109 Minn. 360 | Minn. | 1909
The complaint of plaintiff and appellant, a duly licensed physician, set forth: The defendant and respondent, the state board of medical
1. The first question presented by the record concerns the interpretation to he placed upon section 2296, it. L. 1905. That section provides in part that “the board may refuse to grant a license to, or may revoke the license of, any person guilty of immoral, dishonorable, and unprofessional conduct, but subject to the right'of the applicant to appeal to the Governor.” It is obvious that this section is incomplete in itself. It is equally certain that the section must be construed together with other sections of the Revised Laws and general principles of law which are applicable; •
It is not true, as the complainant sets forth, that the board is- not
2. Objection is made to the form of the notice served on the plaintiff by defendant. That notice recites that it has been made to appear to said board that defendant had been guilty of unprofessional conduct. This, plaintiff says, demonstrates the prejudgment by the board of the merits of the case. “Here is a judgment and determination formed and announced. The accused has been found guilty of unprofessional conduct. * * * All things are here determined, and nothing is left but the appearance of plaintiff before the board, and the resolution by the board revoking his license, according to their previous solemn determination.” Of this notice the trial court said: “Prom a lawyer’s standpoint the language employed therein might be improved, but it is simply a citation to answer before the board certain charges touching the professional and possibly the moral conduct- of
The third question presented by the record concerns the constitutionality of the act in question. The accused physician has argued with great earnestness that the right to practice medicine is a property •right; that the statute is unconstitutional because it sought to deprive him of rights and privileges secured to him otherwise than by the law of the land, and deprive him of property without due process of law, in contravention of sections 2, 7, art. 1, Const. (Minn.) We find it unnecessary to determine here this question. This proceeding was commenced under the statute as it existed prior to the amendment thereof by chapter 474, p. 590, Laws 1909; but it is clear that •subsequent proceedings must conform to the statute as thus amended. The principal objection to the old statute was that it failed to provide a physician proceeded against for removal with an opportunity to review a possible removal before some tribunal authorized to hear and protect his rights, and hence deprived him of his liberty and property without due process of law.
The new statute expressly provides for an appeal to the district •court of the proper county on questions of law and fact, and thus answers every requirement of due process of law. It was intended to obviate the constitutional objection to the old statute. As it will .govern further proceedings herein, it is unnecessary to determine the validity of the old statute. It is to be noted that the definition of the offense against professional propriety is in no wise altered. The «change is one of procedure alone, and secures to the person proceeded against all his constitutional rights. The ability of the legislature to •effect such change is beyond question. If defendant should be removed, he would then have the right to review all proper questions on appeal. No adequate reason for granting an injunction appears.
Affirmed.