The times., 1898-09-13
WOODWARD is SUSTAINED.
Legal Opinion in Death Ger
tificate Controversy.
PROVISIONS OF THE LAW
surseon-in-Chief of Freedman's
Hospital Not Authorized TO Sign
Act as Collection Agency-Electric
Light Company Files Complaint.

In an opinion rendered yesterday, S. T.
Thomas, the attorney for the District,
sustained the position taken by Health
ofhcer Woodward in his recent contro-
versy with DIR. A NJ Curtis, the surgeon
III chief of Freedmans Hospital. over the
authority of the latter in giving certifi-
Gates of death
Attorney Thomas states that there is
nothing in the law authoriz ne DR. Curtis
TO sign death certificates by virtue of his
Office of surgeon in chief. Mr.. Thomas
points to the act of January 25. 1898.
winch requires death certificates to be
signed by physician registered at the
health department, and asserts that the
health officer ought to require strict COM
pliance with its provisions. 1t appears
from the correspondence in the case that
Dr. Curtis exercised what he thought was
MS authority in signing the death GER
uhcates of the deceased of Freedman's
Hospital
Inc hrst assistant surgeon, registered
physician, signed them previous to Aug
ust II, but in his absence Dr. Curtis has
exercised the prerogative. DR.. Curtis was
Informed o,er the telephone during the
latter part OF August last that any death
certificates signed by him would not be
honored at the local health office. DR.
Woodward claimed that he took this ac
ton because he did not believe DR.. Curtis
should practice medicine in the District
until he passed the regular medical ex
animation and qualified for registra ion
DR.. Curtis maintained that, in accordance
with the act for the regulation of the
practice of medicine and surgery in the
District OF Columbia, approved June 5.
1886 he, as surgeon in chief of the hospital
in question. had the right TO treat all
patients and sign all death certificates in
The institution
The Attorneys Opinion.
The attorney for the District takes a
different view of the matter, however, and
in rendering his opinion takes his stand
as follows:
The matter in dispute is the right Of Dr. Curtis
as surgeon IN chief OF Freedman's Hospital 10
sign death certificates. Congress bv act an.
proved July 8 1896, cleated a board of medical
supervisors, and provided that from and after
the passage OF said act all persons desiring to
practice medicine and surgery in the District
oi Columbia >i.al apply TO said beard of super
viscls for license 50 to do. BY section u OF that
act commissioned surgeons OF the United States
army and navy the Marine Hospital service
are exempted from its provisions.
BY section Of the act OF Congress OF January
p, 1895, 10 regulate cemeterie; and the dispo.al
OF dead bodies in the District OF Columbia il is
provided;
That no dead body OF any human being shall
IN sand District be removed from place 10 place,
inferred, disinterred. in any manner disposed
OF without permit granted by the health officer
Of said District otherwise than i'm accord
ance with the terms of said permit; permits for
the removal. inteunent, disposal be issued
upon the presentation OF proper death certi-
hcate, signed by physician registered at the
health department of said District who has at
tended the deceased during his or her last illness
o. 10y any coroner of said District or his deputy -
/ find nothing in the statutes in regard to
Freedman's Hospital which supports the conten-
ton that the surgeon in chief. by virtue OF his
office, Is authorized 10 sign death certificates
and there Is nothing in section Z of the act of
Congress of June, 1896. referred to by Dr.
Curtis which authorizes him TO sign such certi-
hcates, since it does not appear that he is
commissioned surgeon in the United States army
navy in the Marine Hospital service.
My opinion Is that section of the act OF
January % 1898, explicitly requires death GER
tifcates 60 be signed by physician registered
at the health department and that the health
officer ought TO require a strict compliance with
its provisions.