Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/29/439.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 21:08:31+00:00

Document:
Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, and Henry Lewin, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Appellant.
Robert F. Collins, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
This appeal by the state Board of Medical Examiners is from a judgment of the superior court, entered pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, ordering the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate directing appellant board to set aside its decision revoking the license of Robert F. Collins to practice medicine in this state, and to reconsider the same in light of the trial court's findings and conclusions. Appellant [29 Cal. App. 3d 442] filed an opening brief but respondent doctor has filed none. fn. 1 We reverse the judgment.
The doctor filed a notice of defense and the matter was heard, pursuant to the administrative adjudication statutes (Gov. Code, § 11500 et seq.), by a district review committee composed of five licensed physicians and surgeons, plus a hearing officer from the Office of Administrative Procedure. [29 Cal. App. 3d 443] The committee's proposed decision was adopted by the board which ordered Dr. Collins' license to be revoked as of June 22, 1970.
Among other things, the board found (in its findings Nos. III-VI, inclusive) Dr. Collins to be guilty of unprofessional conduct: (1) as defined in Business and Professions Code section 2384 in that, following a plea of nolo contendere, he was convicted in the Los Angeles Superior Court of violating Health and Safety Code section 11163; (2) as defined in Business and Professions Code section 2399.5 in that he prescribed for several persons on numerous dates between November 7, 1967, and January 22, 1968, dangerous drugs, as defined in Business and Professions Code section 4211, without either a prior examination or medical indication therefor; (3) as defined in Business and Professions Code section 2391.5 in that he had violated Health and Safety Code section 11163, fn. 6 a statute regulating narcotics, by prescribing narcotics for persons not under his treatment for any pathology or condition; (4) as defined in Business and Professions Code section 2391.5 in that he had violated section 11164 by prescribing narcotics for a person representing himself to be an addict. After stating its determination of the issues in accordance with its findings, the board ordered Dr. Collins' license revoked for each violation.
After the superior court hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, the trial judge found all of the board's findings to be supported by the weight of the evidence, but further found Collins "was not guilty of moral turpitude in that he did not act upon motives of baseness, vileness, or depravity." The trial judge concluded the "Board committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion ... in revoking Petitioner's ... certificate for each and all of the violations enumerated in Paragraphs III, IV, V, and VI" of its decision and that "[c]onsidering Petitioner's lack of moral turpitude, revocation of Petitioner's license or any other penalty which would effectively terminate Petitioner's career would be a prejudicial abuse of discretion."
[1b] The trial court's position, as expressed in its conclusions, was that the board was not, as a matter of law, justified in revoking Dr. Collins' license because of unprofessional conduct if such conduct did not amount to moral turpitude. We disagree.
[1c] Second, and as a matter of substance, the Business and Professions Code (§ 2361) authorized the board to take action against a certificate holder "who is guilty of unprofessional conduct," with no requirement of moral turpitude; unprofessional conduct is defined in several other sections. While section 2383 provides that conviction of any offense "involving moral turpitude constitutes unprofessional conduct," the Legislature concluded that conviction of a narcotics offense, alone, is sufficient to constitute unprofessional conduct and section 2384 so provides. Similarly, sections 2391.5 and 2399.5 contain no mention of moral turpitude. We conclude no such finding was required by the board and it was entitled to proceed against Collins under the code sections charged in the accusation.
The trial court and the doctor relied upon a number of cases which we distinguish. Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners, supra, 68 Cal. 2d 67, involved an accusation that Dr. Yakov was guilty of conduct involving [29 Cal. App. 3d 445] moral turpitude and the superior court's specific finding that the board's finding thereon was not sustained by the weight of evidence. Merrill v. Department of Motor Vehicles, supra, 71 Cal. 2d 907, dealt with a similar problem and with interpretation of statutory language authorizing the department to deny Merrill's license application "for reasonable cause shown," and with interpreting the meaning of "bona fide dealer." Morrison v. State Board of Education (1969) 1 Cal. 3d 214 [82 Cal. Rptr. 175, 461 P.2d 375] dealt with the board's revocation of a teaching credential on a finding of "immoral and unprofessional conduct and acts involving moral turpitude." The reviewing court, in essence, directed the board to determine if such conduct rendered petitioner unfit to teach. Magit v. Board of Medical Examiners (1961) 57 Cal. 2d 74 [17 Cal. Rptr. 488, 366 P.2d 816] is directly contrary to Collins' position. It is stated in it that (p. 87) a violation of Business and Professions Code sections 2392 and 2378 constituted "unprofessional conduct," and was a proper ground for action against Dr. Magit, contrary to the trial court's conclusions.
In summary, we conclude the accusation was not required to contain, nor was the board required to find, that the conduct of Dr. Collins involved "moral turpitude."
Collins also contended in the trial court that the penalty imposed by the board properly was subject to judicial review in that court, in order to determine if the board abused its discretion by revoking his license. The trial court's conclusions, as already recited herein, stated that "[c]onsidering Petitioner's lack of moral turpitude, revocation of Petitioner's license ... would be a prejudicial abuse of discretion ...." The trial court's judgment ordered the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate, directing the board to set aside and "reconsider its Decision in light of this Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and to exercise its discretion ... in accordance therewith." Quite apparently, the conclusions and the judgment were founded upon a belief that a finding of moral turpitude was a primary requirement. As noted herein, we have disagreed.
In view of the rampant drug abuse problems existing today we cannot say as a matter of law that a board, composed chiefly of licensed doctors who presumably have some professional expertise in the matter, abused its discretion in revoking Collins' license. As stated by our Supreme Court in Harris v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Appeals Bd. (1965) 62 Cal. 2d 589, 594 [43 Cal. Rptr. 633, 400 P.2d 745]:  "If reasonable minds might differ as to the propriety of the penalty imposed, this fact serves to fortify the conclusion that the [administrative body] acted within the area of its discretion." (And see: Martin v. Alcoholic Bev. etc. Appeals Bd. (1959) 52 Cal. 2d 287, 293-294 [341 P.2d 296].)  "It is equally well settled that in reviewing the penalty imposed by an administrative body which is duly constituted to announce and enforce such penalties, neither a trial court nor an appellate court is free to substitute its own discretion as to the matter; nor can the reviewing court interfere with the imposition of a penalty by an administrative tribunal because in the court's own evaluation of the circumstances the penalty appears to be too harsh. [Citation.] Such interference, in the light of the foregoing authorities, will only be sanctioned when there is an arbitrary, capricious or patently abusive exercise of discretion." (Brown v. Gordon (1966) 240 Cal. App. 2d 659, [29 Cal. App. 3d 447] 667 [49 Cal. Rptr. 901].) Collins' added reliance upon Magit, supra, and Harris, supra, is without foundation, since these cases are distinguishable as stated herein and also as stated in Brown, supra, at pages 668-670.
We conclude the board did not abuse its discretion and that the trial court erred in holding that it did abuse it.
FN 1. Dr. Collins also filed a cross-appeal which we dismissed because of his failure to file any opening brief in its support.
FN 2. Business and Professions Code section 2360 reads, in part: "Every certificate issued may be suspended or revoked."
Business and Professions Code section 2361 reads, in part: "The board shall take action against any holder of a certificate, who is guilty of unprofessional conduct which has been brought to its attention. ..."
FN 3. Business and Professions Code section 2384 reads, in pertinent part: "... the conviction of a violation of the statutes of this State, regulating narcotics, or dangerous, drugs, constitutes unprofessional conduct within the meaning of this chapter. ... a plea of nolo contendere is deemed to be a conviction within the meaning of this section."
Business and Professions Code section 2391.5 reads: "The violation of any of the statutes of this State regulating narcotics and dangerous drugs, constitutes unprofessional conduct within the meaning of this chapter."
Business and Professions Code section 2399.5 reads: "Prescribing dangerous drugs as defined in Section 4211, without either a prior examination of the patient or medical indication therefor, constitutes unprofessional conduct within the meaning of this chapter."
FN 4. Health and Safety Code section 11163 reads, in pertinent part: "... no person shall prescribe ... a narcotic ... for any person who is not under his treatment for a pathology or condition. ..."
FN 5. Health and Safety Code section 11164 reads, in pertinent part: "No person shall prescribe ... a narcotic to an addict, or to any person representing himself as such. ..."
FN 6. While the section violated was designated in the findings as 11164, it is obvious from the findings' description of the offense, as well as from conclusion number 4, that this is a misprint and should be 11163.
In view of our opinion, Dr. Collins' motion to augment the record, so as to include matter relating to his nolo contendere plea and conviction, is irrelevant and the motion, renewed at the time of oral argument, is denied.

References: § 11500
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.