OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN. TRZXAS 78711 

April 17, 1975 

The Honorable Cecil M. Pruett 

County Attorney 

Hutchinson County 

630 North Deahl 

Borger, Texas 79007 

Opinion No. H- 584 

Re: Constitutionality of 

article 4590e, section 3, 

v. T. c. s. 

Dear Mr. Pruett: 

You have requested our opinion regarding the constitutionality of 

article 4590e. section 3. V. T. C.S., and the interpretation of that statute 

by the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners. The statute reads, in 

pertinent part: 

Sec. 3. Every person licensed to practice the 

healing art. . . by . . . the Texas State Board of 

Medical Examiners . . . shall in the professional 

use of his name on any sign, pamphlet, stationery, 

letterhead, signature, or on any other such means 

of professional identification, written or printed, 

designate in the manner set forth in this Act the 

system of the healing art which he is by his license 

permitted to practice. The following are the legally 

required identifications, one of which must be used 

by practitioners of the healing art: 

(1) If licensed by the Texas State Board of Medical 

Examiners on the basis of the degree Doctor of 

Medicine: physician and/or surgeon, M. D. ; doctor, 

M.~‘D.; doctor of medicine; M.D. 

(2) If licensed by the Texas State Board of Medical 

Examiners on the basis of the degree Doctor of 

Osteopathy: physician and/ or surgeon, D. 0. ; 

Osteopathic physician and/or surgeon; doctor, D. 0. ; 

doctor of osteopathy; osteopath; D. 0. 

. . . 

p. 2605 
The Honorable Cecil M. Pruett, page 2 (H-584) 

The Board interprets this statute to prohibit the use of the designation 

I’M. D.” by a person whose medical license is based upon the degree of 

Doctor of Osteopathy. You ask whether such prohibition violates the equal 

protection clauses of article 1. section 3 of the Texas Constitution and the 

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

“Osteopathy” has long been recognized as within “the practice of medicine” in Texas . Attorney General Opinion O-1298 (1939). We have previously 

held, however, that the Board of Medical Examiners is neither authorized 

nor required to issue a license as a “doctor of medicine” to a practitioner 

who received his education at an osteopathic school, and whose M. D. degree 

was awarded merely by making application for it under the laws of California. 

Attorney General Opinion C-48 (1963). “The degree M. D. connotes an education obtained at a medical school and a D. 0. degree likewise contemplates 

a degree obtained and based upon study at an osteopathic school.” la., at 220. 

That opinion reflected a correct interpretation of the statute, but it did 

not reach the question of constitutionality. A three-judge federal court in 

Georgia, however, recently considered, in Oliver V. Morton, 361 F. Supp. 

1262 (N. D. Ga. 1973), the constitutionality of a Georgia statute similar to 

article 4590e. The court upheld the statute’s facial validity and stated that 

it is reasonable for a state to impose separate classifications for M. D.‘s 

and D. 0. ‘8 and consequently to prohibit the use of the designation of M. D. 

by a person whose medical license is based on ,tbe degree of Doctor of 

Osteopathy. However, the court also held that the Composite State Board 

of Medical Examiners violated the equal protection clause of the United States 

Constitution in its application of the Georgia statute. 

The Georgia State Board had been licensing as M.D. ‘s foreign-trained 

practitioners who had not been awarded a degree which was the equivalent 

of the M. D. degree, and simultaneously had been refusing to license as 

M. D. ‘s pradtitioners with a D. 0. degree. The court held that the state could 

not “differentiate between two qualified physicians who have not earned an M. D. 

degree and allow one to parade under an unearned:M. D. degree while refusing 

to allow the other to do SO.” g., at 1269. 

In our opinion, section 3 of article 4590e. similar to the Georgia statute, 

is constitutional on its face. Of course, this statute, like any other statute 

is subject to discriminatory and constitutionally proscribed application. We 

have no facts before us to indicate that the Texas State Board of Medical 

Examiners is applying the statute in such discriminatory manner. 

p. 2606 
The Honorable Cecil M. Pruett, page 3 (H- 584) 

SUMMARY 

Section 3 of article 4590e. which authorizes the 

Texas State Board of Medical Examiners to prohibit 

the use of the designation of “M. D. ” by a person 

whose medical license is based upon the degree of 

Doctor of Osteopathy is, on its face, constitutional. 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

C. ROBERT HEATH. Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 2607