66 N.Y.S. 952 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1900
Lead Opinion
The plaintiff was engaged in the practice of medicine in the city ■of Rochester and brought this action to recover for medical services rendered defendant in the year 1894, and claims his due $273 besides interest. The nonsuit was granted on the ground that the plaintiff -at the time of the rendition of the services was not legally qualified to practice his profession, and that is the only issue on this appeal.
The plaintiff was graduated from the medical department of the University of Michigan in 1886 and commenced practice in Penn Yan, Yates county, in this State. On the eighth day of October in that year he caused his affidavit to be registered in the office of the clerk ■of that county, setting forth that he held a diploma from the University of Michigan, which was his authority for the practice •of physic and surgery. In 1889 the plaintiff moved to Monroe ■county and before engaging in the practice of medicine in that county •caused a transcript of the said affidavit to be filed in the clerk’s office -of that county. On January 10, 1899, the. State Medical Board Tecommended that the “ imperfect registration ” of the plaintiff , be made valid,” and this was supplemented by the certificate of the said
Chapter 513 of the Laws of 1880, which is entitled’, “ An Act to regulate the licensing of physicians and surgeons,” was in force at the time the plaintiff began the practice of medicine in Yates county. Section 4 of that, act prescribes the procedure by which a person coming into the State may be licensed to practice physic and surgery. If he holds a diploma issued to him by a medical school without the-state he can secure the indorsed approval of “the faculty of some incorporated medical college or medical school of this State.” There must, however, accompany the presentation of the diploma to the-faculty “satisfactory evidence of his good moral character” together-with “ such other evidence, if any, of his qualifications as a physician or surgeon as said faculty may require.” That is, .the faculty of the medical college in this State to which this evidence is presented is the examining board which passes upon liis acquirements to engage in the practice of medicine, and they use his diploma as a basis, but-their approval must include not alone the diploma but his qualifications and moral character. There is no pretense that plaintiff ever-attempted to comply with the plain requirements of this statute. Chapter 647 of the Laws of 1887 is another regulation of the-licensing of physicians, but it does not in any way lessen the restrictions-of the statute referred to. Subdivision 3 of section 2 permits-the indorsement and approval to be made not only by the faculty of a medical school or college in the State,-but also by the Regents of the State University “ on the recommendation of a legally constituted board of medical examiners of this State.” ' Chapter 500 of the Laws-of 1890 is amendatory of the act of 1887,- and subdivision 3 of section 2 vests the right of approval in the Regents of the University alone. Chapter 661 of the Laws of 1893 is an elaborate act pertaining to the public health and regulating the registration and licensing of ' physicians and surgeons. ' By that act the authority to issue licenses-
When the services in question were rendered plaintiff possessed no license and had no authority to prosecute his calling. The State Board cannot endue him with a cause of action where none existed before. It may do away with the necessity of any further license or registration- by injecting life into the papers he has already filed and give him a “ clean bill of health ” for the future, but that, under this "act, is the extent of its authority. •
A license during all this period was necessary to enable the plain-. tiff to practice his profession. Confessedly he had none. There is no warrant in the law for the State Board to determine that he in fact during all this period was licensed to practice.
Section 3 of chapter 513 of the Laws of 1880, above mentioned, makes a violation of the provisions of the act a misdemeanor. A similar provision is contained in the cognate statutes. (Laws of 1887, chap. 647, § 6; Laws of 1893, chap. 661, § 153.) The agreement with the defendant, therefore, is void and no recovery can be had. (Fox v. Dixon, 34 N. Y. St. Repr. 710.)
In that case, which' is cited approvingly in Accetta v. Zupa (54 App. Div. 33), the court ase this language: “ ‘ It is a settled principle that one cannot recover compensation for doing an act to do which is forbidden by law and is a misdemeanor. The contrary rule would make an absurdity. It would permit one to hire another to
During the time these services were performed the plaintiff was liable to indictment and conviction for practicing physic and surgery without proper warrant. If this act is to be given a retroactive, effect, we have the anomalous condition of affairs whereby he can recover for services, the rendition of which by him constituted a crime.
This interpretation may operate as an injustice in a particular case, but the statutes are a safeguard both to the public and to those, engaging in the practice of physic and surgery, and should be rigorously enforced.
The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs to the respondent.
McLennan and Williams, JJ., concurred; Adams, P. J., dissented in opinion, in which Laughlin, J., concurred.
Dissenting Opinion
The plaintiff brings this action to recover the value of certain services alleged to have been rendered by him as a physician and surgeon in behalf of the defendant. By the undisputed evidence-in the case it appears that the plaintiff was graduated from the University of Michigan, at Ann Arbor, in 1886, and received a diploma, from that institution bearing date the first day of July in that year.
Shortly after his graduation the plaintiff removed to this State- and commenced practicing his profession at Penn Yan in the county of Yates; and on the 8th day of - October, 1886, he filed with the-clerk of that county an affidavit -in which he stated his age, residence, place of birth and authority for practicing physic and surgery, as required by section 2 of chapter 513 of the Laws of 1880. But he omitted to accompany such affidavit with the indorsement of the faculty of an incorporated medical college or school of this -State,
In the year 1889 the plaintiff removed to the village of Charlotte in the county of Monroe, and on the eighteenth day of ¡November of that year he presented to the cleric of that county a certified copy of the affidavit filed by him with the clerk of the county of Yates, and the same was thereupon filed in the office of the clerk with these words indorsed thereon : “ Registered also in the county of Monroe.”
The services which constituté the claim in suit were rendered in the year 1894, and in the year 1899 the plaintiff, having in the meantime discovered that his former registration was imperfect, applied to the Regents of the University of this State for a certificate which should cure such imperfection. This application was granted, and upon the 14th day of February, 1899, a Regents’ certificate or license was filed in the clerk’s office of Monroe county. This certificate, which was based upon a recommendation of the State Board of Medical Examiners, bearing date the 17th day of January, 1899, reads as follows, viz:
“ Certificate of Board of Regents.
“ University of the State of ¡New York.
“ The Regents of the University of the State of ¡New York hereby certify:
“That John E. Ottaway of the village of Charlotte, ¡N". Y., did in the year 1886, present to the County Clerk of Yates County, ¡N". Y., an M. D. diploma issued to said Ottaway by the University of Michigan July, 1886, and that he made the affidavit before the said clerk then required of persons who applied for licenses to practice medicine, and that said affidavit was duly filed in the office of the clerk of Yates County.
“That thereafter on the 18th d.ay of ¡N"ov. 1889, the said John E. Ottaway presented to the clerk of the county of Monroe, ¡N- Y., a certified copy of the affidavit filed by him with the clerk of Yates County, who endorsed thereon the words ‘Registered also in the county of Monroe.’
“ That the said attempted registration of Dr. Ottaway in each of the said counties was invalid for the reason that he had not exhibited his*416 diploma to the faculty of some duly incorporated medical school or college in this state and received from them an endorsement of approval, and has not presented his diploma with such endorsement to the County Clerk of Yates County; that such omission was wholly ■ unintentional.
“We further certify that Dr. Ottaway had all of the other requirements prescribed by law at the time of his imperfect registration, and.would have been entitled to be legally registered.
“We also certify that proof of the foregoing facts have been submitted to the State Board of Medical Examiners, and that they have unanimously recommended that the imperfect registration of said John E. Ottaway in the Counties' of Yates and Monroe be made valid.
“In witness whereof, the seal of the University of the State of [seal] New York is hereunto.affixed this 2nd day
of February, 1899.
“ JAMES BUSSELL PARSONS, JR,
“Deputy Secretary.
“ Certified by Herbert J. Hamilton,
“Examiner.
[Ten cent revenue stamp.]
“ Filed February 14z5/¿-, Í899, Monroe County.”
The certificate was issued pursuant to section 148 of chapter 661 of the Laws of 1893, known as the “ Public Health Law ” which also provides, among other things, that “ On receiving from a State Board an official report that an applicant has successfully passed the examinations and is recommended for license, the Begents shall issue to him, if in their judgment he is duly qualified therefor, a license to practice medicine. * * * If any person whose registration is not legal because of some error, misunderstanding or unintentional omission shall submit satisfactory proof • that he had all requirements prescribed by law at the time of his imperfect registration, and was entitled to be legally registered, he may, on unanimous recommendation of a State Board of Medical Examiners, receive from the Begents, under seal, a certificate of the facts which may be registered by any county clerk and shall make valid the previous imperfect registration.” .
In considering this question it must be borne in mind that the statute relating to and regulating the practice of medicine within this State is highly penal in its nature. It not only prohibits a person who does not conform to its requirements from practicing his profession, however well qualified he may be to do so, but .it renders him liable to fine and imprisonment. Manifestly, therefore, within well-accepted rules of construction, it is a statute which must be construed liberally in favor of the plaintiff. ( Whitaker v. Masterton, 106 N. Y. 277; Raynard v. Chase, 1 Burr. 2, 6.)
With this rule in mind, it seems to me quite plain that the only construction to be given to the provision now under consideration is that the Legislature intended to afford to persons who were in fact duly qualified to practice medicine, but who had innocently and unintentionally omitted to comply with the requirements of the law, an opportunity to rectify such omission upon furnishing satisfactory proof that they possessed all the necessary requirements at the time of their imperfect registration.
This much the plaintiff has unquestionably done; and in a certificate reciting the fact the State Board of Medical Examiners have unanimously recommended that he should receive from the Regents a certificate thereof under seal. This was subsequently obtained and when registered it constituted a full and complete authority or license to practice in this State.
Row, what is the effect of such a certificate upon the one which preceded it ? Did it simply authorize the plaintiff, to practice his
As has been shown, the plaintiff made an attempt to register in the year 1886, which, although ineffectual because of its failure to comply with the requirements of the law was, nevertheless, a registration ; and when life and validity were infused into that registration by subsequent legislative enactment, it must,. I think, within the plain terms of the statute, have been perfected and made valid as of its original date.
This precise question has recently been under examination in a well-considered opinion by a jurist of conceded ability, and the conclusion reached by him is one which commends itself to my approval and one which, if adopted by this court, as I think it should be, would necessarily lead to a reversal of the judgment appealed from. (Mayor v. Bigelow, 13 Misc. Rep. 42.)
Entertaining this view, I ana unable to concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice Spring.
Laughlin, J., concurred.
. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
