State ex rel. Kansas City University of Physicians & Surgeons v. North

• Decision Date: 08 April 1927
• Docket Number: 26377
• Parties: The State ex rel. Kansas City University of Physicians & Surgeons, Appellant, v. E. P. North et al. as State Board of Health
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

294 S.W. 1012

316 Mo. 1050

The State ex rel. Kansas City University of Physicians & Surgeons, Appellant, v. E. P. North et al. as State Board of Health

No. 26377

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 8, 1927

Motion for Rehearing Denied May 23, 1927.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Willard P. Hall Judge.

Affirmed.

T D. Judy, J. R. Stanley and T. A. Costolow for appellants.

(1) The court erred in admitting and considering incompetent and immaterial evidence upon the part of respondents over the objection and exception of relator. (a) The court erred in permitting Dr. Hall and Dr. Trimble to testify concerning an inspection they made of relator's school long after the Board of Health had made the order which is the subject of this controversy. Laws 1921, 473; Smith v. Tel. Co., 113 Mo.App. 429; Clack v. Kansas City Elect. W. S Co., 138 Mo.App. 205; State v. Goldfeder, 242 S.W. 403. (b) The court erred in considering as evidence in this case a report of a committee of the Board of Health to said board, which report was sent up with the return of said board to the writ of certiorari. State ex rel. v. Walbridge, 62 Mo.App. 162; 11 C. J. 203; State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 272 Mo. 588. (2) The finding of the court was against the evidence and the weight of the evidence. (a) The evidence was not only insufficient to show that relator's school was a non-reputable school, but on the contrary clearly showed it to be a reputable school within the meaning of the law. Laws 1923, p. 254; Laws 1921, p. 473; State ex rel. v. Clark, 230 S.W. 609. (3) The court erred in making a general finding that relator's medical school is not a reputable medical school within the meaning of the statutes of Missouri. (a) Because the court was without jurisdiction in the present proceeding to make such an order. Laws 1921, p. 473; Judson v. Smith, 104 Mo. 61; State ex rel. v. Patterson, 207 Mo. 129; Lamar v. City of Lamar, 128 Mo. 188; State ex rel. v. Adcock, 124 S.W. 1100.

Robert W. Otto, Attorney-General, and J. Henry Caruthers, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondents.

(1) All persons desiring to practice medicine or surgery in this State, or to treat the sick or afflicted, in order to be eligible for examination by the State Board of Health shall furnish satisfactory evidence of having received a diploma from some reputable medical college of four years' requirements. Sec. 7332, R. S. 1919, as amended, Laws 1923, p. 254. (2) The question as to whether any medical school is one entitled to recognition by the State Board of Medical Examiners as a medical school of good standing, is a question of fact, and any person aggrieved by reason of the action of the board shall have the right to have such question reviewed by suing out a writ of certiorari in the circuit court where such question shall be tried de novo and the court shall render such judgment as should have been rendered in the first instance. Sec. 7332a, Laws 1921, p. 473. (3) Statutes enacted for the purpose of preserving the public health should be liberally construed to carry out such purpose. 29 C. J. 243; People v. Raport, 193 A.D. 135. Every intendment is to be allowed in favor of their validity. 29 C. J. 243, 248; Kirk v. Bd. of Health, 83 S.C. 380; La Porta v. Bd. of Health, 71 N. J. L. 89. (4) It is well settled that, under the police power inherent in the State, the Legislature may enact reasonable regulations for the examination and registration of physicians and the practice of medicine and surgery. 30 Cyc. 1547; Czarra v. Board Med. Supervisors, 25 App. Cases (D. C.) 448; State ex rel. Burroughs v. Webster, 150 Ind. 616; State v. State Med. Board, 32 Minn. 328; People v. Reetz, 127 Mich. 88; State v. District Court, 26 Mont. 125; Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 122. Such statutes violate neither the Federal nor State Constitution, which declare that "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." State v. Havorka, 110 N.W. 870; Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U.S. 505; State ex rel. v. Purl, 228 Mo. 25. (5) Whether a medical college be reputable or in good standing is not a legal question, but a question of fact, and is left to the judgment and discretion of the State Board of Health, since the statutes do not define a reputable medical school. 30 Cyc. 1551; State v. Chittenden, 127 Wis. 468; State v. Chittenden, 112 Wis. 569; State v. Lutz, 136 Mo. 633; Illinois State Bd. Health v. People, 102 Ill.App. 614; Illinois State Bd. Dental Examiners v. People, 123 Ill. 245; People v. Illinois State Bd. Dental Examiners, 110 Ill. 184. Our statutes do not define or prescribe the method by which the board shall proceed to determine the reputability of a medical college. The board may, therefore, perform its duty in that regard in any reasonable way it may deem proper. 30 Cyc. 1552; State v. Chittenden, 112 Wis. 569. The decision of the board in this regard cannot be coerced or reversed by the courts, in the absence of arbitrary or oppressive conduct on the part of the board. 30 Cyc. 1552; Williams v. State Bd. Dental Examiners, 93 Tenn. 628; Hathaway v. State Board, 15 S.W. 322; State v. Gregory, 83 Mo. l. c. 137; Illinois State Bd. Dental Examiners v. People, 20 Ill.App. 457. The board may adjudicate the status of a medical college as to reputability either on its own motion or on petition of the college. State v. Chittenden, 127 Wis. 504; Abbott v. Adcock, 225 Mo. 359. All questions in regard thereto may be considered at rest till, by lapse of time or otherwise, some reasonable ground exists for believing that its character may probably have changed. State v. Chittenden, 112 Wis. 577. (6) The burden rests on the college to establish its reputability. State v. Chittenden, 112 Wis. 569; State ex rel. Crites v. Clark, 230 S.W. 610; Abbott v. Adcock, 225 Mo. 360; Nelson v. State Bd. of Health, 108 Ky. 769. (7) The presumption of law is that the State Board of Health and the Circuit Court of Jackson County acted legally and fairly and entirely within the statutes in passing upon the evidence presented to them. Gass v. Evans, 244 Mo. 344; State ex rel. Murphy v. Burney, 269 Mo. 611; State v. Clark, 232 S.W. 103. (8) The evidence amply sustains the finding of the trial court and this court will not interfere with its judgment. State ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 264 S.W. 682; State v. Clark, 230 S.W. 611; State ex rel. Johnson v. Clark, 232 S.W. 1034.

Walker, J. All concur; Graves J., in the result; Gantt, J., not sitting.

OPINION

WALKER

This is a proceeding in certiorari brought by the relator, who is the appellant here, in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, to compel the State Board of Health to send up its record to the circuit court relating to its inspection and finding of the State Board concerning the reputability of the relator as a college of physicians and surgeons under the laws of Missouri. The writ was granted and in obedience to the order therefor the respondent, the State Board of Health, made a return thereto embracing the minutes of the meetings of the board and the report of its committee concerning the inspection and survey of the relator.

The circuit court, upon a hearing, made an order adjudging that the Kansas City University of Physicians and Surgeons was not a reputable medical school within the meaning of the laws of this State. From this judgment the medical school has appealed to this court.

It appears that the Kansas City University of Physicians and Surgeons was organized in 1917 for the purpose of operating a medical school. Occupying the same building with what is designated as the Central College of Osteopathy, it was for a time operated in conjunction with the latter. Subsequently the School of Osteopathy transferred its equipment to the medical school, but both schools continued to use the same building, which, with the equipment, is shown to be owned by Dr. A. L. McKenzie, who is designated as the president of the medical school.

The testimony on behalf of the relator is largely devoted to evidence, principally by the president of the medical college, as to the qualifications of the persons named in the record as members of the faculty. This is followed by a statement that a four years' course is required and the character of same is given; the courses pursued and the manner of instruction in the various subjects is given. To this is added a statement of the daily requirements as to the attendance of the members of the different classes and the course necessary to be pursued by them to authorize their graduation.

The president of the State Board of Health and other members of same who had made an inspection of the medical college in October, 1923, about a month before this suit was brought testified that its equipment was of a type in use twenty-five years ago; that the records showing the preliminary requirements of students and of the scholastic standing were meagre and incomplete; that advance standing was given to graduates of veterinary schools; that instruction was given to osteopathic and medical students at the same time and by the same instructors; that the required two years' instruction in reputable medical schools was attempted to be given in this school in one year; that the laboratory instruction given was by undergraduates with limited information of the subject; that a number of the instructors were carrying, at the time of their instruction, courses of study in the medical college; that some of them were teaching in night schools; that there were no patients in the hospital of the school, and that a bulletin board was kept directing the students to go out and get patients; that what was termed the hospital looked more, on account of the trunks and wearing apparel therein, like a dormitory or...