Smith v. State Board of Medical Examiners
| Citation | 117 N.W. 1116,140 Iowa 66 |
| Parties | W. H. SMITH v. STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS ET AL., Appellants |
| Decision Date | 29 October 1908 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Polk District Court.--HON. A. H. MCVEY, Judge.
SUIT to restrain the State Board of Medical Examiners from prosecuting certain proceedings instituted by and pending before said board, against the plaintiff for the purpose of revoking his certificate to practice medicine, surgery, and obstetrics in the State of Iowa. At the time of the commencement of the proceedings complained of and of this suit, the plaintiff was a resident of the town of Shell Rock Butler County, Iowa, where he had for many years been engaged in the practice of medicine as a physician and surgeon. In September, 1886, the Iowa State Board of Medical Examiners issued to him a certificate entitling him to practice his profession in the State. On the 14th of June, 1905, the plaintiff received from the State Board of Medical Examiners a notice requiring him to appear before said board at Des Moines on July 5, 1905, and show cause why his certificate should not be revoked for incompetency. On the 21st of June the plaintiff was notified by said secretary that the time for the hearing had been changed to July 28, 1905. On July 28 the plaintiff and his attorneys appeared before the board at Des Moines, at which time the proceedings against him were dismissed. On the 8th of August, 1905, the State Board of Medical Examiners met in special session, and voted to prefer charges against the plaintiff for the purpose of revoking his certificate to practice medicine on the ground of incompetency; and on the same day prepared and filed an information in writing against him. On the 21st of August 1905, a copy of such information, together with a citation was served on the plaintiff, notifying him to appear before said board at Des Moines, on the 19th of September, 1905, and show cause why his certificate should not be revoked. September 19th the plaintiff personally and his attorneys appeared before said board and demurred to the information. The demurrer was overruled, and, after the disposition of some other preliminary matters, the hearing proceeded until the evidence for the complainant was closed, when further hearing was postponed until November 1, 1905, to enable the plaintiff to take his evidence in the form of depositions. October 6 the plaintiff commenced this action, and obtained a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from further prosecuting said proceeding or revoking the plaintiff's certificate, and on final hearing the injunction thus issued was made perpetual. The defendants appeal. Reversed.
Reversed.
J. E. Williams, for appellants.
Geo. A. McIntyre and Courtright & Arbuckle, for appellee.
The petition alleged the following grounds for the restraining order:
First. That that portion of section 2578 of the Code which authorizes, or attempts to authorize, the State Board of Medical Examiners to revoke the certificate of a physician and surgeon for incompetency, is illegal and void; being in violation of the provisions of section 9, art. 1, of the Constitution of the State of Iowa.
Second. That said portion of said section of the Code is illegal and void because it contravenes and is in violation of the provisions of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Third. That said portion of said section of the Code attempts to delegate to said State Board of Medical Examiners legislative powers in contravention and in violation of the provisions of section 1, 'Legislative Powers,' art. 3, of the Constitution of Iowa.
Fourth. That the action of the said State Board of Medical Examiners under the provisions of section 2578 of the Code was arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal, and void.
The power of the State Board of Medical Examiners to revoke the certificate of a physician is contained in the following clause of section 2578 of the Code:
The particular provisions of the Federal and State Constitutions which it is claimed are violated by the statute in question are those which declare that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," and the provision of the State Constitution which declares that "the legislative authority of the State shall be vested in a General Assembly, which shall consist of a senate and a house of representatives. . . ." It is contended that the statute under consideration is unconstitutional and void because it does not provide or require that the accused shall be notified in any manner of the proceeding to revoke his certificate, or provide or require that he shall be given an opportunity to appear and defend himself; and hence it is possible for the board to "arbitrarily take from the physician his property, and deprive him of the liberty to follow his chosen profession, without due process of law or without any process." Whether the right to practice medicine be classed as a property right, strictly speaking, or as a mere privilege, is not material; for, whichever name be given it, it is a valuable right which cannot be taken away without due process of law, the essential elements of which are notice and opportunity to defend. State v. Bair, 112 Iowa 466, 84 N.W. 532; Towle v. Mann, 53 Iowa 42; Beebe v. Magoun, 122 Iowa 94, 97 N.W. 986; Traer v. State Board of Med. Exam'rs, 106 Iowa 559, 76 N.W. 833. But due process does not require that any particular form of proceedings be observed, but only that the same shall be regular proceedings, in which notice is given of the claim asserted and an opportunity afforded to defend against it. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 U.S. 230 (20 S.Ct. 620, 44 L.Ed. 747); Iowa C. R. Co. v. Iowa, 160 U.S. 389 (16 S.Ct. 344, 40 L.Ed. 467; Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427 (21 S.Ct. 836, 45 L.Ed. 1165). And, while statutes regulating the practice of medicine clearly fall within the police power of the State, they cannot be permitted to override the Constitution, but they must be reasonable, and, when a valuable right is sought to be disturbed thereunder, the provision of the Constitution prohibiting the taking of property without due process of law is paramount, and must be observed. Rodemacher v. The M. & St. R. Co., 41 Iowa 297; State v. Schlenker, 112 Iowa 642, 84 N.W. 698; State v. Redmon, (Wis.) 134 Wis. 89, 114 N.W. 137 (14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 229); Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (8 S.Ct. 273, 31 L.Ed. 205); Colon v. Lisk, 153 N.Y. 188 (47 N.E. 302, 60 Am. St. Rep. 609); Dent v. State of West Va., 129 U.S. 114 (9 S.Ct. 231, 32 L.Ed. 623).
In Beebe v. Magoun, 122 Iowa 94, 97 N.W. 986, in discussing the necessity of notice of the assessment of the cost of street improvements, we quoted with approval the language of the Court of Appeals in Stuart v Palmer, 74 N.Y. 183 (30 Am. Rep....
To continue reading
Request your trial