White v. Board of Medical Registration and Examination of Ind., No. 29313

• Docket Nº: No. 29313
• Citation: 235 Ind. 572, 134 N.E.2d 556
• Case Date: May 28, 1956
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

Page 556

134 N.E.2d 556 235 Ind. 572 William J. WHITE, Appellant,
v.
The BOARD OF MEDICAL REGISTRATION and EXAMINATION OF
INDIANA, Appellee. No. 29313. Supreme Court of Indiana. May 28, 1956.

[235 Ind. 573]

Page 558

Charles W. Gannon, Gary, Albert W. Ewbank, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., of Indiana, Thomas L. Webber, Dep. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

EMMERT, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing proceedings to review an order of the Board of Medical Registration and Examination of Indiana, hereafter referred to as the Board, which revoked appellant's license to practice medicine, surgery and obstetrics[235 Ind. 574] in Indiana, for gross immorality under § 63-1306, Burns' 1951 Replacement.

After a hearing before the Board, its finding and order were entered January 11, 1955. On January 24, 1955, appellant filed a $200 bond with the Clerk of the Lake Circuit Court, and on January 27, 1955, appellant filed with the same clerk a verified petition to review the order of revocation. No transcript of the evidence heard before the Board was ever filed on review, and on March 30, 1955, the Attorney General filed a special appearance for the Board and moved to dismiss the proceedings. The judgment of dismissal was entered on April 15, 1955.

Section 63-1306, Burns' 1951 Replacement, Section 1 of Chapter 253 of the 1947 Acts, provides for an 'appeal' to the circuit or superior court of the county in which the license was issued, by filing a $200 bond with the clerk of such court within 30 days from the entering of the order of revocation. Section 14 of the Administrative Adjudication and Court Review Act of 1947, § 63-3014, Burns' 1951 Replacement, provides for 'judicial review' by a petition to be filed with the circuit or superior court in any county where the Board's order or determination is to be carried out, within 15 days after the order, decision or determination is made. If this latter act controls, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

Appellant contends that the provisions for an appeal under § 1 of Chapter 253 of the 1947 Acts. § 63-1306, Burns' 1951 Replacement, are still in force, and unrepealed by the Administrative Adjudication and Court Review Act of 1947, Chapter 365 of the 1947 Acts. It is to be noted that the former act provides: 'If any act is passed by this session of the general assembly concerning uniform methods of conducting administrative [235 Ind. 575] hearings, proceedings and appeals, the provisions of such act shall control, in so far as applicable, regardless of whether said act is passed or becomes effective before or after the passage or effective date of this act.' This act contained an emergency clause and became effective on its approval March 13, 1947, while the Administrative Adjudication and Court Review Act became effective January 1, 1948. This latter act also had a general repealing clause, § 63-3028, Burns' 1951 Replacement, and another section declaring the intention of the General Assembly

Page 559

that this act should supersede any other passed at the same session. ¹

But appellant asserts these repealing sections are not within the title of the act as required by Section 19 of Article 4 of the Constitution. The title to the act is "An act concerning the proceedings, orders and determinations of state officers and agencies and judicial review thereof." § 63-3001 note. This title covered the subject matter of administrative orders and their review, and it was not necessary that the title disclose a repealing clause for other acts with provisions concerning court review or appeal.

'The law repealed, is in relation to the same subject. We are of opinion that the repeal of a former law on any given subject, is properly connected with the subject-matter of a new law on the same subject, and in strict accordance with the constitutional [235 Ind. 576] requirements that 'every act shall embrace but one subject, and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title,' although the repeal of former laws is not mentioned in the title of the new enactment.' Gabbert v. Jeffersonville R. Co., 1858, 11 Ind. 365, 366. This rule was followed in Board of Com'rs, etc. v. Scanlan,...