State ex rel. Indiana State Bd. of Medical Registration and Examination v. Cole
| Citation | 20 N.E.2d 972,215 Ind. 562 |
| Decision Date | 15 May 1939 |
| Docket Number | 27110. |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL REGISTRATION AND EXAMINATION v. COLE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Carroll County.
Omer Stokes Jackson, Atty. Gen., Jack Northam, Deputy Atty. Gen and John R. Smock, Pros. Atty., of Delphi, for appellant.
George G. Rinier and B. Nelson Deranian, both of Indianapolis, and Robert L. Hanna and Smith & Smith, all of Delphi, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment against the appellant in an action by which it sought to permanently enjoin the appellee from engaging in the unlawful practice of medicine. The single paragraph of complaint alleged that the appellee was a resident of Carroll County; that he was not licensed to practice medicine under the laws of this state; that he had been and was at the commencement of the action so engaged that he was threatening to continue in such practice; and that the relator had no adequate remedy at law.
The appellee answered in two paragraphs, the first being in general denial. Many of the allegations contained in the second paragraph of answer are conclusions of law, rather than statements of fact. The pleading is too lengthy to quote, but we shall summarize enough to disclose the appellee's defense. He charges that the practice of medicine without a license in this state is a misdemeanor punishable by fine; that the present action is an attempt to enforce the criminal laws of the state by an equitable proceeding; that to invoke the remedy attempted here would deny him his constitutional right to a jury trial and make him liable to double jeopardy. He says that he is a graduate of and holds a diploma from a chiropractice college of known standing; that the Medical Practice Act of 1927 (Ch. 248, Acts 1927, section 63-1311 et seq., Burns' 1933, Sec. 10712, Baldwin's Ind.St.1934 et seq.) recognizes the practice of chiropractic as legitimate, by providing that those engaged therein prior to January 1, 1927, should be entitled to licenses authorizing them to continue, and by further providing that said science might be represented on the personnel of the Indiana State Board of Medical Registration and Examination. Appellee alleges that said state board has been guilty of discriminatory, arbitrary, and capricious conduct, resulting in the practical nullification of the act of 1927, in this: 'That it has created a monopoly in favor of those now licensed to practice chiropractic by imposing requirements upon new applicants in excess of those possessed by persons engaged in that profession on January 1, 1927, and in excess of those taught by chiropractic colleges of the highest rank; that by its rules and regulations said board requires applicants for chiropractic licenses to have the same minimum qualifications possessed by applicants for medical licenses proper, although said sciences are fundamentally different, since chiropractors are not permitted under the law to use drugs or practice surgery or obstetrics; that Chapter 248 of the Acts of 1927 is invalid because it is an attempt to amend a repealed act, and that the title thereof does not embrance the subject matter, as required by Article 4, Section 19, of the State Constitution.
The sufficiency of the second paragraph of answer was not tested by demurrer or otherwise, and the cause was put at issue by reply in general denial. The court made a general finding for the appellee and rendered judgment in his favor. Appellant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and the only question presented for review is whether the decision of the trial court is contrary to law.
Three questions are presented by the record: (1) Is the act of 1927 invalid for any of the reasons suggested by the second paragraph of appellee's answer; (2) is appellee excused from having a license to practice medicine on account of the alleged discriminatory, arbitrary, and capricious conduct of the Board of Medical Registration and Examination; and (3) may injunction be invoked to prevent an unlicensed person from practicing medicine? It is settled that the state may, by appropriate legislation, regulate the practice of medicine and restrict the same to those who have been licensed by it. State ex rel. Burroughs v. Webster, 1898, 150 Ind. 607, 50 N.E. 750, 41 L.R.A. 212; Parks v.
To continue reading
Request your trial