Sutto v. Board of Medical Registration and Examination
| Decision Date | 05 March 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 30051,30051 |
| Citation | 242 Ind. 556,180 N.E.2d 533 |
| Parties | Alfred SUTTO, Appellant, v. BOARD OF MEDICAL REGISTRATION AND EXAMINATION of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
John H. Daily and Dailey & Dailey, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., and Thomas L. Webber, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, Alfred Sutto, filed with appellee, Board of Medical Registration and Examination of Indiana (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'), under the provisions of Acts 1955, ch. 42, § 5(b), p. 87, being § 63-1330(b), Burns' 1961 Replacement, his application for license to practice chiropractic in the State of Indiana.
The application was denied and appellant petitioned the Superior Court of Allen County for a review of the decision of the Board as provided by the Administrative Adjudication and Court Review Act. 1 The cause was venued to the Huntington Circuit Court where the decision of the Board was affirmed, and the appeal here followed.
The errors assigned are (1) the decision of the trial court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law; and (2) the court erred in its Conclusions of Law numbered 1, 2 and 3.
We need consider only whether there was error in the conclusions of law to resolve the questions presented.
The record discloses that appellant, Alfred Sutto, filed his application with the Board for a license to practice chiropractic in the State of Indiana by reciprocity and without examination on the basis of a license heretofore issued to him by the Kentucky State Board of Chiropractic Examiners of the State of Kentucky.
The Kentucky license was issued to appellant pursuant to the provisions of the Kentucky statutes which required, as qualifications for the right to take an examination, that the applicant be a person of good moral character and a graduate from a chiropractic school or college giving a course of four academic years and requiring actual attendance of at least four thousand 45-minute academic hours in certain subjects, not including chemistry or bacteriology.
The transcript of credits of appellant from The O'Neill College of Chiropractic, Fort Wayne, Indiana, and appearing in the record as a part of applicant's Exhibit No. 1, shows: 'TOTAL HOURS (60 Min.) 3200.'
The Board denied appellant's application for license on the grounds that he had failed to submit satisfactory evidence that his Kentucky license had been issued under qualifications substantially equivalent to those specified in the Indiana law in that it was not shown that he was a graduate of a chiropractic college requiring four thousand 60-minute hours of resident attendance instruction for graduation and in that he had not been examined in the subjects of bacteriology and chemistry.
The trial court found that the Kentucky license was based upon a written examination given by the Kentucky Board; that appellant was not examined in the subjects of chemistry and bacteriology, the Kentucky law not requiring an examination in these subjects; and that the Kentucky statute required that an applicant for an examination must be of good moral character and a graduate of a chiropractic school or college giving a course of four academic years and requiring actual attendance of at least four thousand academic hours of 45-minutes each in certain required subjects, not including bacteriology and chemistry; and that the Board denied appellant's application for license to practice chiropractic in the State of Indiana on the grounds that he had failed to submit satisfactory evidence that his Kentucky license had been issued under qualifications substantially equivalent to those required by the statute of Indiana in that it was not shown that he was a graduate of a chiropractic college requiring four thousand hours of resident attendance instruction for graduation, and that he had not been examined in the subjects of bacteriology and chemistry in his examination by the Kentucky Board.
The trial court's conclusions of law which appellant asserts are in error are as follows:
'1) The petitioner [appellant] failed to establish or to submit satisfactory evidence to the Board that he had been licensed to practice chiropractic in another state under qualifications substantially equivalent to those specified by law for a license to practice chiropractic in Indiana.
'2) The Kentucky license issued to the petitioner was not issued to him under qualifications substantially equivalent to those required by law for a license to practice chiropractic in Indiana.
'3) That the final order of the Board of Medical Registration and Examination of Indiana denying the petitioner's application for a license to practice chiropractic in the State of Indiana was supported by competent and substantial evidence of probative value and that said Board did not err in denying petitioner's said application.'
The parts of the Chiropractic Act of Indiana here pertinent are Acts 1955, ch. 42, § 2(a), p. 87, being § 63-1327(a), Burns' 1961 Replacement, which provides that any person 21 years of age and of good moral character is eligible to be licensed to practice chiropractic in the State of Indiana of he is a graduate of an incorporated chiropractic school or college teaching the science of chiropractic, and requiring for graduation at least four years and four thousand hours of resident attendance instruction in such school or college; and Acts 1955, ch. 42, § 3(a), p. 87, being § 63-1328(a), Burns' 1961 Replacement, which provides that applicants for license to practice chiropractic ; and Acts 1955, ch. 42, § 5(b), p. 87, being § 63-1330(b), Burns' 1961 Replacement, supra, which provides that upon the payment of a fee of $100 an applicant may be granted a license, without an examination, providing he submits satisfactory evidence to the Board that he has been licensed to practice chiropractic in another State under qualifications substantially equivalent to those required in Indiana.
Three questions are presented which require our consideration.
1. What showing is required of the appellant, Alfred Sutto?
2. What is the function and duty of the Board?
3. What constitutes qualifications 'substantially equivalent' to those specified in the Chiropractic Act of Indiana?
First: What must appellant show to entitle him to a license?
The burden is upon appellant, Sutto, to show that he had been licensed to practice chiropractic in another State under qualifications 'substantially equivalent' to those specified in Section 2(a), supra, and Section 3(a), supra, of the Chiropractic Act of Indiana.
The Attorney General has stated fully and ably what an applicant for reciprocal license to practice chiropractic in Indiana must show in Opinion 28 (1958), Opin.Atty.Gen., p. 125, and we adopt his language as follows:
'The record offered by the applicant for reciprocal license here in Indiana must therefore show that he is at least 21 years of age, of good moral character, has taken in the past a written examination in one of the other states in substantially the same subjects required in Indiana with a passing grade of at least 75% in each subject; at the time of such licensure he must have been a graduate of a school which at the time of his graduation required four years' of not less than four thousand hours of resident attendance instruction.' 2
Second: The function of the Board of Medical Registration and Examination of Indiana is to determine as a matter of fact whether the applicant has been licensed to practice chiropractic in another State under qualifications and requirements substantially equivalent to those provided by the Chiropractic Act of Indiana.
Whether or not the qualifications and requirements provided by the law of the State where the applicant has previously been licensed are substantially equivalent to those required by the Chiropractic Act of Indiana is a question of fact to be determined by the Board.
Acts 1947, ch. 365, § 18, p. 1451, being § 63-3018, Burns' 1961 Replacement, provides, in part, as follows:
'On such judicial review if the agency has complied with the procedural requirements of this act, and its finding, decision or determination is supported by substantial, reliable and probative evidence, such agency's finding, decision or determination shall not be set aside or disturbed.'
The decision of appellee, Board, on the question of whether or not the requirements and qualifications for licensing in the State of Kentucky are substantially equivalent to those required in Indiana is conclusive and binding upon the court, and it will not be disturbed if the Board has complied with the requirements of the statute, and its decision is supported by substantial evidence of probative value. Achenbach et al. v. Review Board, etc., et al. (1962), Ind., 179 N.E.2d 873, No. 30,206, filed February 6, 1962; Board of Medical Registration & Exam. v. Armington (1962), Ind., 178 N.E.2d 741, 743; Board of Med. Reg. and Exam. v. Kaadt (1948), 225 Ind. 625, 630, 635, 76 N.E.2d 669; State Board of Medical Registration, etc., v. Scherer (1943), 221 Ind. 92, 96, 97, 46 N.E.2d 602.
Third: As hereinabove stated, the Board found that appellant had failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heminger v. Police Commission of City of Fort Wayne
...case, the Police Commission, while not controlling, must nevertheless be accorded great weight. Sutto v. Board of Medical Regis. and Examination (1962), 242 Ind. 556, 180 N.E.2d 533. Moreover, to attach any other construction to the terms would lead to an illogical and unworkable result whi......
-
Allen v. Van Buren Tp. of Madison County
...to great weight in the interpretation of the provisions of Article 13, § 1, supra, here in question. Sutto v. Board of Medical Registration and Examination (1962), Ind., 180 N.E.2d 533; Romero v. International Term. Operat. Co. (1959), 358 U.S. 354, 79 S.Ct. 468, 3 L.Ed.2d 368, 381, Reheari......
-
First Sav. and Loan Ass'n of Central Indiana v. Furnish
...State ex rel. Bynum v. LaPorte Superior Court No. One (1973), 259 Ind. 647, 291 N.E.2d 355; Sutto v. Board of Medical Registration & Examination (1962), 242 Ind. 556, 180 N.E.2d 533; State v. Bress (1976), Ind.App., 349 N.E.2d 229; Jenkins v. Stotts (1976), Ind.App., 348 N.E.2d 57; Sekerez ......
-
Metropolitan Development Com'n of Marion County v. Villages, Inc.
...Normally, terms undefined within a statute must be given their plain, ordinary and usual meaning. Sutto v. Board of Medical Regis. and Examination, (1962) 242 Ind. 556, 180 N.E.2d 533. However, the word family has no less than twelve dictionary definitions and is not commonly associated wit......