted toward the work of the other applicants then examined and with no just degree of leniency and with no proper regard to the nature of the questions, the time required and the reasonable, as to be expected, correctness of his answers. Nor did said board give to plaintiff such standing, grade and marking as was right, just and reasonable from the character of the questions and answers made by plaintiff and gave plaintiff an average of but fifty-five and seven-tenths per cent, when plaintiff, under the standard adopted for said examination and used for the work of other applicants, was entitled to an average and grade of over seventy-five per cent and to his license; that said rating of plaintiff was erroneous and was unjust to plaintiff and was not made...