122 Ind. App. 136 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1952
Appellee by this action sought a permanent injunction enjoining appellant from the practice of medicine in this state so long as she had no license to do so. Appellant filed a plea in abatement, to which appellee addressed a demurrer. The demurrer was sustained, issues joined, and the cause submitted to the court for trial.
The trial court, upon due request, made a special finding of facts and found that appellant maintained an office in Plymouth, Marshall County, Indiana; that in March, 1949, appellant treated a patient and received
The court concluded that appellant was unlawfully engaged in the practice of .medicine; that she should be enjoined from engaging in the practice of medicine until a license was procured. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Appellant presents as error the. sustaining of appellee’s demurrer to her plea in abatement. The plea in abatement alleges that the medical registration and licensing laws of the state have been made void and unconstitutional by reason of the administration of such laws by the Board of Medical Registration and Examination in a manner discriminatory against the system of healing known as chiropractic. Quoting from appellant’s brief: “Appellant does not allege that the Medical Practice Act is unconstitutional, but does allege that by reas.on of discriminatory administration, the Act has been unconstitutional in its application to chiropractory.” There is no allegation that appellant ever applied for or was ever denied a license.
" That the question appellant attempts to raise by her plea in abatement cannot be so raised was decided in State ex rel. Board of Medical Registration & Examination v. Frasure (1951), 229 Ind. 315, 98 N. E. 2d 365, where a similar plea in abatement was filed. Appellant may not thus collaterally attack the conduct of the board. Her remedy was pointed out in that case and in the case of State ex rel. Indiana Board of Medical Registration and Examination v. Cole (1939), 215 Ind. 562, 20 N. E. 2d 972. There was no error in sustaining the demurrer.
Judgment affirmed.
Note. — Reported in 103 N. E. 2d 221.