Title: SHELTON v BRD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12810
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: April 28, 1975

No. 12810 IN THE SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 EDWARD J. SHELTON, JR., D.O., P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, BOARD O F MEDICAL EXAMINERS ; and THE A T T O R N E Y GENERAL O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Gordon R. Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : William Dee Morris argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents: John Poston, argued, Special A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana Submitted: January 16, 1975 Decided : ApR 2 8 1975 F i l e d : b p ~ 2 T I Ig/'g M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment entered i n the d i s t r i c t court, Lewis and Clark County, affirming the Montana Medical Board of ~xaminers' decision i n refusing t o license p l a i n t i f f D r . Edward J. Shelton, Jr., t o practice medicine and surgery i n Montana. P l a i n t i f f ' s application was based on reciprocity, in- volving the s t a t e s of Washington, Michigan and Kentucky. D r . Shelton received h i s Doctor of Osteopathy degree i n 1958 from the College of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons a t Kansas City, Missouri. H e applied f o r a license t o practice un- limited medicine and surgery i n Montana i n 1971. A temporary conditional license t o practice medicine and surgery was issued pursuant t o section 66-1027(3), R.C.M. 1947. Such license was conditioned upon t h e information supplied by Shelton being sub- s t a n t i a t e d and verified by t h e ~ o a r d ' s investigation and f u r t h e r , upon ~ h e l t o n ' s promise t h a t he would take the required s t a t e exam- ination when given i n December 1971. The Board made the necessary arrangements f o r Shelton t o take the examination i n Helena i n December 1971. H e f a i l e d t o appear on the day the examination was scheduled, but l a t e r n o t i f i e d the Board he had been too busy t o take the examination i n December, but promised he would do so i n June 1972. Again, arrangements were made f o r Shelton t o take the examination, but again he f a i l e d t o appear. The temporary, conditional license t o practice medicine issued t o Shelton was allowed t o expire i n October 1972. The F i r s t Regular Session of the Forth-Third Legislature of Montana amended the Medical Practice Act i n 1973. Section 66-1025 was amended by adding a subsection 6, which provides: " ~ o l d e r s of the degree of doctor of osteopathy granted i n 1955 o r before w i l l be c e r t i f i e d only on the basis of taking and passing the examination given by the de- partment, subject t o section 828-1603. Holders of the degree of doctor of osteopkithy granted a f t e r 1955 w i l l be c e r t i f i e d i n the same manner a s provided above f o r physicians." (Emphasis supplied.) Because of t h i s l e g i s l a t i v e enactment, e f f e c t i v e March 21, 1973, Shelton n o t i f i e d the Board he wished t o have h i s application reevaluated. The Board again apprised him t h a t h i s application was d e f i c i e n t i n several respects. One of these deficiencies was t h a t people he had named a s personal references did not respond t o the Board i n such a manner a s would enable the Board t o give Shelton a permanent license. The Board a l s o advised him he would be required t o take the Flex Examination, a standard medical exam- ination given nationally and accepted by a majority of the s t a t e s . The Board s t a t e d i t would waive the basic science portion of t h a t examination. Further, t h a t Shelton would be required t o pay t h e $100 f e e a s required by law and t o sign t h e a f f i d a v i t on h i s appli- cation, which was necessary f o r verification. O n August 21, 1973, Shelton was again n o t i f i e d by t h e Board, t h i s time i n writing, t h a t it was refusing t o accept h i s application f o r reciprocity on these four grounds: 1. Applicant f a i l e d t o pay the required fee. 2. Applicant f a i l e d t o verify h i s application. 3. The responses from perms named a s references were i n s u f f i c i e n t . 4. The applicant f a i l e d t o take the Flex Examination a s required by t h e Board. Contained i n t h e same notice of nonacceptance of h i s application was a notice of hearing on t h e matter October-15, 1973 a t 10:OO a.m. Shelton was i n the process of changing attorneys a t t h i s time and f o r t h i s reason the hearing was continued several times a t ~ h e l t o n ' s request and was f i n a l l y held on November 29, 1973. The e n t i r e t r a n s c r i p t of such hearing was presented t o the Board a t i t s meeting on December 8, 1973. The November 29 hearing revealed: Shelton had f a i l e d t o properly v e r i f y h i s application by signing it before a notary; he had not paid t h e $100 f e e a s required by section 66-1031(2), R.C.M. 1947; only one of h i s references' responses was acceptable, the other had been returned with the word "unknowrl" written a s an answer t o many of the questions; and, there was much confusion as t o ~ h e l t o n ' s prior licensing. In explanation of the unsatisfactory reference responses, Shelton s t a t e d he was t o l d t o t r y and use Montana doctors a s references but he had been i n Montana a very short time and there j u s t was not s u f f i c i e n t time f o r Montana doctors t o get t o know him and h i s qualifications. He l a t e r gave four more references t o the Board a t i t s request, but two of these were returned undelivered. The confusion a s t o ~ h e l t o n ' s p r i o r licensing was brought on by the f a c t he was licensed t o practice only osteopathy i n Washington and Michigan. H i s license with the s t a t e of Kentucky could not be evaluated, although t h e Board made several attempts t o determine exactly what the Kentucky license entailed, and what examination was used by t h e Kentucky Medical Examiners i n 1958, when Shelton took the examination. The Board was unable t o get t h e required information. The November hearing further revealed t h a t Shelton had practiced i n several hospitals i n the s t a t e s where he was licensed; t h a t he was admitted t o practice i n St. James Community Hospital i n Butte, Montana--the f i r s t Doctor of Osteopathy t o be granted the privilege under the 1973 amendment t o section 66-1025, R.C.M. 1947; he had been trained a t the School of Aerospace Medicine and l a t e r became a military f l i g h t surgeon. Shelton was a l s o recommended f o r a program t o t r a i n t o be an astronaut physician, a more sophis- t i c a t e d branch of the a i r force f l i g h t surgeon training. The record shows t h a t Shelton i s now employed a t t h e Veterans Hospital i n Miles City, Montana, where he i s engaged i n nuclear medicine. The Montana Board of Medical Examiners reviewed t h e e n t i r e t r a n s c r i p t and allowed one additional month f o r Shelton t o present any additional documentary evidence t h a t he chose t o present. O n January 9, 1974, the Board entered i t s order and notice of nonacceptance of s h e l t o n l s application f o r a license by reciprocity. That order was the b a s i s of Sheltonls appeal t o t h e d i s t r i c t court on February 4 , 1974. The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t o the content of the record trans- mitted t o the d i s t r i c t court. March Hon . Gordon Bennett entered an order affirming the ~ o a r d ' s decision. Shelton f i l e d objections t o t h e order and hearing was s e t and heard on April 5, 1974. O n April 15, 1974, t h e d i s t r i c t court entered an order overruling s h e l t o n l s objections. The issues presented f o r review on appeal are: 1. Did the Board a c t within t h e scope of i t s constitutional and s t a t u t o r y authority i n denying Shelton a license by reciprocity t o practice unlimited medicine and surgery i n Montana, and 2. Was the Board's action i n denying t h e license by r e c i - procity and t h e reasons given supported by r e l i a b l e , probative and substantial evidence? Section 66-1011, R.C.M. 1947, of the Medical Practice Act, s t a t e s t h e purpose of the Act: "It i s hereby declared, a s a matter of l e g i s l a t i v e policy i n the s t a t e of Montana, t h a t t h e practice of medicine within t h e s t a t e of Montana is a privilege granted by the l e g i s l a t i v e authority and i s not a natural r i g h t of individuals and t h a t it i s deemed necessary, a s a matter of such policy and i n the i n t e r e s t s of the health, happiness, safety and welfare of the people of Montana, t o provide laws and provisions covering the granting of t h a t privilege and i t s subsequent use, con- t r o l and regulation t o the end t h a t the public s h a l l be properly protected against unprofessional, improper, unauthor- ized and unqualified practice of medicine and t o license competent physicians t o practice medicine and thereby provide f o r t h e health needs of t h e people of Montana. I I Section 66-1017(1), R.C.M. 1947, then provided t h a t the Board of Medical Examiners s h a l l : It* * * adopt and promulgate such r u l e s and regu- l a t i o n s a s the board may deem necessary o r proper t o carry out the provisions and purposes of t h i s a c t which s h a l l be f a i r , impartial and nondiscrimina- tory * f: *. It i s therefore, the duty of the Board t o insure: "J: * * t h a t t h e public s h a l l be properly protected against unprofessional, improper, unauthorized and unqualified practice of medicine and t o license competent physicians t o practice medicine. I t The Board must decide i f an applicant t o practice medicine i n Montana i s duly qualified and comes within the mandate given it by the l e g i s l a t u r e . To accomplish t h i s , t h e Board requires each applicant t o f i l l out an application, furnish references, v e r i f y the application before a notary, and appear before t h e Board f o r a personal interview. It i s t h e burden of the applicant t o supply the Board with the necessary information. It i s the duty of t h e Board t o investigate the information supplied t o determine i f the applicant is qualified t o practice i n Montana. Section 66-10311, R.C.M. 1947, requires each applicant t o pay a fee of $100 t o defray the costs of investigation by the Board. There has long been a c o n f l i c t a s t o the practice of Doctors of Osteopafhy i n a medical world dominated by Doctors of Medicine. This c o n f l i c t has f i n a l l y been resolved i n Montana. Section 66-1025 (6), R.C.M. 1947, s t a t e s t h a t holders of the degree of Doctor of Osteopathy granted a f t e r 1955 w i l l be c e r t i f i e d i n the same manner a s provided f o r physicians. That s t a t u t e a l s o provides the way f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n , by e i t h e r passing the Montana Board Examination, passing the federal licensing examination o r : "(c) A valid, unsuspended, and unrevoked license o r c e r t i f i c a t e issued t o t h e applicant on the basis of an examination by an examining board under the laws of another s t a t e o r t e r r i t o r y of t h e United States o r of the D i s t r i c t of Columbia o r of a foreign country whose licensing standards a t t h e time t h e license o r c e r t i f i c a t e was issued were, i n the judgment of the board, essentially equivalent t o those of t h i s s t a t e f o r granting a license t o practice medicine, i f under t h e scope of the license o r c e r t i f i c a t e t h e applicant was authorized t o p r a c t i c e medicine i n the other s t a t e , t e r r i t o r y , o r country." (Emphasis supplied. ) Applying a l l of t h e above c i t e d l a w s t o the f a c t s of the i n s t a n t case, we find the Board of Medical Examiners acted within the scope of i t s constitutional and s t a t u t o r y authority i n denying Shelton a license by reciprocity t o practice unlimited medicine and surgery i n the s t a t e of Montana. The Board was n o t acting discriminatorily nor capriciously i n its denial. By f a i l i n g t o supply the Board with the necessary information f o r it t o form an opinion a s t o h i s medical a b i l i t y and h i s moral qualifications, Shelton has not met h i s burden. H e has not f u l l y cooperated with the Board, even a f t e r the Board accepted h i s i n i t i a l application and gave it f u l l f a i t h and c r e d i t , subject t o investiga- t i o n , by the issuance of a temporary license t o practice i n Montana during t h i s period, The f e e required of a l l applicants was not paid. The required reference response was not furnished. H e f a i l e d t o take t h e Flex Examination a s required, a f t e r t h e Board offered t o waive t h e basic science section. The reciprocity requirements from Michigan and Washington were not adequate. The Kentucky standards a t the time he was licensed there could not be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y de- mons t r a ted . Judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed. --- J u s t i c e W e Concur: - b Hon. Arthur Martin, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T . Harrison.