Reardon v. Dental Comm'n
| Decision Date | 06 June 1941 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | REARDON v. DENTAL COMMISSION. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Carl Foster, Judge.
Action by Joseph E. Reardon against the Dental Commission of the State in the nature of an appeal from defendant's action in suspending plaintiff's license as a registered licensed dentist, brought to the superior court in Hartford county and tried to the court. From a judgment for defendant and dismissing the appeal, plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Errors.
Error and case remanded, with direction.
Argued before MALTBIE, C. J., and AVERY, BROWN, JENNINGS, and ELLS, JJ.
Richardson Bronson, of Waterbury, for appellant.
Harry L. Brooks, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Francis A. Pallotti, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellee.
On April 10, 1939, the state dental commission, after hearings, suspended the license of the plaintiff to practice dentistry for a period of six months. He appealed to the Superior Court and it was agreed that the suspension should not become operative until the final determination of that appeal. The trial court dismissed it and the plaintiff has appealed to this court.
The statute provides that the commission may suspend or revoke the license of a dentist if he is guilty of the breach of certain offenses which it sets out. General Statutes, Cum. Supp. 1937, § 635d; Cum. Supp.1939, § 1014e. The trial court decided that the commission was warranted in finding proven certain of the grounds upon which it based its action. We have no occasion, however, to consider the correctness of that conclusion. The procedure to be followed by the commission as regards the revocation or suspension of licenses is set forth in § 2809 of the General Statutes. This provides that in case any person shall make an accusation against a dentist it shall be reduced to writing and verified; that if the commission deems the charges as made are sufficient, if true, to warrant the suspension or revocation of the license, it shall make an order fixing a time and place of hearing and requiring the accused to appear and answer; that such order with a copy of the charges shall be served on the accused; that the commission and the accused may be represented by counsel at the hearing; that it may summon witnesses; and that the commissioners may administer oaths. The statute then proceeds as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buck's License, In re
...pending case is to be measured: State of Missouri ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 271 U.S. 40, 46 S.Ct. 384, 70 L.Ed. 818; Reardon v. Dental Commission, 128 Conn. 116, 20 A.2d 622; Davis v. State, 183 Md. 385, 37 A.2d 880, (condemning arbitrary action); State ex rel. Munch v. Davis, supra; Hanson......
-
Jaffe v. State Dep't Of Health.
...before the board to answer to a complaint, and of the board as regards the hearing which is to be accorded him. * In Reardon v. Dental Commission, 128 Conn. 116, 20 A.2d 622, we considered somewhat similar provisions as regards a hearing to be held by the defendant before a license to pract......
-
Wilmington Vitamin & Cosmetic Corp. v. Tigue
...and documents relied on by the Administrative Agency for the action it takes on the matter before it. In Reardon v. Dental Commission, 128 Conn. 116, 20 A.2d 622 (1941) the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut dealt with the revocation of a dental license based, in part, upon evidence dev......
-
Rose v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts
...of removal of a police chief and then sat on the hearing on the charges--such hearing was held unfair; Reardon v. Dental Commissioner, 128 Conn. 116, 20 A.2d 622, overturned suspension of a dentist's license where, contrary to the enabling statute, members of the agency investigated the cha......