Jerry R. England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners

reversed and nored the decision should be Bridges whether remanded to determine charges pleaded in- ever at all to the did not dictment No.

judgment against aside him should be set plead. required to

and he should be Appellants,

Jerry al., R. ENGLAND et MEDI- BOARD OF

LOUISIANA STATE al., Appellees. CAL EXAMINERS et

No. 16920. Appeals

United States Fifth Circuit.

Sept. Simon, Lafayette, La., Floyd

J. Minos Reed, Orleans, La., J. New Jack L. Leesville, (Russell Simms, La. Morton Brown, Washington, C., brief), D. appellants. Adams, Jr., Orleans, St. Clair New (Adams Reese, Orleans, La., La. New & brief), defendants-appellees. RIVES, BROWN, Before Judges. WISDOM, Circuit PER CURIAM. originally assigned This case was

Judge Wisdom, opin- who has written an changed ion, appear which has been dissenting fully opinion, as the ly fair- developing concluding the issues and judg- affirmance of the district court’s in accordance with ment the tentative judges of all vote three in conference. study Upon further, deliberation, Judges however, Rives and Brown now believe that the district court erred in dismissing complaint for lack of a question warranting federal substantial jurisdiction. parte exercise Ex Por- 627 Columbia, respectable 30, 3, L.Ed. col- esky, 78 that 290 U.S. leges chiropractic have been founded length comparable in with courses on this time called at are not We equal quality to the claimed to be say chiropractors be whether to colleges. denied that It Louisiana, practice but admitted to may regulate, within reason- the they are entitled question is whether the bounds, chiropractic practice able the prove opportunity that to an to health; protection for the right to claimed of their State’s denial requirements is claimed that but it profession allegedly practice useful college approved by of a from a arbitrary as to and unreasonable is so American Association process or of denial due amount to knowledge surgery and materia protection under equal laws no reasonable relation to medica bear cer It is Amendment. Fourteenth chiropractic. practice of Without the hearing tainly is not bound that the State true evidence, say we cannot that theory recognize every peculiar or to untrue, claims or that a rea- those doubt of medicine. Without school might intelligently man sonable outlaw witch stingers, for the state chiropractor treatment choose queens, doctors, bee voodoo particular ailment. hold some We reasonably no which other cults various plaintiffs simply are entitled that intelligent for the man would choose day court, opportunity to an to a ills, cer of his but it would treatment tainly prove judgment case. The is there- some, if be to exclude fore reversed and the cause remanded following all, of the classes which proceedings inconsist- for further practice: admit den Louisiana does tists, opinion. ent this nurses, chiropodists, osteopaths, Reversed remanded. pharmacists, optometrists, and mid dividing line? where is the wives. Just Judge WISDOM, (dissenting). Circuit cases, we think it is all of the Under appeal This is an from the United deny any in State cannot that District the Eastern States right exercise reason dividual Appellants Louisiana. District of quested re- method of treatment able choice in the three-judge court be con- ills, nor the correlative his request was denied. After vened. The engage practitioners to in the hearing appellee’s motion to dis- profession. of a useful summary miss, as a motion for treated point The case closest judgment, court dismissed the district presented now is Louisiana State complaint. Fife, of Medical Examiners v. my all deference With due learned 58, 162 La. So. A.L. Court, respectfully brothers on the I opin affirmed in a Per Curiam R. me dissent. It seems there is May 2, 1927, ion dispute material factual thirty 71 L.Ed. 1324. In the Ct.S. appear issue. The critical issues of law years since that was ren odd decision pleadings. face of We should judicially dered, we know that the heal decide them now. general art made further Chiropractors day are entitled to their away progress an enormous They in court. are not entitled to an days when barbers did the blood cient day. extra say hearing letting. we Can without chiropractic is the evidence is no more It business state to de- recognition today cide who shall entitled than it was medicine ago? years thirty odd is claimed under what circumstances a license has now issued. our It is not business—unless legalized forty-four licensing (1) been statute is so unreason- Hawaii, States, (2) and able District or administered so unreason- €28

ably leg- say due as to amount to denial of process protection equal islature law enacted an unconstitutional applicants laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. because for a it makes all medical license the same mark. toe us to is in books for interpreted by Accepting pleadings has read. It been and exhibits Supreme true, plaintiffs as Louisiana. Similar failed Court make to by interpreted They present have case. statutes been a federal failed to Supreme against question already Court of United States. not decided overwhelming weight by Supreme is them the decisions the United States against plaintiffs. diversity Court. there is Since citizenship, properly the district court produces a Remand of this case jurisdiction. held it had no Hitch- strange paradox. It allows a trial Collenberg, D.C.Md.1956, cock v. 140 F. chiropractic order has ad- show that Supp. involving 894, naturopathic prac- years thirty far in the last vanced so citing leading titioners, and Louisiana Act Louisiana Medical Practice that the cases, all fours with almost no ex- is unconstitutional'—since has instant case. The United States Su- ception permit lower standards preme affirmed Hitchcock v. Col- any applied chiropractors be than to lenberg per opinion 1957, in a curiam practice applicants for a license to 919, 679, 353 U.S. 77 S.Ct. 1 L.Ed.2d remanding The effect of is to medicine. 718, citing Dent v. State West Vir- plaintiffs introduce evidence allow the ginia, 1889, S.Ct. Board of Ex- Louisiana Medical that the per opin- 32 L.Ed. 623. Cf. the curiam acting unconstitutionally in aminers is affirming ion Louisiana State Board disregard not does Fife, 1926, Medical Examiners making special exception statute 58; 1927, La. 111 So. 274 U.S. they chiropractors, for meet since cannot 71 L.Ed. everyone else must meet. the standards continuity in this field of law is materia medica and sur- Evidence that unbroken. gery chiropractic no relation to bear me as immaterial. The stand- strikes I. Medi- ards established Louisiana Forty chiropractors filed Each suit. purport cal to bear Practice Act do allegedly holds a from “a school practice chiropractic. a relation to the good standing teaching healing object law is to license those arts, Chiroprac- to-wit: the Science of holding quali- persons themselves out They judg- declaratory tic”. ask for a qualified prac- fied medical doctors— injunction against ment and for surgery generally, and medicine tice Board of Louisiana State Ex- Medical necessarily chiropractic any narrow, They (1) aminers. attack the constitu- alleged healing specialized practice or tionality of Louisiana Medical Prac- skill. (LSA-R.S. seq.) tice 37:1261 et Act ground difficult on its It some cases face the statute lawmaking. discriminatory judges arbitrary, avoid interstitial and couched deprive appellants This is a clear But here. case where terms so legislature rights, privileges, take notice of civil and im- training munities, equal protection limitations the medical under the chiropractic. practice of and the It Constitution laws United many op- They (2) similar cases: done so attack States. the Louisiana mid-wives, pharmacists,

tometrists, Medical os- State Board of Examiners acting unconstitutionally nurses, chiropodists teopaths, in discriminat- licensing maliciously wilfully enacting special laws. It has chi- chiropractors, ropractors, plaintiffs’ in violation note of limitations taken rights enacting special for their constitutional under law the Four- for us to is not make a law teenth Amendment. benefit. exam- Practice terms of the Medical take The Louisiana They say ination. Board's con- State Louisiana

creates ap- all struction effect examine of the statute has the “[to] Examiners prohibiting medicine”. plicants for the chiro- in Louisiana center of the and is therefore discrimina- 1271 is the Section tory. argue target. event, This reads: practors’ exemption enjoy “Any person who wishes given pharma- dentists, osteopaths, and shall: medicine cists. age; years “(1) twenty-one Be “(2) United Be a citizen II. States; The Louisiana Practice Act Medical character; “(3) moral Be of substantially prac similar medical “(4) board a to the Present tice statutes of These stat other states. standing of frequently utes have been attacked healing teaching or the medicine sect art; grounds constitutional similar to those chiropractors urge appeal. on this “(5) before decisions of Su Pass an examination Three the United States Anatomy, following: preme leading upon are the cases Court board Diag- Chemistry, Physical subject: Virginia, Physiology, v. State of West Dent Hy- Bacteriology, 1889, 114, 231, nosis, Pathology, 129 32 L.Ed. U.S. 9 S.Ct. Theory 623; Douglas giene, Surgery, Noble, 1923, 261 and Practice v. U.S. Obstetrics, 590; 165, 303, Medica, Medicine, 43 S.Ct. 67 L.Ed. Graves Materia 1926, Gynecology.” Minnesota, v. State of 425, 272 U.S. 122, S.Ct. 71 L.Ed. 331. See also legislature allows In Section 1275 the Collenberg, D.C.Md.1956, Hitchcock v. examinations fa- Board to waive 894, F.Supp. per curiam, 140 1957, affirmed applicant from another state vor an 679, 1 353 U.S. 77 S.Ct. L.Ed. presents of examination who a certificate citing 2d Virginia. Dent State West v. “re- examiners from a board medical equivalent ‘Class A ceived college standard American Medical As- right No one course has an absolute sociation’.” is con- This medicine. upon complying with rea- ditioned one’s In line with Section regulations imposed sonable the State consistently has good construed “a protect and welfare. standing” health mean a school medical every judicial approved by Courts at level in the the Association of Ameri- hierarchy emphasize profession Colleges can that or the Council on regulations open eligibility is more Hospitals Medical Education and of the “ * * * than Dealing, medicine. American Medical Association. Schools do, as followers its are not accredited people, health of lives and quiring and re- American Medical Association. Over practice gen- years, its successful while the Board law, con- has so skill, eral education technical as strued well the act has been amend- good character, obviously one ed and re-enacted on a number of occa- sions, power vocations where those part in 1950 was reenacted as only be exerted to see that Louisiana Revised Statutes. qualified persons properly shall under- chiropractors contend, first, The responsible take its difficult duties.” delegates arbitrary authority the Act Maryland, 1910, State of Watson v. Board, guide with no standards 173, 176, 644, U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. determining the Board in what is a good standing”. Virginia The chiro- v. Dent State West practors insist, secondly, passed upon validity the Court qualified anyone else under the every practi- requiring a state competent judge quali- state as statute of his tioner of pointed medicine from the fications.” to obtain that: Court out nothing State Board of Health a certificate show- “There char- graduate rep- provisions was a of “a acter in the- the statute college” practiced ; question. applies physicians utable medical or had to all * * * years imposes medicine by examined ten or had been no conditions which ” * * * qualified prac- readily met; the Board and found cannot be tice medicine. The claim made question inadequate standards the statute was unconstitutional because was not raised in the Dent case. It was arbitrary power it vested in the Board Douglas 43- [261 Noble reputable decide to college, what was involving 305], Washington stat- thereby deprived defendant providing only per- ute licensed process. of due forth sets bas- might practice dentistry. ap- sons All governing power ic considerations plicants undergo required were am of a state to issue a license.1 The Court examination a board of examiners.. held that the did violate due eligible, applicant To be had be- process, and also intimated that good present of diploma moral character a. and equal protection could clause be used not reputable from “a dental col- to strike down the statute either. Mr. lege”. was, The contention that since- Field, Court, Justice for the said: “Few what, the statute did not state in terms professions require prepa- more careful scope and character of the examina- by ration one who seeks to enter it than be, arbitrary power was con- tion * * * of medicine. that Reliance upon ferred the board in violation of placed given upon must be by the assurance process. Brandéis, due Mr. Justice for license, by authority his issued Court, pointed authority out that the competent judge respect, to in that that the statute of confers is a matter con- possesses requisite qualifications. he ques- struction and “its construction is a * * * right practice No a one has Washington of law”. tion state courts- having necessary medicine without had construed statute con- skill; learning qualifications and of and ferring arbitrary power upon the Board.. only requires whoever the statute assumes, by offering agreed Supreme The that the stat- community to the general indicated a of ute fit- standard physician, pos- his as a he scope services ness the character and and the. learning skill, pre- examination; sess such shall subsidiary matters were by a appropriately sent of it certificate evidence or committed to an adminis- body designated by board; license from a trative “the discretion here- undoubtedly right every being generally 1. “It is upon ascertained an ex- parties by citizen of the United to follow competent States per- amination of sons, profession calling, business, lawful may or he or inferred from a certificate to subject only choose, diploma to such restric them the form of a or li- imposed upon persons tions are all cense from an institution established for sex, age, right subjects, like may many respects condition. This instruction on the scientific and otherwise, be pursuits considered as a with which such have republican distinguishing feature our to deal. The nature and extent of the- ** * power qualifieations required The depend institutions pri- must provide general marily upon judgment state to welfare of the state- people prescribe necessity. they appro- of its authorizes it as to their If are regulations judgment priate calling all as in its profession, such to the or and- by or tend to study applica- will secure secure them attainable or consequences ignorance tion, objection validity no to can incapacity, 'deception as of stringency well be raised because of their or- difficulty. only one they and fraud. As means to this end is when have no- calling and it has been the states, of different profession, relation to such immemorial", from time exact or are unattainable such reasonable- many pursuits degree study application, certain op- a skill can learning upon community deprive which the pur- erate to one of his possessions may confidently rely; there sue a lawful vocation.” granted examining grant quirement well unlimited a board Fed- discretion of examiners. within the limits allowed board guide legislative principles ex- effect standard to eral Constitution”. administering pressed charged Douglas alive board v. Noble are pertinent. Further, of examiners act. a board arbitrarily construes does act passes v. Graves State of Minnesota good standing” as limited to directly question whether a state approved accredited schools. certain require could a dentist to attend a school Douglas Under and Graves v. Noble eligible standing” “in for an federal courts v. State Minnesota examination a Board of Dentists. before admonished decisions turn Court sustained the conviction great give questions these dentistry with- dentist weight to them. though grad- license even was a out III. dentist, gradu- he was not uate because Allopathic Ex of Medical ated from an accredited school. State Fowler, 1898, required diploma 50 La.Ann. from a “den- statute aminers standing”. “By stat dealt with a tal en- So. creating acting present exam the State has board ute legislative determined, through body, composed physicians recom its iners safeguard appointment properly fur from lists mended Society necessary Medical health it one be nished the Louisiana dentistry who does licensed to Hanneman State [sic] and the Society. organizations represent from a These hold dental recognized good standing. two That determination were then the ed what * * * weight. given great allopath of medical science: the must schools applicant Clearly homeopathic2 an for schools. The the fact that ic and the diploma repu- required applicant from li a holds a for a license a statute college diploma present a dental has direct board a table cense good standing. qualification his relation to medical substantial from a dentistry. say practiced medicine We had The defendant cannot acting years. diploma. arbitrarily He a State is had that for several “reputable unreasonably when, diploma a from his exercise But judgment, med school of determines the eclectic its that institution holding necessary dis is a He of such a claimed that icine”. against qualification practitioners of dentist- criminated upheld The his ry; or the distinction in the court made eclectic school. granting applicants ground between licenses on the narrow conviction diplomas such who license, hold those who practiced without a medicine had not, a has no classification which do upheld constitutional the Court but ” * ** substantial basis real or ity The broad terms. reference against eclectic school discrimination a cases hold that state is not These particularly relevant this case: regulation acting arbitrarily, in the “ * * -x- iphg medicine, requiring legislature practice of has applicants a license shall attend eclectic school of med- with the dealt good standing” it; icine, and discriminated in order simply examiners, eligible as selected for an has examination lead- to be ing right practice. constitutional had the license This as it re- symptoms Dictionary, similar to the New International effects son 2. Webster’s patient, complaint Edition, (1958) “homeop- defines the reme- Second being usually athy” curing, administered art as follows: “The minute dies resemblances; system by theory This was founded Dr. doses. founded opposed and is Hahnemann disease is cured rem- to al- Samuel its produce heteropathy”. healthy per- lopathy, which on a edies composed “chiropractic’” do, icine. The court defined boards examiners ap- margin opin- physicians as of this recommended stated pointment by ion.3 certain named two appointed societies, and medical leading is Lou case in Louisiana governor recommenda- on such Board Exam isiana State of Medical person, required that a has tion. It Fife, 1926, 681, 111 iners 162 La. So. practicing medicine in before 590,. 47 S.Ct. ;4 state, present to the boards In case L.Ed. 1324. the Fife diploma from medical mentioned chiroprac enjoin sued to certain standing, without, but it practicing from tors medicine attempted fix declare and contended license. defendants college, what constituted the Medical un Practice Act was colleges nor particular nor what (1) chiroprac constitutional because: colleges con- were to be classes of required tors materia med were to take colleges in as ‘medical sidered standing.’ subjects surgery, ica and and since these * * * of no We know relation to had no Act given partic- violates, constitutional suppresses chiropractors entertaining pe- who, persons, ular process; (2) chiropractors are due exempt group medicine, culiar theories dentists, together, and call them- themselves pharmacists, osteopaths, and this- special of medicine school selves equal protection denied recog- name, to be under a selected guaranteed by 14th amend laws An as such. with as and dealt nized Supreme of Louisiana ment. Court med- schools indefinite number of held the Medical Practice Act constitu recognition, might claim icine construing the statute the tional. standard fixed ascertained important Louisiana point: makes the “* * * pretensions. pass upon materia While medica ^{[*] [*]} *»» and practic system, surgery are used in the chiro they, of Medical still required as well In Louisiana State subjects act, Cronk, 157 La. v. Examiners amended, 415, chiro- the held that a bear relation to the court 102 So. general persons for of medicine as a science and practor who treated had Legis that, complaints the in view of the kidney, fact liver, stomach recognize every practicing bound to body med- lature is not was ailments “ adjust- solely practice, catalogue which consists ‘Chiropratic’ in the defined is 3. spine ing Chiropractic of the subluxated vertebrae the of Palmer School the of application hands, science, and that the with both philosophy, and art of ‘the adjusting nature of system of hands is not in the either natural, the things of and a pressing, thrusting rubbing spinal but is of the vertabrae subluxated the ”* * * Louisiana State movement. column, by hand, of the restoration Cronk, faculty v. of Medical Examiners Board the of of the Chiropractic The dean health.’ 321, 1924, 415, So. La. 102 416. testified of School Palmer Appellants quote this definition as follows: of this case trial the on “ complaint. chiropractic theory of is ‘The pressure upon produces the subluxation Error 4. of was taken Fife A Writ produce abnormal condi- which nerves Supreme United States Court. case to the body; and of the tissues the ditions of affirmed the decision the The Court adjustment subluxation of this Supreme in a of Per Louisiana relieved, pressure normal im- “May 2, is as follows: Curiam decision ** through * flow pulses are allowed Per Affirmed Curiam: authority nerves, natural forces Dent v. State of and the on the these 114, 231, Virginia, body 9 S.Ct. 129 U.S. do rest.’ West “ 623; Douglas Noble, v. U.S. subluxation,’ 32 L.Ed. de- defined ‘A 303, 590, slight 165, L.Ed. testimony, ‘a dis- is in his fendant Minnesota, 272 v. State also Graves placement Defendant of a vertebra.’ 122, drugs 71 L.Ed. 331. 47 S.Ct. in his uses no that he testifies made Being ries which it held requirement. nize their school with * special discretion, criminated “* ^[*] Examiners v. practice that course school such, 55 So.2d comply lature utes, provide held that lature did In Louisiana State ^[*] * * sick in accordance they * by them, is sufficient and that unconstitutional.” ^[*] has provision with the * ground ” for them study in medicine, If defendants were defendants exempt certain against, because the “college holds system, Beatty, In that choose Legislature could in its deemed those provisions of for those practicing medicine. accord under a direct attack was prevent being 1914, as amended. medicine, and deal must Board Medical whom by prescribing with the theories cannot restoring proper case, chiroprac- good standing” exempt with the theo- wish separate stat- unjustly dis- comply groups desiring 220 La. with it complain, Fife case act the Act health. had to Legis- recog- Legis- make treat first as As Dr. lopathic ference though tion”. that their “chief” others, statutes discriminates court said: sistently recognized only issue” against Louisiana statute. party which standing, ference, insofar as We take er arbitrary ruling as to the or not. ality the American Medical Fowler of the eclectic “ * * * reasonable relation the Board has taken such there exists no They so as statute, them. There between the is objection recognizes If up assert apply Act is now the the Board discriminates it remedy of the between justify would make no dif- IV. complaint is also that “the concerned, legal positions Appellants against them, “al- distinction, a mandamus.” language being schools the discrimina- Association, has very constitution- to the plaintiffs school, made Board con- colleges in injured little a stand wheth- accepted in Al- object assert bear- basic dif- the Act uncon- Ex- tors claimed that State England Fowler, it vested because stitutional Dr. aminers determining power what the Board school. good standing”, The Louisiana statute creak a thereby equal denied age. managed has little But it protection of law. On the basis of the And work. worked substan- case, Supreme Graves Court of Lou- tially the form same for more than for- argument rejected this isiana and held: ty years. “practice of medicine” is provision applicant “The the enough broadly apply defined to witch diploma college present from a doctors, queens, pharma- voodoo or the good standing does clothe the suggests aspirin cist who for a head- arbitrary power an with but be, only ache.5 So should the exercise interest the dis- protecting public cretion.” the of health. ment, present injury any being or

5. The Medical Practice human of other originally by any himself of than drug, whether the of Louisiana was Act 56 use 1914. force, phys- 9 or Section of Act 54 of instrument whether 1018 amended re- psychic, nature, ical or or of what other enacted Section 13 of the Act of any agency means; section, or examining, other or That now or LSA-R.S. 37:1261, gratuitously Part, prac- reads: either or “As used in this ‘The compensation, any person medicine, surgery midwifery’ of or tice of or material holding any person purpose means the of self for such out one’s from wheth- being engaged drug, instrument, force, as in the busi- er such or other diagnosing, treating, curing, agency applied by of ness or or means or used relieving any bodily disease, patient by person; or mental another or the attending condition, deformity, infirmity, defect, ail- of a woman childbirth with- 634 against applicant examinations in an There discrimination favor of is no presents chiropractors from a Board such. The Act does not who certificate only

prohibit of Examiners from another simply presents system. if he received a certificate college equivalent prohibits stand- with- A of medicine “Class Any- Association”, applies ard all. American Medical out a license. may qualifications for the unreasonable or one who can meet the examination, upon passing, apply minimum stand- the same take an and Thereafter, applicants. if ard Louisiana will be a license. issued chooses, may specialize in “sci- he argue théir chiropractic”. one ence of least at colleges good diplomas are from exhibits) (according to the instance standing carry much and practicing chiro- license practor issued to weight Hop- diploma from as a Johns requirements who met the kins; they say, example, Act. Chiropractic requires Palmer School of against 4,485 3,- a total of class hours standards. establishes The statute Hopkins Med- 397 class hours Johns at They to me. Section seem comparison ical School. A detailed applicant (4) requires furnish 1271 good light rea- throws deal of good stand- from a Board’s actions meas- sonableness subjects 1271(5) ing”. lists the Section considered ured standards appellant exam- must on which legislature. 1,723 proper hours Chemistry, Physiology, “Anatomy, ined: Physical subjects taught Hopkins at Johns Pathology Diagnosis, Bac- taught in- at Palmer School. These Theory Surgery, teriology, Hygiene, “Chiropractic 195 Phi- clude hours of Medica, Medicine, Materia Practice losophy”, Speaking, 65 hours of Public Gynecology.” Obstetrics, This list 65 “Neuroeolometer and hours of Neuro- subjects surely descriptive colograph”, 65 hours of “Ethics Ju- legislature regarded the minimum risprudence”, “Principles 130 hours of requirements for the curriculum aof Practice, Chiropractic”, 1,193 hours school, if meet the school is to Chiropractic Technic, Practice, of Hygiene. 1,192 legislative of “a standard subjects hours of standing”. 1275 shows Section taught taught at Palmer School are at legislature equated “a Hopkins: medicine, Johns 656 hours of standing” approved with one surgery, pedi- hours hours Medical Association. Sec- American atrics, pharmacology, hours provides: “The board tion psychology, hours 16 hours any ap- in favor of examinations waive therapeutics. presents plicant to the board a who satisfactory of examination certificate This breakdown comes from an exhibit chiropractors. of medical examiners of from board filed It seems to conclusively board finds another state that me demonstrates that it interpre- examination the certificate reasonableness of the Board’s duty medical examiners of another of its board tation under the Louisiana equivalent legislature the state received The Louisiana statute. has college practice standard American A license to ‘Class said that a in medicine Association’.” This amounts to means Medical the licensee the has defining college legislature knowledge subjects a of the the sufficient list- standing 1271(5) pass A as a “Class standard in Section ed to exam- subjects. these ination on It Medical Association”. If is im- American legislature plicit the act licensee allows the waive studied to engaged physician, he is in the business licensed sur- that fracting of re- aid a

out the geon glasses midwife; using fitting or the to the human or or optician, eye.” than to indicate other title subjects bearing practice in a stand- have no these on the of ESP. ing. prove chiroprac- 2,000 subjects Their school The exhibits has hours in training surgery taught for Hopkins; Hopkins tors have at Johns general knowledge special for which has medical no courses on ESP. It is accepted symbol they a doctor’s is the clear practice law, license that under the Louisiana showing public. plaintiffs’ On medicine. Some of the ESP case, practitioners uncanny Board would have been this had have success statutory duty cases, had especially psy- derelict its in certain in the permitted thirty years take an examination them to chiatric field. ESP has leading long way ouija a license. advanced a from the argued board. Finally, chiropractors complain should have the constitutional through arbitrarily go a doctor their choice for medi- pure whim them discriminates cal I treatment. have no doubt that requiring dentists, osteopaths, in not licensing Louisiana could enact a law optometrists, chiropodists, phar- nurses, practitioners practice spe- ESP macists, comply and midwives with cialty. But the state is under con- occupa- Medical Practice Act. These obligation every stitutional to license or- professions subject tions or are the ganized giving group treatments legislative special acts. As said in the imagine I health. cannot this Court or argu- case, Fife same answer telling any other court the state Lou- requirements for admission ment: general practice isiana that its osteopaths, midwives, chiropodists, unconstitutional, act because ESP different; trained nurses and others are practitioners eligible are not li- surgery. they or do not need materia imagine I censed. any cannot this Court or legislature has notice 'The taken remanding other court a ease to al- training chiropodist or a limited practitioner low an ESP show that authorized midwife has issuance Board of Medical Examiners was arbi- special- .a restricted license to declaring trary ineligible him legislature ty. But, Fife, as in ignore license that would him to allow recognize upon every “called * ** Rhine’s Dr. lectures and cut instead of medicine school [It] open a man’s brain. .a discretion whether a reasonable as to recognized particular school should be say nothing against chiropractors. I special provisions made for it”. may The American Medical Association go day way Appellants do some contend that of the Hahnemann surgery Society. know, Medical medica or For all materia we need legislature chiropractic. day No Louisiana doubt. some sub- tag. descriptive “Chiropractic Philosophy” “Dr.” carries no stitute But long Neurocolograph” as a medicine “Neurocolometer and As license knowledge surgery implies materia materia medica medica and in Sec- say only surgery, Board of Examiners tion 1271. I the Medical arbitrary un- Practice considered is not and un- cannot be accepting diploma accepting in not reasonable on allegations face its complaint Chiropractic true, Palmer School of from the Board Medical Examiners same basis has not arbitrarily Hopkins unreasonably, acted Johns School. even though statute, as administered suppose us that a number Let of well Board, barring has the effect of majors, psychology after trained attend- appli- from state medical examinations University, organize grad- Duke diplomas cants from schools of ESP, using of medicine school uate chiropractic. extrasensory perception exclusively for diagnosis hypnotism exclusively up The act set standards. everyone surgery toes Materia And the same medica and mark. treatment.

V. properly dismissed district court complaint for lack of a substantial warranting question federal exercise of

jurisdiction. parte Poresky, Ex 290 U.

S. I would 78 L.Ed. 152.

affirm. -Appellant, OROZ, Plaintiff

Andrew LINES, Ltd.,

AMERICAN PRESIDENT Defendant-Appellee.

No. Docket 24662. Appeals Court of

United States Circuit. Second

Argued March 1958. Sept.

Decided

Case Details

Case Name: Jerry R. England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Sep 9, 1958

Citation: 259 F.2d 626

Docket Number: 16920_1

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.