Weber v. Florida State Bd. of Optometry
| Decision Date | 15 June 1954 |
| Citation | 73 So.2d 408 |
| Parties | WEBER v. FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF OPTOMETRY. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
J. Lewis Hall, Tallahassee, Warren, Klein, Lehrman, Shorenstein & Kline, Miami Beach, and Bernard B. Weksler, Miami, for appellant.
William C. Pierce, Tampa, and Rollo E. Karkeet, Miami, for appellee.
This suit was brought by Florida State Board of Optometry against Martin R. Weber, a naturopathic physician. The complaint prayed for an interpretation of Chapter 463, F.S.A., that naturopathic physicians be required to secure a license to practice optometry in this State and that Dr. Weber be enjoined from practicing optometry until he complies with Chapter 463, F.S.A. Dr. Weber answered the complaint admitting that he was not licensed to practice optometry under Chapter 463, F.S.A. but alleged that he was qualified to do so because he was licensed as a naturopath under Chapter 462, F.S.A. and that the exemption to 'physicians' under Section 463.08, F.S.A. included and authorized him to practice optometry.
The State Board of Naturopathic Examiners were permitted to intervene and adopt the answer of Dr. Weber as their answer to the complaint. March 26, 1953, the plaintiff moved for final decree on complaint and answer which motion was repeatedly delayed until February 16, 1954, when it was set for hearing on a day certain, but shortly prior to date of hearing counsel for defendant notified counsel for plaintiff that a consent final decree would be agreed to by the parties as prayed for in the complaint. The hearing was accordingly postponed for counsel to prepare the final decree and the written consent to be approved and entered of record. The final decree and the written consent were approved and signed by counsel for both parties and transmitted to Dr. Weber who promptly refused to approve and sign them. The case was then set for hearing on the motion for final decree on complaint and answer. April 19, 1954, final decree was entered as prayed for in the bill of complaint. This appeal is from the final decree.
The point for determination is whether or not a duly licensed naturopathic physician under the law of this state is by virtue of such license authorized to practice optometry without first procuring a license to do so.
It is admitted that the answer to this question turns on the interpretation of Section 463.08, F.S.A. as follows:
Appellant contends that naturopathy is recognized as one of the healing arts under the law of Florida, that he is a regularly licensed naturopathic physician, and that consequently he is a 'physician' as contemplated by the italicized part of the proviso to the quoted statute and is therefore exempt from the requirement of a license to practice optometry. He further contends that State ex rel. Turner v. Baltzell, 144 Fla. 278, 197 So. 783; Bragg v. State, 134 Ala. 165, 32 So. 767, 58 L.R.A. 925; People ex rel. Gage v. Siman, 278 Ill. 256, 115 N.E. 817; In re Complaint of Melser for Declaratory Decree and Judgment, 160 Fla. 333, 32 So.2d 742 and State Department of Public Welfare v. Melser, Fla., 69 So.2d 347, support his contention.
The chancellor found that the word 'physicians' as used in the proviso to Section 463.08, F.S.A. did not include licensed naturopaths and enjoined appellant from practicing optometry conditioned on securing a license under Chapter 463, F.S.A. The chancellor bottomed his decision on the theory that Chapter 3881, Acts of 1889, as subsequently amended and as now embraced in Chapter 458, F.S.A. created the State Board of Medical Examiners and authorized them to examine and license those who successfully passed the examination to practice medicine.
It was also the chancellor's view that Chapter 458, F.S.A. had to do with examining and licensing allopaths and homeopaths and could not have contemplated those engaged in the practice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Collet v. Scopel
...77 S.Ct. 33, 1 L.Ed.2d 38; Board of Examiners in Veterinary Medicine of State v. Tubbs, Okl., 307 P.2d 830, 832; Weber v. Florida State Board of Optometry, Fla., 73 So.2d 408. Other cases support the contention of instant defendant that, since at common law the practice of medicine was open......