Audubon Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Iowa) 1894-1925, 1902-02-13
OSTEOPATHS WIN SUIT
STATE BOARD OF HEALTH MUST
RECOGNIZE THEM.
Not In Province OF Board to Establish
Requirements Of osteopaths Not
ProNided hx Statute.

Requirements Of osteopaths Not
Provided by Statute.
Des Moines, Feb. 10.-Judge Holmes
of the district court. in the case of G.
L. Parsons VS.. the state board of med
ical examiners, handed down an
opinion in which he held that the
plaintiff was entitled to a writ of man.
oamus directing the defendant to is
sue a certificate permitting him to
practice osteopathy In this state.
Plaintiff brought the suit as test
case for the Still college of this city,
to whose graduates the board had re-
fused to issue certificates, claiming
that it was not up to the standard re-
quired by the board.
The court finds that the refusal OF
the board to issue the plaintiff a GER
tifcate was based upon the fact that
the board had adopted on December
20, 1898, schedule of minimum re-
quirements for schools Of osteopathy
and that this was In conflict with
chapter 60 of the acts Of the Twenty
seventh general assembly regulating
the practice of osteopathy In Iowa, In
dSuuCh dS tho 6ChOiat oooShApAy AesN
therein provided what the require
ments should be and 1t was only left
for the board to determine whether
the school from which the plaintiff
holds diploma complied with the
provisions of this act.
The court found further that the re-
fusal of the board Of medical examin-
ers to issue the certificate to plaintiff
was based upon an investigation which
had not covered the question of
whether the school was within the re-
uuirements of the statute or not; that
1t was not within the province of the
board to determine more than whether
tue school was a school of good repute
and whether the course of study COM
prised a term of at least twenty
months of four terms of FIVE months
each as provided in the statute and
included the branches of study named
| in the statute.
The court found that those practic-
ing osteopathy are not within the pro-
visions of the statute relating to the
practice of medicine, surgery and OBJ
stetrics.
The defendant having raised the
question of the constitutionality OF
the act referred to on the ground that
1t permits osteopathic physicians to
practice their profession without hav.
ing pursued the same course OF study
as is required of persons attempting
to cure diseases by the administration
of drugs or by the practice Of surgery,
and was therefor in violation of sec.
| ton 6, of article of the constitution
which provides that all laws of gen
eral nature shall have uniform opera
ton and that the general assembly
shall not grant to any citizen or class
of citizens privileges of immunities
which upon the same terms shall not
equally belong to all citizens, the
court finds that every citizen Of the
state can, II he SO desires. bring him
self within the provisions Of the act
and thus secure the privileges pro
vided therein, and for this reason the
act 's held to be not in violation OF
this section of the constitution.
| The court finds that the act of the
board in refusing the certificate was
arbitrary and that therefore the writ
should issue.
| The decision Is complete victory
for the local school and is one that
has been sought by the osteopaths oil
the state for the last three years, the
state board during that time having
refused to issue them certificates.
The state association OF osteopaths
cooperated with the Still school In
bringing the suit.