Reagles v. Simpson, 39666

Decision Date24 November 1967
Docket NumberNo. 39666,39666
Citation434 P.2d 559,72 Wn.2d 577
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesVernon J. REAGLES, the Washington Osteopathic Medical Association, and Dorothy Brewer, Appellants, v. Robert W. SIMPSON and the Washington State Board of Medical Examiners, Respondents.

Aiken, St. Louis & Siljeg, Charles E. Siljeg, Seattle, for Dorothy brewer.

Greive & Law, R.R. Bob Greive, Seattle, for Vernon J. Reagles and Washington Osteopathic Medical Ass'n.

John J. O'Connell, Atty. Gen., Edward B. Mackie, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, for respondents.

Williams, Lanza, Kastner & Gibbs, Henry E. Kastner, Seattle, for Washington College of Physicians & Surgeons, amici curiae.

H. Joel Watkins, Copass, Franklin & Watkins, Daniel F. Sullivan, Sullivan, Burton & Meade, Seattle, Harold A. Pebbles, Pebbles, Swanson & Lindskog, Olympia, Wilbur J. Lawrence, Lane, Powell, Moss & Miller, Seattle, for amici curiae.

HUNTER, Judge.

This case comes before us on an appeal from a judgment of the Thurston County Superior Court, dismissing an application for review by certiorari of orders of the Washington State Board of Medical Examiners, defendants (respondents), (1) accrediting the Washington College of Physicians & Surgeons under RCW 18.71.055, and (2) issuing M.D. licenses to three osteopathic physicians and surgeons.

A statement of the following background material appearing in the record is essential to an understanding of the basic controversy involved in this case.

In June, 1961, the American Medical Association House of Delegates adopted a policy from which the following is a partial quote:

It is appropriate for the American Medical Association to reappraise its application of policy regarding relationships with doctors of osteopathy, in view of the transition of osteopathy into osteopathic medicine; in view of the fact that the colleges of osteopathy have modeled their curricula after medical schools; in view of the almost complete lack of osteopathic literature and the reliance of osteopaths on, and the use of, medical literature; and, in view of the fact that many doctors of osteopathy are no longer practicing osteopathy.

Policy should now be applied individually at state level according to the facts as they exist.

Thereafter, a 'merger' program was instituted in California, whereby some 2,200 of the state's 2,400 licensed osteopaths were granted M.D. degrees and joined the medical profession. In September, 1961, the Washington State Medical Association House of Delegates unanimously endorsed the American Medical Association Statement of Principle quoted above, and appointed a committee to study implementation. When the committee reported, it proposed the creation of a college in this state which could grant M.D. degrees to osteopaths.

This plan was unanimously approved by the Washington State Medical Association House of Delegates in September, 1962. As a result, the Washington College of Physicians and an attorney. About 75 practicing cember, 1963. The Board of Regents of the College consists of five prominent physicians and an attorney. Avout 75 practicing physicians and surgeons from the Seattle area were appointed to the faculty. Some of these held 'clinical' appointments with the University of Washington School of Medicine; however, there was no connection between the College and the University of Washington School of Medicine. The College was not approved by any of the national bodies which accredit medical schools.

The College sought applications from licensed osteoaths only. The admissions committee screended 64 applicants and accepted 58 for a course, consisting of only 4 to 5 hours of lectures a day for 12 days over a 12-week period, commencing March 7, 1964. The total number of hours of instruction was between 48 and 60. The College had no facilities of its own, so the lectures and demonstrations were held at four cooperating Seattle hospitals. The address of the College was that of a Seattle law office. Fifty-four enrollees completed the course. All passed the final examinations and were awarded M.D. degrees by the College.

While the course was in progress, the Washington State Board of Medical Examiners conducted a hearing on the College's petition for accreditation under RCW 18.71.055, as a medical school. The statute reads as follows:

Medical schools--Requirements for accreditation and approval. The board may accredit and approve any medical school provided that it:

(1) Requires collegiate instruction which training shall include theoretical and laboratory courses in physics, biology, inorganic and organic chemistry;

(2) Provides adequate instruction in the following subjects: Anatomy, biochemistry, microbiology and immunology, pathology, pharmacology, physiology, anaesthesiology, dermatology, gynecology, internal medicine, neurology, obstetrics, opthalmology, orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology, pediatrics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, preventive medicine and public health psychiatry, radiology, surgery and urology;

(3) Provides clinical instruction in hospital wards and outpatient clinics under guidance.

Approval may be withdrawn by the board at any time a medical school ceases to comply with one or more of the requirements of this section.

The Board, on March 20, 1964, refused accreditation, basing that decision on the following conclusions:

(1) In view of the complexities and technical nature of the subjects mentioned by RCW 18.71.055, it would not be possible to adequately instruct students in these subjects in the above mentioned twelve sessions consisting of approximately sixty actual hours.

(2) It would not be possible to provide adequate clinical instruction in hospital wards and out patient clinics under guidance in the time permitted by the above mentioned curriculum.

(3) The Board does not interpret the legislative intent as found in RCW 18.71.050 and .055 as permitting it to accredit as a medical school a school which provides only sixty actual hours of instruction on twelve consecutive Saturdays.

The College attacked this ruling in superior court, which upheld the Board, and an appeal was taken to this court. While the appeal was pending and following a change of personnel on the Board, the Board gave notice that it would reconsider its ruling and that interested parties were invited to submit additional written materials to aid it in making its determination. The Board considered these materials at a meeting held on July 12, 1966, and decided to request more information from the Dean of the College, Dr. E. Harold Laws. Then, on July 28, 1966, the Board voted, three to two, to accredit the College. (The College thereupon abandoned its pending appeal to this court.) At that time, the course had been concluded, degrees had been awarded, and, according to the Chancellor of the College, Dr. Dean K. Crystal, the College had ceased to operate save as a repository for records.

The two members of the Board, Dr. Leo J. Rosellini and Dr. John F. Fiorino, who opposed accreditation, filed a vigorous written dissent characterizing the College as nothing more than a 'Diploma Mill,' and requested the Attorney General to bring an action against the Board to set aside its ruling. This request was declined and thereafter the plaintiffs (appellants), Vernon J. Reagles, who is President of the Washington Osteopathic Medical Association, the Washington Osteopathic Medical Association, and Dorothy Brewer, a taxpayer, sought review of the Board's action in Thurston County Superior Court. These plaintiffs also attacked the Board's granting, under RCW 18.71.090 (the reciprocity statute), of M.R. licenses to three osteopaths who had received M.D. degrees from the College.

There is no need to recapitulate the entire course of the proceedings in the superior court. We mention only what is relevant to our decision here. Before entering judgment, that court quashed its ex parte order restraining the three licensees from holding themselves out as M.D.'s, finding that these persons, who were not parties to the action, had substantial property rights in their licenses. The judgment, accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law, dismissed the plaintiffs' action on the grounds that (1) the Board's actions were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law; (2) the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue; and (3) the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Plaintiffs' appeal followed.

The Washington College of Physicians and Surgeons has been granted leave to file a brief amicus curiae in support of defendant Board. Attorneys for certain individuals whose M.D. licenses were issued by the Board during the brief interval between the entering of judgment and the granting of review by this court, which licenses we ordered held in abeyance pending the outcome of this appeal, filed a brief as amici curiae, representing their clients' interest.

We are concerned primarily with one essential, dispositive question: Did the State Board of Medical Examiners follow the legislative mandate when it accredited the Washington College of Physicians and Surgeons? In order to accredit a medical school, the Board must be satisfied that the school complies with RCW 18.71.055, supra.

Plaintiffs contend that the Board acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and without legal authority; that the College was not a 'school' such as is contemplated by this section in that it offered, at most, only a brief refresher course in the listed subjects, and otherwise lacked the necessary features of a medical school; and that its primary purpose was to serve as a pretext for awarding unearned M.D. degrees to osteopaths who intended to depart their own profession for the ranks of the medical profession. We think the evidence clearly bears out these contentions.

The defendant Board maintains that, since the enrollees in the College had earned degrees from schools of osteopathy, a brief refresher course amounted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Allan v. University of Washington
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 20 April 2000
    ... ... Tattersall v. Yelle, 52 Wash.2d 856, 329 P.2d 841 (1958) ... Reagles v. Simpson, 72 Wash.2d 577, 585-86, 434 P.2d 559, (1967) obliquely, and Bolser v. Washington ... ...
  • CLARK COUNTY PUD NO. 1 v. Wilkinson
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 3 February 2000
    ... ... courts, or in other judicial proceedings[.]" Pierce, 62 Wash.2d at 333, 382 P.2d 628 ; Reagles v. Simpson, 72 Wash.2d 577, 586, 434 P.2d 559 (1967) ...         By contrast, we have ... ...
  • Vance v. City of Seattle
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 29 August 1977
    ... ... RCW 7.16.040; 3 Reagles v. Simpson, 72 Wash.2d 577, 434 P.2d 559 (1967); Pierce v. King County, 62 Wash.2d 324, 382 P.2d ... ...
  • Freedom Found. v. Bethel Sch. Dist.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 4 August 2020
    ... ... 7 Freedom Foundation also cites Reagles v. Simpson , 72 Wash.2d 577, 434 P.2d 559 (1967). But Reagles was superseded by the ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT