State Bd. of Health v. Ross

• Decision Date: 19 June 1901
• Citation: 60 N.E. 811,191 Ill. 87
• Parties: STATE BOARD OF HEALTH v. ROSS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

191 Ill. 87

60 N.E. 811

STATE BOARD OF HEALTH

v.ROSS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 19, 1901.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Bill by William Frank Ross against the state board of health. From a judgment of the appellate court (91 Ill. App. 281) affirming a decree for complainant, defendant appeals. Affirmed.J. A. Barnes and Rufus Cope, for appellant.

James Lane Allen, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The opinion of the appellate court, by Mr. Justice Windes, in disposing of this case, is as follows:

‘Appellee, a licensed physician and surgeon in Illinois since May 4, 1895, received a notice from appellant, the state board of health, on September 21, 1899, directing him to appear before said board to show cause why his certificate or license issued to him by the board should not be revoked for unprofessional and dishonorable conduct; setting out divers specifications of such alleged conduct. He filed his bill in the circuit court, setting up these facts, and alleging that the board intended to revoke his certificate, that he was receiving profits and emoluments from his profession, and that the proposed action of the board would greatly and irreparably damage him, and praying an injunction against the board from proceeding against him to hear or adjudicate said charges or to revoke his certificate. The demurrer of appellant to the bill was overruled by the chancellor, and appellant refusing to plead further or to answer the bill, and electing to stand by its demurrer, the court entered a decree in accordance with the prayer of the bill, to reverse which this appeal is prosecuted.

‘The question presented for decision is whether, under the present act of the legislature of this state to regulate the practice of medicine (Hurd's Rev. St. 1899, c. 91) in force July 1, 1899, the state board of health has power to discipline and revoke the certificates of persons who had been licensed to practice medicine and surgery by the board prior to that date.

‘The first act in this state relating to the practice of medicine came in force July 1, 1877, and is entitled ‘An act to regulate the practice of medicine in the state of Illinois.’ Laws 1877, p. 154. It provides for medical examinations by a board of examiners to be appointed by the state board of health, and for the issuance of certificates to practice medicine; and section 10 of this act provides that the board may refuse certificates to individuals guilty of unprofessionalor dishonorable conduct, and for a revocation of certificates for like causes, with an appeal to the body appointing the board. Another act relating to the practice of medicine was enacted, approved June 16, 1887, and in force July 1, 1887, section 9 of which provides that the board of health may refuse to issue the certificates provided for in section 2 of the act to individuals guilty of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct, and that it may revoke such certificates for like causes, and, in case of refusal or revocation, for an appeal to the governor. Section 12 of this act contains the provision, ‘All persons holding a certificate on account of ten years' practice shall be subject to all the requirements and discipline of this act and the act to which this is an amendment, in regard to their future conduct in the practice of medicine, the same as all other persons holding certificates.’ Section 14 is as follows: ‘All acts and parts of acts inconsistent or in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.’

‘The present act on this subject, which went into force July 1, 1899, is entitled ‘An act to regulate the practice of medicine in the state of Illinois, and to repeal an act therein named.’ Laws 1899, p. 273. The repealing clause of this act (section 12) is as follows: ‘An act to regulate the practice of medicine in the state of Illinois, approved June 17[16], 1887, in force July 1, 1887, and all other acts and parts of acts, inconsistent with this act, are hereby repealed.’ Section 6 of the act of 1899 is as follows: ‘The state board of health may refuse to issue the certificates provided for in this act to individuals who have been convicted of the practice of criminal abortion, or who have by false or fraudulent representation obtained or sought to obtain practice in their profession, or by false or fraudulent representation of their profession have obtained or sought to obtain money or any other thing of value, or who advertise under other names than their own, or for any other unprofessional or dishonorableconduct, and the board may revoke such certificates for like causes: provided, that no certificate shall be revoked or refused until the holder or applicant shall be given a hearing before the board.’ The present act purports, by its title, to be a complete revision of the subject-matter of the practice of medicine, and, by its various provisions, indicates that it was so intended. Section 2 provides that ‘no person shall hereafter begin the practice of medicine, or any of the branches thereof, or midwifery, in this state without first applying for and obtaining a license from the state board of health to do so,’ and details the manner in which a license may be obtained. Subsequent sections provide as to when the license shall issue; that it should be recorded in the office of the county clerk where the licensee resides or practices, within three months of its date, where a list of licenses should be kept; fees for examination and issuing the license; who should be regarded as practicing medicine within the meaning of the act, and license fees to be paid by itinerant vendors of drugs. Section 9 provides severe penalties to be imposed on any person practicing medicine or surgery in the state ‘without a certificate issued by this board in compliance with the provisions of this act,’ and, further, ‘that this section shall not apply to physicians who hold unrevoked certificates from the state board of health issued prior to the time of the taking effect of this act.’

‘It is claimed by counsel for appellant that the words ‘such certificates,’ in section 6 of the present act, are a substitute for and mean certificates or licenses to practice medicine, and that it was intended by the legislature to include in the words ‘such certificates' all certificates issued by the board of health prior to July 5, 1899, and that the holders of all certificates issued prior to that date are subject to discipline by the board, as...