109 So. 2d 123 | La. Ct. App. | 1959
Plaintiff, Dr. Eileen B. McAvoy, instituted this suit against the defendant, the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, endeavoring to obtain a writ of mandamus compelling it to issue to her a license to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Louisiana.
Defendant pleaded the exceptions of no right or cause of action, which were disposed of, and then answered, admitting the denial of the license to practice medicine predicated on the fact that the Board was not satisfied with the moral character of the plaintiff.
From a judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing plaintiff's suit, she has prosecuted this appeal.
The record reveals that plaintiff graduated from the College of Medicine, Baylor University, in 1952, and that she became a regularly licensed physician and surgeon under the laws of the State of Texas and likewise under the laws of the State of New York, where she practiced. She successfully completed her internship and was a member of the Medical Corps of the United States Army.
Shortly after her honorable discharge from the Army Medical Corps she moved to Hammond, Louisiana, and there purchased the practice of a Dr. Markham. She then applied to the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners for a certificate to practice predicated on a license issued by the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, and a temporary certificate to practice was issued to her, pending a meeting of the Board. On February 28, 1957, a letter was addressed to plaintiff by
It thus appears from the record that the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners refused to issue a license to the plaintiff to practice medicine and surgery in this state on the ground that it was not satisfied that she was of “good moral character,” as required by the statutory law of this state.
Plaintiff insists that the defendant’s refusal to issue a license to plaintiff predicated on its conclusion that she was not of good moral character is so nebulous, vague, and ill-defined that the defendant must produce some factual support for this conclusion in order to avoid being adjudged arbitrary and capricious in its refusal to issue a license.
Defendant on the other hand points to the evidence contained in the record to show that it fully and carefully investigated plaintiff’s moral character and concluded therefrom that it was not satisfied with her moral character.
An examination of the record fails to disclose that the defendant acted arbitrarily or capriciously
For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
. LSA-R.S. 37:1271. “Qualifications of applicants
“Any person who wishes to practice medicine shall:
“(1) * * *
«(2) * * *
“(3) Be of good moral character;
“(4) * * *
“ (5) * * * ”
Ҥ 1273. Issuance of certificate
If the requirements of R.S. 37:1271 are met to the satisfaction of the board, the board shall issue to the applicant a certificate to practice medicine.”
Ҥ 1275. Other states, certificate of examination
The board may waive examination in favor of any applicant who presents to the board a satisfactory certificate of examination from a board of medical examiners of another state if the board finds that the certificate of examination from the board of medical examiners of another state was received on the equivalent of ‘Glass A college standard American Medical Association.’ ”
. See State ex rel. Thoman v. State Board of Certified Public Accountants, 1931, 172 La. 261, 134 So. 85; State ex rel. Eberle v. State Board of Certified Public Accountants, 171 La. 318, 131 So. 32; Comment, 33 Tulane L.Rev. 199, 208 (1958).