State Board of Medical Registration and Examination v. Scherer

• Decision Date: 15 February 1943
• Docket Number: 27758.
• Parties: STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL REGISTRATION AND EXAMINATION v. SCHERER.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

46 N.E.2d 602

221 Ind. 92

STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL REGISTRATION AND EXAMINATION v. SCHERER.

No. 27758.

Supreme Court of Indiana

February 15, 1943

Appeal from Hamilton Circuit Court; Cassius M. Gentry, Judge.

George N. Beamer, Atty. Gen., C. Ballard Harrison, Deputy Atty Gen., Roland Griffin, of Sheridan, and Sherwood Blue, Jesse W. Gammon, and Albert Stump, all of Indianapolis, for appellant.

Oscar F. Smith, of Indianapolis, and Cloe & Campbell, of Noblesville, for appellee.

FANSLER Judge.

A proceeding was commenced against the appellee before the State Board of Medical Registration and Examination for the revocation of his license to practice naturopathy or drugless medicine because of gross immorality. The board entered an order revoking his license. The appellee took a so-called appeal to the Circuit Court of Marion County. The venue was changed to the Hamilton Circuit Court, where the cause was tried by the court without a jury, and there was a judgment for the appellee.

Numerous errors are assigned, but we need consider only the assignment which questions the sufficiency of the evidence.

Section 63-1306, Burns' 1933, § 10707, Baldwin's 1934 provides that the State Board of Medical Registration and Examination shall establish 'a schedule of the minimum requirements which must be complied with by applicants for examination for license to practice medicine, surgery and obstetrics before they shall be entitled to receive such license'; that it shall also establish 'a schedule of the minimum requirements and rules for the recognition of medical colleges, so as to keep these requirements up to the average standard of medical education in other states.' There are provisions for issuing licenses to graduates of standard medical schools, and that otherwise licenses shall not be issued until the applicant 'shall have passed before said board a satisfactory examination as to his qualifications to practice medicine, surgery and obstetrics'; that the board shall have the right to review the evidence upon which a license has been obtained, and that if it shall be found that it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, the board may revoke such license. 'The board may refuse to grant a certificate to any person guilty of felony or gross immorality, or addicted to the use of liquor or drug habit to such a degree as to render him unfit to practice medicine or surgery. If any person holding a license under the provisions of this act shall be guilty of any of the above enumerated acts or shall have procured a certificate or license by fraud or misrepresentation, said board may, after notice and hearing, revoke any license which has heretofore been or may hereafter be issued to him * * *.' It is provided that if the board shall refuse to grant a license or shall revoke a license, an appeal may be taken to the circuit or superior court; that the verified charges, in case of revocation shall be treated as a complaint; that: 'The accused may plead to said charges and issues may be formed thereon as in any civil case, and the same shall thereupon be tried by the judge of the circuit court. It shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorney of the circuit to which said county belongs to appear in such case and represent the board. The only finding and judgment in such cases shall be 'guilty' or 'not guilty,' the same to be rendered separately as to each of the charges.' There is provision for appeal from the judgment to this court.

Section 63-1312, Burns' 1933, § 10713, Baldwin's 1934, enacted in 1927, provides that: 'All persons who are now practicing or may hereafter engage in the practice of chiropractic or any other method or system of healing in this state shall be subject in all respects' to the provisions of the act 'except that applicants for license to practice chiropractic or any other system or method of healing in which drugs are not administered and which does not include surgery or obstetrics shall not be required to take an examination in materia medica, surgery and obstetrics.' It is provided further that any one practicing such a method of healing before January 1, 1927, who is a graduate of a school or college teaching the system which he practices, shall be entitled to a license.

The granting and revocation of licenses to engage in trades, businesses, or professions is a ministerial function. Ministerial boards act as fact-finding bodies to ascertain whether applicants conform to a legislative formula by which the right to a license is fixed. It is well settled that under the division of powers, these ministerial fact-finding duties may not be delegated to courts, and that the so-called appeal provisions of statutes which undertake to vest in courts of jurisdiction to try and determine de novo the facts entitling an applicant to a license, or to continue to operate under a license, must be treated as merely providing procedure by which the proceeding may be brought before the court for an investigation to determine whether the ministerial body has acted legally and within its powers. In all of such cases, if the ministerial board has conformed to a statutory procedural method, and its decision is supported by substantial evidence, its findings and determination will not be disturbed. Spurgeon et al. v. Rhodes, 1906, 167 Ind.

1, 78 N.E. 228; Stone, Superintendent v. Fritts, 1907, 169 Ind. 361, 82 N.E. 792, 15 L.R.A.,N.S., 1147, 14 Ann.Cas. 295; In re Northwestern Indiana Telephone Co. et al., 1930, 201 Ind. 667, 171 N.E. 65; Lloyd et al. v. City of Gary, 1938, 214 Ind. 700, 17 N.E.2d 836. It is true that the statute here in question seems to contemplate a de novo proceeding before the court, and a finding of 'guilty' or 'not guilty,' but, regardless of what may seem a legislative intention to the contrary, this court has consistently construed similar statutes as vesting in the courts only such jurisdiction as the Constitution permits. In cases of applicants for a license to practice medicine, surgery, or obstetrics, who have not obtained a diploma from a licensed school, the board examines the applicant in materia medica, surgery, and obstetrics. The impropriety of courts reexamining applicants in such...