Wolf v. State Board of Medical Examiners
| Decision Date | 31 December 1909 |
| Docket Number | 16,324 - (113) |
| Parties | MILTON C. WOLF v. STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS and Another |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to restrain defendant board and its secretary from proceeding in the matter of the revocation of plaintiff's license as a medical practitioner. Defendant W. S. Fullerton, as secretary of defendant board, answered. The case was tried before Kelly J., who found in favor of defendants and dissolved the restraining order pendente lite. From the judgment entered pursuant to the findings, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
License of Physician -- Power of Medical Examiners.
Section 2296, R.L. 1905, concerning the power of the board of medical examiners to grant or revoke a license of a physician and surgeon to practice medicine, must be construed in connection with other sections of the Revised Laws which are by their terms applicable. It does not fail of legal effect because it does not contain the legal requirements thereby supplied.
Notice of Hearing of Charges.
Defects are held not to have invalidated a notice of hearing served on defendant which contained enough to give defendant notice of the charges against him, and to require him to answer in accordance with law.
Removal of Physician -- Statute Constitutional.
Chapter 474, Laws 1909, giving to a physician removed by the board of medical examiners the right to appeal to the district court governs further proceedings for the removal of plaintiff, and is not unconstitutional, as depriving him of property without due process of law.
C. D. & R. D. O'Brien, for appellant.
W. R. Duxbury, for respondent.
The complaint of plaintiff and appellant, a duly licensed physician, set forth: The defendant and respondent, the state board of medical examiners of the state, as provided by the statute, caused a notice to be served on plaintiff to appear before said board at a time and place stated and show cause why the defendant should not revoke his license to practice medicine. The ground stated in said notice was that plaintiff had been guilty of unprofessional conduct, in that at divers times he had entered into business relations with the Heidelberg Medical Institute, and had aided and abetted it in carrying on a questionable medical practice. The defendant, it was alleged, had not the capacity, qualification, or power to properly examine, pass on, or ascertain the facts as to whether this plaintiff had been guilty of immoral, dishonorable, or unprofessional conduct, or to summon, administer oaths, or compel the production of documentary evidence; "the ethics of the medical profession are vague and shadowy; that there are a variety of medical schools represented on said board, all differing in their theory of ethics as well as upon their medical theories; * * * that they do not act under oath, and that their action is wholly unrestrained, either by judgment, law, or conscience." The board had fully determined in advance to revoke the license of this plaintiff without regard to the facts. Irreparable injury would be done to plaintiff by the revoking of his license; wherefore the complaint prayed an injunction enjoining the board from proceeding further in the matter and for a preliminary injunction to the same effect. The answer admitted the formal parts of the complaint and denied its substance. The court denied the injunction and dissolved the restraining order pendente lite. From judgment entered accordingly this appeal was taken.
1. The first question presented by the record concerns the interpretation to be placed upon section 2296, R.L. 1905. That section provides in part that "the board may refuse to grant a license to, or may revoke the license of, any person guilty of immoral, dishonorable, and unprofessional conduct, but subject to the right of the applicant to appeal to the Governor." It is obvious that this section is incomplete in itself. It is equally certain that the section must be construed together with other sections of the Revised Laws and general principles of law which are applicable.
It is not true, as the complainant sets forth, that the board is not required to take an oath. The subscription of an oath is expressly required by section 2677, R.L. 1905. It is true, as the complainant sets forth that no notice nor form of notice is prescribed by section 2296. The gist of the power to revoke necessarily implies, however, the ability on the part of the board to prescribe legal forms. This section does not expressly confer upon the board power of administering an oath. The deficiency, however, is fully supplied by section 2682, R.L. 1905. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial