The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-01-27
FEDERAL AID INVOKED
DETROIT DOCTOR ATTACKS THE
STATE MEDICAL LAW.
Alleges the United States Constitution
Was Contravened In the Ac-
ton on His Case.

An interesting question in regard to the
medical law has been raised in a suit
brought in the Federal Court yesterday by
DR.. Harry S. Kiskadden, of Detroit, Mich,
against the State Board of Medical Regis
tration and Examination. The question
raised is as to the authority of the board to
refuse certificates to practice to nonresi-
dent physicians who have the legal quail
fcations. incidentally, the constitutionality
of the lawR it attacked. In the complaint
Dr. Kiskadden charges that the law is be-
ing so construed as to permit certain nom
resident physicians to practice and discrim-
mates against others. The suit was filed by
Mcbride & Denny It's purpose is to en-
join the board from revoking a license is
sued to the plaintiff. The complaint is
quite lengthy.
DIR. Kiskadden, according to the complaint,
is a graduate of the College of Physicians
and Surgeons. of Chicago, from which in
stitution he received his diploma March 10,
1885. Immediately afterward he opened an
office at Toledo, o., where he made spe-
cialty of certain diseases. Two years later
he removed to Detroit, Mich, his present
residence. All told he has practiced his
speciality twelve years, according to the
bill. He asserts that he is qualified to prac-
tASS oiOSI the laws OI NniCHlSdHs anu was
issued certificate to practice in
Ohio last July. He maintains an of
tice in Detroit five days each week.
one day each week in Toledo, O., be-
side which he has an office at Hunting
ton. Ind, where he practices one day each
month. Last July he applied for and was
furnished certificate by the state board
and procured a license from the clerk of
Huntington county. Subsequently he was
n dc hr,A Hr.r... la
because he is nonresident of the State.
NO hearing was given. In December he
was about to bring a suit in equity, when
on the advice of the deputy attorney gen
efal, according to the allegations of the
complaint his certificate was reinstated
The bill further alleges that through mis-
understanding of the requirements of the
law, he caused affidavits to be made by two
freeholders of Huntington as to his being
These af1idavits described him as being a
resident of Huntington The plaintiff AYERS
mat "a ne failed to notice this discrepancy
In his own affidavit sufficient in itself his
true address was given. The other two af-
ndavits, ne says, We're entirely superfiuous
| and unnecessary, beside which the board
members were fully informed of his resi-
cence. He says that they are now pretend
ing that they were misinformed by the two
threatening to revoke his license. He asks
that they be enjoined from doing this He
says that he owns a farm in Wayne county,
has a practice worth SIS, coo, and accounts
ard claims due him for service prior to the
law, which he could not enforce If he is de-
barred from practicing. He says that the
action of the board was void in the first
instance, because no notice of its intended
action was given him and he had no OPP
portunity to be heard. Further than this
It IS asserted the board had no jurisdiction
been given him. The Constitution of the
United States is alleged to be violated in the
discrimination of the act in favor of non.
| resident physicians who come here to con-
suit with resident physicians against
equally reputable and skillful practitioners
VINO have established offices, but live in