BURROUGHS v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

Reset A A Font size: Print

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

BURROUGHS v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS et al.

Civ. 13255.

Decided: January 30, 1947

Robert W. Kenny, Atty. Gen., State of California, and J. Albert Hutchinson, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant. Richard M. Lyman, Jr., of Oakland, for respondents.

This case is a companion to the cases of Mann v. Board of Medical Examiners, etc., et al., Cal.App., 176 P.2d 708 and Aarons v. Board of Medical Examiners, etc., et al., Cal.App., 176 P.2d 706. All three were tried together and on the same record. Each of them is an appeal from a judgment in a mandate proceeding.

In this, as in the Mann case, an application for a direct reciprocity certificate to practice medicine and surgery in this state was denied by the board, and the Superior Court by a peremptory writ directed the board to grant it. In the Aarons case the application was only for the right to take a written examination looking to the issuance of a physician's and surgeon's license which application was denied, and he obtained a peremptory writ directing that an examination be given.

Dr. Burroughs graduated from Chicago Medical School with the degree of doctor of medicine in 1939 and after serving for a year as an intern he was admitted to practice medicine and surgery in Illinois in 1941. His application in California in 1945 under the reciprocity sections, was based on his Illinois license.

On October 13, 1945 the board denied his application on the same ground as that stated in the Mann and Aarons cases.

This case was tried on the same theory as that on which the other two cases were presented, namely, that the granting of reciprocity certificates to nine doctors who were graduates of respondent's school amounted to a nullification of any formal action taken by the board disapproving the school, and a de facto approval of the school and that therefore the requirement of the statute had been met. In the Mann opinion, where the facts common to all three cases are stated, that question is fully discussed.

The court's findings although shorter than those in the Mann case, came to the same result. As this case depends entirely on the finding that the school had been approved, which finding is held in the Mann case to have been unsupported by the evidence, the judgment herein must be reversed for the reasons given and on the authorities cited in the Mann opinion.

Everything said in the Mann opinion respecting further proceedings or other remedies open to respondent applies with equal force to this case.

The judgment is reversed with the direction to the Superior Court to dismiss the proceeding.

GOODELL, Justice.

NOURSE, P. J., and DOOLING, J., concur.

Copied to clipboard