This is аn application by the petitioner, Anna Swift, for an order reviewing the determination of the respondents in revoking, annulling and canceling the license of Anna Swift to practice physiоtherapy, and in annulling and canceling of record her registration as a physiotherapist, or, in the alternative, that the proceedings herein be transferred to the Appellatе Division of the Supreme Court for the Third Judicial Department for disposition, for a final order rescinding and annulling the determination of the respondents, and directing that the name of Anna Swift be reinstаted on the records of the State Board of Education as a duly
The petitioner lives in New York city, and on or about the 16th day of October, 1930, the Regents of the University of the State of New York, pursuant to section 51 of the Education Law, granted to her a license to practice physiotherapy in the State of New York. She had offices and a place for the praсtice of her profession at 8 West Seventieth street, New York city, for many years. She was convicted December 1, 1936, of (1) keeping and maintaining a house of ill fame; (2) keeping a disordеrly house; (3) maintaining a public nuisance; (4) unlawfully as lessor knowingly and with good reason to know permitting a room to be used as a place for the practice of prostitution and lewdness and other misbehavior, in the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, and sentenced to imprisonment for three months in the workhouse.
She appealed from the judgment of conviction to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department, which court duly affirmed the conviction (People v. Swift,
On the 26th of June, 1939, a formal hearing on the charges was had before a subcommittee of the Medicаl Grievance Committee in New York city. Petitioner appeared by counsel. Before this hearing was held, petitioner applied to the Supreme Court of the State of New York fоr an order to prohibit and restrain the Attorney-General, the Board of Regents and the Medical Grievance Committee from hearing the alleged charges, on the grounds that petitioner was a physiotherapist, and that the disciplinary proceedings set forth in the Education Law did not include her; that it was limited to physicians and practitioners of medicine. The motion was denied. Petitioner appealed to the Appellate Division, which court affirmed the Special Term without opinion (Matter of Swift v. Upham,
Whatever the character of the petitioner is, she is entitled to bе judged as to the revocation of her license to practice physiotherapy and the cancellation of her registration in accordance with the law. She may be the lowest and foulest of creatures, but none the less it is repugnant to due administration of justice and abhorrent that property be taken from her without due process of law. Her lawyers assert, as she does also, and it is not disputed, that she does not practice medicine. Subdivision 7 of section 1250 of the Education Law provides: “ The practice of medicine is defined аs follows: A person practices medicine within the meaning of this article, except as hereinafter stated, who holds himself out as being able to diagnose, treat, operate оr prescribe for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity or physical condition, and who shall either offer or undertake, by any means or method, to diagnose, treat, operate or prescribe for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or physical condition.”
Subdivision 2 of section 1264 of the Education Law provides:
“ The license or registration of a practitioner of mеdicine may be revoked, suspended or annulled or such practitioner reprimanded or disciplined in accordance with the provisions and procedure of this article upon decision, after due hearing in any of the following cases. * * *
“ (b) That a physician has been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction, either within or without this State, of a crime.”
The рractice of physiotherapy, as used in this article (Art. 48, § 1262) of the Education Law, is hereby defined as the use of actinotherapy, hydrotherapy, mechanotherapy, thermotheraрy and electrotherapy, exclusive of the X-ray.
A license to practice physiotherapy shall not permit the holder thereof to administer drugs or to practice medicine as defined in section 1250 of this article.
Section 1265 of the Education Law provides in part for “ a committee which shall be known as the committee on grievances which shall consist of ten members who shall be appointed by the Regents.”
Subdivision 4 of section 1265 provides: “ The members of said committee shall have jurisdiction to hear all charges against duly licensed physicians of this State.”
The mode of procedure is in detail prescribed and provided as to charges and hearings thereon, and further that the committee shall determine the charges upon the merits. Upon the records, findings and determination of the Mеdical Committee on Grievances, pursuant to a vote of the Board of Regents of the State of New York,
The respondents claim that the determination is justified by the law, because the title of article 48 of the Education Law is “ Practice of Medicine ” and the practice of physiotherapy is embraced within the article; that petitioner’s license] could be properly and legally revoked by the same identical procedure as provided by the article to revoke the license of a physician. There is a marked difference and distinction between a physician and a physiotherapist, and it has been so held as law. (People v. Mari,
There is no contention upon the part of the petitioner that the hearing conducted by the Regents was unfair in any particular. There is no claim by petitioner that the judgment or order of revocation and canсellation of petitioner’s license is against the weight of evidence. It is admitted she has been convicted of crime. It is undisputed that for a conviction of crime the Regents has the рower to revoke the license of a physician and cancel his registration. The sole objection of petitioner is that the Regents were without authority or jurisdiction in the premises. It is the novel and unique plea of the petitioner that because the Regents applied the same formal procedure required to hear and determine charges of unfitness аgainst a physician, in proceeding in such a manner against a physiotherapist its action is a nullity as a matter of law.
With this contention I cannot agree. The Regents issued the license to petitioner, and I hold that in its supervisory capacity, the Regents, for proper and sufficient cause, had the identical same right to revoke it. It would be absurd to reason that, becаuse petitioner was granted the same protection and safeguards granted to a physician as to removal on charges, she has been injured and damaged. -It seems to this court thаt petitioner was given more protection by the Regents than required; hence, the determination of the respondents revoking, annulling and canceling the license of Anna Swift to practice physiotherapy, and in annulling and canceling of record her registration as a physiotherapist, is, in all respects, confirmed, with costs.
Submit order.