State Ex Rel. Markley v. Bartlett

• Decision Date: 20 April 1943
• Citation: 32 A.2d 58,130 Conn. 88
• Parties: STATE ex rel. MARKLEY v. BARTLETT et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

130 Conn. 88

32 A.2d 58

STATE ex rel. MARKLEY

v.BARTLETT et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 20, 1943.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; O'Sullivan, Judge.

Action by the State of Connecticut, on the relation of D. Norman Markley, against Charles J. Bartlett and others for a writ of mandamus ordering the Connecticut medical examining board to issue a certificate of approval of medical licenses issued to relator in New York and Pennsylvania, brought to the superior court. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff upon the pleadings and that a peremptory writ of mandamus should issue, and defendants appeal.

No error.

Harry L. Brooks, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Francis A. Pallotti, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellants (defendants).

M. J. Blumenfeld, of Hartford (DeLancey Pelgrift, of Hartford, on the brief), for appellee (plaintiff).

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

BROWN, Judge.

The plaintiff brought this action of mandamus to compel the defendants as the Connecticut medical examining board to issue a certificate of approval of licenses to practice medicine issued to him in New York and Pennsylvania, essential to his obtaining a certificate of registration authorizing him to practice in this state as required by General Statutes, Cumulative Supplement 1935, § 1120c, without taking the Connecticut examination pursuant to Cum.Sup.1939, § 988e. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiff upon the pleadings. Whether it erred in so doing is the question conclusive of the defendants' appeal. Section 988e provides that no person shall be eligible to take an examination in this state for a certificate of registration until the examining board finds that he has received a diploma from some legally incorporated and reputable medical college which is upon one of the lists filed with the commissioner of health by the secretaries of the various medical societies under the provisions of § 2749 (amended Supplement 1941, § 478f); as to persons already having a license issued in another state, there is no specific requirement of such a diploma; but the act provides that the board ‘may accept’ a license issued in another state ‘in lieu of the examination herein provided for,’ provided the board ‘shall find that such license shall have been issued upon an examination passed by such applicant of as high a grade and of the same kind as that required’ by the board. Two principal questions are presented: (1) Do the words quoted require as a condition of the approval of a license issued in another state that the applicant have such a diploma as is necessary to take the examination here; (2) if such a diploma is not required, has the board discretion to refuse approval of a license issued by another state although the requirements of the statute are fully met.

These facts are undisputed: The plaintiff is a citizen and now a resident of Pennsylvania but intends in good faith to reside permanently in Connecticut. He is of good moral character and professional standing as a physician and surgeon. He was matriculated at the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons in Edinburgh, Scotland, in October, 1931, where he took the full five-year medical course in the School of Medicine and was graduated in 1936. In 1937 and 1938 he passed the regular written examinations in New York and Pennsylvania and received in each state a license to practice medicine. Each of these examinations was of as high a grade as that required by the defendants as the Connecticut medical examining board for those seeking a license in this state. He has been in actual and continuous practice for five years in New York and Pennsylvania. Prior to June 16, 1941, he requested the defendant board to accept the licenses he had so obtained and to issue a certificate of approval thereon. Upon its denial of his request this action was instituted May 6, 1942.

The defendants' denial of the plaintiff's request was predicated upon the fact that he had not received a diploma from a medical college listed as an approved school under the provisions of § 2749. The defendants concede that the examination passed by the plaintiff in each of the other states was ‘of as high a grade’ as that required by their board, but contend that the lack of a requirement in those states that the candidate shall have the diploma which is here an essential prerequisite to taking the examination, is conclusive that those examinations were not ‘of the same kind.’ To so hold would be to confuse the qualifications for taking the examination with the examination itself. The context of the statutes shows that the legislature did not treat these as a single entity. Section 988e, aside from the provision made for certain special cases, prescribes two methods by which the certificate of registration essential under § 1120c to the practice of medicine in this state may be obtained: first, by passing an examination given by the defendant board; and second, by obtaining acceptance by it under the provision already quoted, of a license issued by another state ‘in lieu of the examination.’ Section 988e specifies with regard to the first method the requirements as to citizenship, residence, character and education which must be met in order to qualify for taking the examination, while § 2749, entitled ‘Examination’, prescribes not only when and how the examination shall be conducted, but states specifically the subjects which it shall cover, including anatomy, physiology, surgery, etc. These provisions signify that while the legislature has required possession of certain qualifications as a condition precedent to taking the examination, these are regarded as something separate and distinct from the examination itself. Qualification to take the examination is one thing. Qualification to receive a certificate by passing it is quite another.

Similarly with regard to the second method, § 988e after providing for acceptance by the defendant board of the license of another state issued upon ‘an examination’ of the nature above recited, states as requisite to the issuance of a certificate, conditions of citizenship, residence and moral character, identical with those prescribed under the first method, but omits the diploma requirement and, instead, includes one of experience ‘in actual practice for a period of three years * * * and * * * good * * * professional standing.’ This substitution not only...