The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-12-01
EmpOria Doctor Can Not EnjOin
Medical Board.
Nay Enforce. Order Revolving
His License.
QUESTION FOR BOARD.
Judge Hazen Says Court Has
Nothing to Do With 1t.
Details of the Decision Handed
Down Today.


Judge Hazen decided this morning
that the state board of medical registra-
ton has the power to decide whether
certificates issued to physicians in Kan
Gas shall be revoked or not and that the
courts had nothing to do with the ac-
tons Of the board.
The decision was made upon an appii-
cation of DR.. William Meffert. of EN-
poria for a temporary injunction to re-
strain the state board from reVolxing
his license to practice in the state
Charges were filed against Meffert with
the board charging him with gross i'm
morality. The board heard the evidence
and before the formal decision was
made Menfert secured temporary re-
etraining order from Probate Judge Fa-
gan in the absence of Judge Hazen and
then applied for an Injunction to pre-
vent the board from revoking his GER
tfficate or license. The board had found
against him. Judge Hazen has had the
case under advisement for some time.
The arguments made were upon tech
nicalities, the contention of Meffert be-
ing. that the board was using judicial
power in attempting to revoke his GER
tificate and that the board had no such
power.
In delivering his decision Judge Hazen
said: This is an action to enjoin the
board of medical registration from re-
voking the license of DR.. William Mef-
fert to practice medicine. The case is
of Importance and has been we'll briefed.
A restraining order was issued by the
probate court and the questions came
up on a motion to dissolve the order and
1t was looked upon as a temporary in
Junction
There are two questions that appear
in this case; one is whether the petition
states a cause of action and the other
whether the application should be al
lowed
THE session laws of 1901 created the
board of medical registration and gives
certain power relating to the granting
II, h
GRITTY to the board to revoke licenses
heretofore issued. The board may refuse
TO grant licenses to persons convicted
Of felony or of gross immortality or
those who are addicted to the use of IL
quor. 1t is commended that charges were
preferred against DR.. Meffert before this
board The plaintiff alleges that the
board is about to revoke his license. 1t
is commended that plaintiff Meffert, has
a vested right by reason OF his being
q physician and having a certificate and
that the board is not authorized to de-
prive him of the right to practice aud
that this is property right and that ne
could only be deprived OF 1t by court
These questions have been before the
court in various forms number OF
times. Colley says no one has the right
to practice law or medicine except UNI
der the laws of the state and that 1t is
not a right of citizenship. The lis Mis-
souri,, page Al, says that the legislature
has the right to describe the oualifca-
lions of a physician. The $50 Indiana
report says that denying the right of
physicians to practice until they have
proven their fitness is within the power
of the general assembly and that the
assembly has the right to pass laws even
far as taking away the right OF peo-
pie who are unqualified. The "a Mime
sofa page 1888, says the board of exam
liners may refuse or revoke certificates
for cause. The legislature may invest
in the board the power to investigate.
ftThp TYrifad States C0I1rf has
held in line with these authorities. The
legislature has the right to demand
moral requirements as we'll as profess
sional ability We find in this case that
the legislature created the board and
requires that all persons must go be-
fore the board and stand examination
and that the board shall pass on the
ability of the applicant and his moral
standing. I do not take 1t that is it not
seriously contended that the court
would interfere. when the board had
determined who is not fit to practice
The courts could not interfere and COM
pei the issuing of a license. The same
would be true regarding the revoling OF
TT is argued in this case that in the
trial before the board that the plaintiff
did not have fair trial and that the
board received improper testimony. But
the board must act and draw conclusions
from the evidence. Unless the court can
say that the board acted arbitrarily or
exceeded its authority the courts must
keep hands of. Much Of the testimony
before the board would have been ruled
out without argument by court but the
courts viii not say What testimony the
board shall hear. It is argued that there
Is no appeal from the decision of the
board, but this is not for the court, but
for the legislature to remedy. The court
will handle the case the same whether an
appeal not could be granted It Is
also argued that much of the testimony
was In regard to what happened before
the passage of the law. 1t is not ques-
ton of specific acts but what bearing
they win have of the moral standing. In
this case the plaintiff is charged with
gross immortality.
The board has passed upon and dectd-
ed it and If the court pass on this. then
the court must say what decision the