State Ex Rel. Jordan v. Pattishall

• Decision Date: 08 February 1930
• Citation: 99 Fla. 296,126 So. 147
• Parties: STATE ex rel. JORDAN v. PATTISHALL et al., State Board of Dental Examiners.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

126 So. 147

99 Fla. 296

STATE ex rel. JORDAN v. PATTISHALL et al., State Board of Dental Examiners.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

February 8, 1930

Original mandamus proceeding by the State, on the relation of J. W Jordan, against H. B. Pattishall and others, constituting the State Board of Dental Examiners. On motion for peremptory writ of mandamus.

Peremptory writ issued.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Statutes authorizing revocation of license to engage in profession being penal in nature, must be strictly construed and strictly followed. The rule is that, where statutes authorizing the revocation of a license to engage in the practice of a profession are invoked, the provisions of the statutes must be strictly construed, and such provisions must be strictly followed, because the statute is penal in its nature.

Accusation charging dentist with having employed one not licensed to practice dentistry held not to authorize revocation of dentistry license (Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, § 3551). The accusation fails to charge the dentist with having committed any act which under the provisions of the statute constitute grounds for the revocation of his license to practice dentistry.

State board of dental examiners was without authority to revoke dentistry license on grounds other than charge presented in written accusation served on accused (Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, § 3551). Under the provisions of the act, the Florida state board of dental examiners was only authorized to consider and to act upon charges contained in the accusation of which the accused had been served with notice, and therefore the Florida state board of dental examiners was without authority to revoke a license upon any grounds other than upon the charge presented in the written accusation.

Law as enunciated by Supreme Court respecting disbarment of attorneys applies to revocation of dentistry license (Comp Gen. Laws 1927, § 3551). The law as enuncipated by this court in regard to the disbarment of attorneys is applicable to the instant case. See State ex rel. Fowler v. Finley, 30 Fla. 302, 11 So. 500, and State v. Young, 30 Fla 85, 11 So. 514.

COUNSEL

Whitaker Brothers and H. G. Sabine, all of Tampa, for relator.

Caraballo, Graham & Cosio, of Tampa, and W. C. Hodges and C. L. Waller, both of Tallahassee, for respondents.

OPINION

BUFORD J.

In this case alternative writ of mandamus was issued to the respondents. Return was made by the respondents, and the matter now comes on for hearing on motion for peremptory writ to be directed to the respondents.

The relator was a licensed dentist, practicing his profession in Tampa, Fla. A so-called accusation was filed against him under the provisions of section 18 of chapter 10109, Acts of 1925, which appears as section 3551, C. G. L. 1927.

Under the provisions of this statute, the proceedings against the accused are penal. The accusation is required to be filed in writing before the Florida state board of dental examiners. It must be signed and verified under oath by the accuser. A hearing is provided for before the Florida state board of dental examiners, and they determine whether or not the charges against the accused are sustained, and, if so, they are authorized to revoke the license of the offending dentist. There is no provision for review by appeal or writ of error, and in such cases it is well settled that mandamus will lie to consider the whole proceeding wherein it may be determined by the court whether the action of the Florida state board of dental examiners will be sustained, or the dentist will be restored to his rights to practice dentistry in this state. State ex rel. Donnelly v. Teasdale, 21 Fla. 652; State ex rel. Rude v. Young, 30 Fla. 85, 11 So. 514; State ex rel. Fowler v. Finley, 30 Fla. 302, 11 So. 500; State v. Maxwell, 19 Fla. 31. See, also, State ex rel. Wolfe v. Kirke, 12 Fla. 278, 95 Am. Dec. 314.

A number of questions have been presented by the relator, but it appears to us that it is only necessary to determine one question to dispose of this case, and that is whether or not the accusation filed against the relator was sufficient to constitute a basis for the revocation of his license to practice dentistry. The rule is that, where statutes of this kind are invoked, the provisions of the statutes must be strictly construed, and such provisions must be strictly followed, because the statute, as hereinbefore stated, is penal in its nature.

The section of the statute 3551 is as follows:

'Whenever it shall appear to the board that any licensed dentist practicing in the State of Florida has been guilty of fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in obtaining license, or of gross immorality, or is an habitual user of intoxicants or drugs, rendering him unfit for the practice of dentistry, or has been guilty of malpractice, or grossly ignorant or incompetent or guilty of wilful negligence in the practice of dentistry, or has been employing unlicensed persons to perform work which under this Chapter can only be legally done by persons holding a license to practice dentistry in this State, or of practicing deceit or other fraud upon the public or individual patients in obtaining or attempting to obtain practice; or of false notice, advertisement, publication, or circulation of false claims, or fraudulent misleading statements of his art, skill or knowledge, or of his methods of treatment or practice, or shall be guilty of any offense involving moral turpitude, they shall revoke the license of such person; an accusation may be filed with the secretary-treasurer of the board charging any licensed dentist with the commission of any of the offenses herein enumerated, such accusation to be in writing, signed by the accused and verified under oath.'

The accusation against the dentist was as follows:

'One Dr. J. W. Jordan of Tampa,...