State Ex Rel. Tullidge v. Driskell

• Decision Date: 21 December 1934
• Citation: 158 So. 277,117 Fla. 717
• Parties: STATE ex rel. TULLIDGE v. DRISKELL et al., State Board of Medical Examiners.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

158 So. 277

117 Fla. 717

STATE ex rel. TULLIDGE v. DRISKELL et al., State Board of Medical Examiners.

Florida Supreme Court

December 21, 1934

En Banc.

Original proceeding by the State, on the relation of Edwin K Tullidge, for a writ of mandamus to S.E. Driskell and others as and constituting the State Board of Medical Examiners.

Application for alternative writ and constitutional writ denied.

COUNSEL

Wallace F. Perry, of Miami, for relator.

OPINION

ELLIS Justice.

Edwin K. Tullidge, a legally licensed practicing physician, on November 12, 1934, was adjudged by the state board of medical examiners to be guilty of certain charges which had been preferred against him before the said board, and on that day an order was made by the board sitting at Tampa, Fla revoking, annulling, and rescinding the license to practice medicine in the state of Florida which had been issued to Tullidge on December 22, 1927.

The above action of the board of medical examiners was based upon a charge before it preferred against Tullidge, which in effect alleged that Tullidge upon his application for a license to practice medicine made a false affidavit under oath as to his good moral character, which affidavit was relied upon as a basis for the issuing of a license to practice medicine in Florida. The charge was made in writing on October 27, 1934. The affidavit supporting it was not signed, according to a purported copy of it attached to the petition filed in this court. A summons was issued to Tullidge under the signature of the secretary-treasurer of the board and its seal. The summons was issued on October 29, 1934, and required Tullidge to appear before the board on November 12, 1934, at the Hillsborough Hotel in Tampa, Fla.

On November 8th Tullidge by his attorney submitted a motion for a continuance of the hearing, which motion was denied.

On this date, December 17, 1934, Tullidge by his attorney applied to this court for a writ of mandamus to be directed to the persons constituting the members of the state board of medical examiners commanding them to show cause, if any they have, on a day to be designated by this court 'why they should not be required to restore the relator, Edwin K. Tullidge's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida, and restore his certificate to practice and otherwise to set aside and revoke their previous order cancelling and suspending his license; and to reinstate his name on the roll recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court, in Miami, Dade County, Florida.'

The petition for the alternative writ alleges that Tullidge intended to appear before the board of medical examiners pursuant to the summons on the date stated, but was prevented from so doing by reason of illness of his mother in Washington, D. C., to whose aid and assistance he was required to go on November 8th, and with whom he remained until the 14th day of that month; that on that account he could not be present at his trial and answer the charge preferred against him; that he did through his counsel present a motion for a continuance before the board at the time the case was called for a hearing; that the motion set out fully the cause of his failure to appear in person; that the board also denied a telegraphic request from Tullidge's counsel for a postponement of the hearing until the following day; that the presence of the petitioner's counsel before the board on November 12th was prevented because of Tullidge's inability to supply finances to his counsel to defray expenses of the trip from Miami.

The petition alleges that for the abovestated reasons the board proceeded contrary to the law and failed to comply with the requirements of sections 3415 and 3408 of the Compiled General Laws of Florida, in that the board failed to give Tullidge an opportunity to be heard in the circumstances.

It is further alleged in the petition as a ground for the writ of mandamus that the board exceeded its authority in accepting as evidence certain proceedings and sentence of a Navy Court Martial Board in 1917 as establishing proof of the falsity of the petitioner's statement on applying for a license to practice medicine that he was of good moral character.

In this matter it is contended by the petitioner that the board did not proceed in accordance with the essential requirements of the law, as the judgment and sentence of the Naval Court Martial Board rendered in 1917 was not valid evidence of the falsity of the petitioner's statement made in 1927 on his application for a license to practice medicine that he was of good moral character.

In support of that proposition, the petitioner refers...