Evening star., 1938-07-27

Not Engaged in Practice.
1T would seem that this group Of
individuals might incorporate them
selves for their own mutual benefit for
the same purpose. Such a corpora
ton not for profit, but for the mutual
benefit of its members, is in my opin-
ion, not engaged in the practice Of
medicine or in holding itself out as
doing so.
1T is true that corporation can
act only through its agents and en-
ployes. but the physicians with whom
the plaintiff makes contracts are
rather in the position of independent
contractors, and the plaintiff does not
in any way undertake to control tho
manner in which they attend or pre-.
scribe for their patients"
II find more difficulty with the
question of the contract between the
plaintiff and the Home Owners Loan
Corp, whereby the latter agrees to
pay to the plaintiff the sum Of $4,000
in consideration of the plaintiffs pro-
viding for two years from November
/, 1887, substantially complete medi-
cal and hospital service to such en-
ployes Of the Home Owners Loan
Corp as care to join it on reason
able monthly payment basis.
But the services to be furnished
the members of the Home Owners
Loan Corp. are substantially the same
as those furnished to the members
Of the plaintiff. No profit Is to be
made for the plaintiff or its members.
Group Health Association al
ready has made plans to repay to
H. o. L. C. the $4,000 advanced to
set up its clinic)
Question of Construction.
"The question here is one of statu-
tory construction. It is evident that
the purpose of the statute (the Heal
ing Arts Practice Act) was to protect
the public from quacks, from the ig-
norant and incompetent. The actions
of the plaintiff in no way tend to COM
mercialize the practice Of medicine.
Its membership is limited to employees
of the Government in certain Of the
administration branches. 1t is not in
the business of making money by fur
| nishing medical services to any one
who may come along. The cases cited
| bearing on the right to practice law
are not closely analogous, they being
based on the common law, and gov
erned by the courts independently Of
any statute"
I'm my opinion, therefore, the con-
tract of the plaintiff as set forth in
the bill is not violation Of the
statute.
1T is contended by the defendant,
J. Balch Moor, superintendent of in
surance, that the plaintiff is engaged
in the business of insurance, in viola
ton of law.
The pertinent provisions Of the
statute in this connection are: Every
corporation, joint stock company, or
association not exempt herein, trans
acting business in the District Of Co
lumbia, which collects premiums, dues
or assessments from its members or
from holders of its certificates or poll
cies, and which provides for payment
of indemnity on account Of sickness or
accident, or benefit in case Of death,
shall be known as health, accident and
life insurance companies or associa-
tions.'
This provision of the statute does
not include all insurance companies.
but only those which provide for the
payment of indemnity on account Of
sickness
General definitions Of the word in.
surance' throw little light. The statute
does not include necessarily contract
to indemnify but is limited to those
which provide for the payment Of
indemnity. The word payment Is
ordinarily used to mean the payment
Of money, and I see no reason to think
that the word is used in different
sense in the statute or that it Is
equivalent to indemnify
1.-The motions to dismiss the bill Of
complaint should be overruled."
Suit Friendly One.
The association suit was in the ma
| ture of friendly court action, and it
was agreed on as the best way to
| settle the controversy between G. H.