Court Opinion

ID: 9613757
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:19:45.433849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:31.514550
License: Public Domain

Lovins, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent from the conclusion set forth in the Court’s opinion, I would affirm the Circuit Court of Wyoming County.
The issue on this certification is: May a member of one school of the healing art, educated according to the principles of such school, practice the healing art according to the principles of a different school of medicine and surgery, though licensed as a member of a different profession.
The practice of medicine and surgery is a generic term, covering as it does, all methods of healing the human body of defects and conditions resulting from a disease or casualty. There are different schools of the practice of medicine and surgery, most usual of which *693are as follows: Allopathic, said to be an incorrect designation of a regular practitioner of medicine and surgery. “The term really means the curing of a diseased action by inducing a different kind of action in the body.” The American Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Dorland, 21st Ed., page 75; the Eclectic School, “Designating a sect or school which professes to select what is best from all other systems of medicine.” The American Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Dorland, 21st Ed., page 470. The Homeopathic School designates a system of therapeutics, the central principle of which is “that diseases are curable by those drugs which produce effects on the body similar to the symptoms of the disease; second that the effect of drugs is increased by giving them in minute doses * * * ”. The American Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Dorland 21st Ed., page 672. Osteopathic, “A system of therapy in which diseases are treated by manipulations intended to restore the deranged mechanism of the body. The official definition of osteopathy adopted by the American Osteopathic Association is: ‘That system of the healing art which places the chief emphasis on the structural integrity of the body mechanism, as being the most important single factor to maintain the well-being of the organism in health and disease.’ ” The American Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Dorland, 21st Ed., page 1037.
There may be other methods in the school of healing, some of which have a rational scientific basis, and others being somewhat connected with mysticism and superstition, have no such basis.
This suit relates to the claim and conduct of a member of the osteopathic school to prescribe drugs and perform surgery with instruments, as is the practice of the other three schools above named, the members of which prescribe drugs, using various therapeutic agencies known under the general term of materia medica and instruments in incising or excising parts of the human body.
In passing, it may be noted that under the decisions *694of this Court, the practice of chiropractic, another school of the healing art, placing emphasis on the adjustment of the spinal vertebrae, is treated as the practice of medicine and surgery. State v. Morrison, 98 W. Va. 289, 300, 127 S. E. 75. See Commonwealth v. Zimmerman, (Mass.) 108 N. E. 893.
The power of the state to regulate and license the practice of the healing art has long been settled in this jurisdiction. State v. Dent, 25 W. Va. 1, affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Dent v. State of West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114; 9 S. Ct. 231, 32 L. Ed. 623.
At common law, any person had a right to practice medicine and surgery, subject to the qualification that persons who did so were liable for damages for lack of skill or incompetency or the sovereign could proceed by quo warranto to prevent irresponsible persons from practicing the art of healing. 41 Am. Jur., Physicians and Surgeons, Section 3.
In accordance with that and similar powers, the legislature enacted numerous statutes licensing various professions. Chapter 30, Code, as amended. The various articles of Chapter 30, Code, cover the following professions and calling's of this state: Article 1, relates to the practice of professions generally; Article 2, to the licensing of attorneys at law; Article 3, of physicians and surgeons to practice medicine and surgery; Article 4, concerns the licensing of dentists and dental hygienists; Article 5, relates to the practice of pharmacy; Articled, relates to the practice of embalming; Article 7, concerns the practice of nursing; Article 8, governs the practice of optometry; Article 9, relates to the practice of public accountancy; Article 10, covers the practice of veterinary medicine; Article 11, concerns the practice of chiropody; Article 12, relates to the practice of architecture; Article 13, covers the practice of engineering. The practice of osteopathy is controlled by Article 14. *695Article 15, relates to the practice of midwifery; and Article 16, concerns the practice of chiropractic.
Each article in Chapter 30, as above noted, relates to different professions, and sets forth in some detail the duties, limitations and powers of the members of the professions and callings with which the statute deals.
A synopsis of the pertinent statutes will aid in an understanding of the rights of the parties to this suit. Section 1, Chapter 97, Acts of the Legislature, 1949, Regular Session, provides for the organization of a medical licensing board,, consisting of eleven members including two chiropodists for licensing of persons practicing that profession. The medical licensing board has authority to issue license to physicians, surgeons, chiropractors and chiropodists. Section 2, Chapter 97 id., Section 4, Article 3, Chapter 97 id. provides that only certain persons shall be entitled to practice medicine and surgery in this state. Licensed osteopaths are not named in Section 4, Chapter 97 id., as being entitled to practice medicine and surgery. Such omission, according to the revisor’s note appended to Section 4, is explained to the effect that Article 14 of Chapter 30, fully provides for the profession of osteopathy. Section 5, Chapter 97 id., provides for examination, and further, that an applicant for a license to practice medicine shall not be refused a license because of applicant’s adherence to any particular school or theory of medicine. Code, 30-3-9 provides a penalty for practicing medicine and surgery without a license.
Chapter 151 of the Acts of the Legislature, 1951, Regular Session, reenacted and amended Article 14, Chapter 30 of Code, 1931. Section 1, Article 14, Chapter 151, id. provides that “It shall be unlawful for any person to practice or offer to practice medicine and surgery as an osteopathic physician and surgeon in this state without a license issued by the West Virginia Board of Osteopathy.” A proviso appears in Section 1 validating licenses, issued under the laws of this State, authorizing the holder to practice osteopathy and surgery. Section 2, *696Article 14, id. defines osteopathy as follows: “For the purposes of this article, ‘Osteopathy’ shall mean that system of the healing art which places the chief emphasis on the structural integrity of the body mechanism as being the most important single factor in maintaining the well-being of the organism in health and disease
Section 3, establishes a board of osteopathy, consisting of three osteopathic physicians and surgeons. Section 5, provides for an examination for a license to practice medicine and surgery as an osteopathic physician and surgeon. Section 6, deals with the issuance of a license without examination. Sections 7 and 8 are not pertinent to the question here considered. Section 9, reads as follows: “Osteopathic physicians and surgeons licensed hereunder shall have the same rights and privileges as physicians and surgeons of other schools of medicine.
Osteopathic physicians and surgeons shall observe and be subject to all state and municipal regulations relative to reporting births and deaths and all matters pertaining to the public health with equal rights and obligations as physicians of other schools of medicine, and such reports shall be accepted by the officers of the department to which the same are made.
Osteopathic physicians and surgeons licensed hereunder shall have the same rights and privileges as physicians and surgeons of other schools of medicine with respect to the treatment of cases or the holding of health offices or offices in public institutions.” Sections 10 and 11 are not pertinent. Section 13, is quoted herein in full. Section 14, relates to separability and Section 15, is a general repealer.
It would serve no purpose to set forth in full all of the various provisions of Articles 2-a, 3 and 14 of Chapter 30, as amended. It suffices to say that all of the provisions of those articles clearly indicate that the legislature intended that the profession of doctor of medicine and doctor of osteopathy should be regarded as separate professions.
*697We are here concerned only with the provisions of Code, S0-2a, 3 and 14, as amended. The provisions contained in 30-3 and 14 on the date of the adoption of the Code, became the law of this State, and all statutes, with certain exceptions and qualifications, were repealed, when the official Code of 1931 was enacted. Code, 63-1-1, 2, 3 and 4.
Code, 30-2a, 3 and 30-14, as amended, do not show any ambiguity in the language or expression of the legislative intent. Such statutory provisions, are clear, explicit and leave no room for construction. Though the statutes here considered do not, in my opinion, call for construction ; nevertheless, it is not amiss, in view of the Court’s opinion, to bear in mind a well established principle: “Legislative intention is the cardinal rule of statutory construction and ascertainment of that intention involves consideration of the subject matter of the legislation, it purposes, objects and effects in addition to its express terms.” State v. Robinson, 134 W. Va. 524, 59 S. E. 2d 884, 888. “When a statute is clear and unambiguous, and legislative intent is plain, statute should not be interpreted by courts, * * * in such case duty of court is to apply statute, and in so doing, its words should be given their ordinary acceptance and significance and meaning commonly attributed to them.” State v. Epperly, 135 W. Va. 877, 65 S. E. 2d 488, 492.
I do not disagree with that part of the opinion stating that remedial statutes, where construction is called for, are to be construed as prospective in operation. In fact, all statutes, in the absence of a legislative intent to the contrary, are prospective and not retrospective in their application. I fail to see, however, where the question of prospective or restrospective application of the statutes throws any light on the subject of this controversy.
Moreover, Code, 30-3 and 30-14 are clearly not to be read together, from the plain words of each of the statutes. “Provided, however, that the provisions of this article, with the exceptions of section eight and ten *698(§ § 2873, 2875), shall not apply to dentists, dental hygienists, nurses, optometrists, chiropodists, osteopathic physicians and surgeons, midwives, or chiropractors, regularly licensed or registered as such under the provisions of this chapter applicable to such professions and occupations, in the practice- of their respective professions and occupations; * * *”. Code, 30-3-2, as amended by Chapter 123, Acts of the Legislature, 1947, Regular Session. A similar statutory provision, relative to licensing osteopaths reads as follows: “The practice of medicine and surgery by persons possessing the degree of doctor of medicine and authorized by the laws of this state to practice medicine and surgery shall in no way be affected by the provisions of this article.” Chapter 151, Article 14, Section 12, Acts of the Legislature, 1951, Regular Session.
If statutes pertain to the same subject matter, i. e., to “the same person or thing, or to the same class of person or things, or have the same purpose or object.”, they are considered to be in pari materia. Sutherland Statutory Construction, 3rd Edition, 5202. Articles 2-a, 3 and 14 of Code, 30, as amended, do not relate to the same class of persons, since Articles 2-a id. and 3 id. clearly relate to physicians and surgeons and Article 14, as amended, relates to osteopathic physicians and surgeons. Neither do they have the same specific purpose or object. Articles 2-a id. and 3 id. relate to the licensing of physicians and surgeons holding the degree of M. D.; Article 14 id. relates to the licensing of osteopathic physicians and surgeons. See Annotation on the subject of licensing and different kinds of treatment of diseases. 86 A. L. R. 623, et seq. It will be noted, upon examination of the foregoing Annotation, that no general rule may be stated, since the decisions relative to the restricted practice of medicine generally rest on statutes of various states. It is not amiss however, to say that the statutes of this state on the question of restricted practice of medicine and surgery are somewhat similar to the statutes of other states.
*699I think the above quoted portion of Code, 30, Articles 3 and 14, as amended, preclude consideration of Articles 2-a, 3 and 14, as amended, together] and in pari materia, I think that the quoted portions deal with physicians and surgeons having a degree of M. D., and Osteopathic physicians and surgeons separately, and, therefore, the three articles, as amended, should not be construed in pari-materia. True, the statutes deal with the art of healing, but with different schools and with different theories in the practice of the healing art. I think that the provisions of Section 9, Chapter 151, id., giving to osteopathic physicians and surgeons the same rights and privileges of physicians of other schools of medicine is restricted to rights and privileges embraced within the osteopathic school of the art of healing, and should not be construed so as to give the osteopathic physicians and surgeons the rights bestowed upon persons holding a degree of doctor of medicine. Likewise, osteopathic physicians and surgeons within the proper sphere and according to the teaching of their school of medicine, should have equal rights; they should have equal obligations imposed upon them as is imposed upon physicians of other schools. But, to me, that does not mean that the osteopathic physician and surgeon may disregard the principles of his school.
As above noted, osteopathy does not contemplate the use of drugs or instruments in the practice of medicine and surgery. Certainly, the statute was enacted with that in view. If osteopathy does not contemplate the use of drugs and instruments, why should the legislature place in a statute an express inhibition against practices not contemplated in the principles of such school or system.
In the case of State v. Gleason, (Kan.) 79 P. 2d 911, the Supreme Court of Kansas had before it statutes somewhat similar to those of this state. The Kansas statute contained no inhibition preventing osteopaths from prescribing drugs and performing surgery. A former statute which had been repealed, contained such inhibition. The following language concerning the absence of such *700inhibition is pertinent here: “ * * * The science or system of osteopathy, generally speaking, strongly opposed the use of drugs as remedial agencies in treating the sick, afflicted, or injured, and osteopathic schools and colleges of good repute contained no course for the study of ma-teria medica; hence, there was no real occasion to prohibit osteopaths from using drugs, since they made no claim or pretense of doing so, nor did they study to qualify themselves for such use. Broadly speaking, theirs was a drugless system of healing. Surgery, as well as obstetrics * * * and each of the other subjects in which osteopaths were required to take an examination, were taught in the osteopathic schools and colleges of good repute, in harmony with the osteopathic theory or system of healing, and not as taught in the medical colleges and universities. So the word ‘surgery’, as used in this statute, meant, in the main, surgery by manual manipulation. The general use of a knife or other instruments in surgical operations was regarded as unnecessary and opposed to the osteopathic system of treatment. * * *” It may be argued that the practice of medicine and surgery are now taught in the osteopathic schools, but the overall principle of osteopathy does not justify that practice.
The case of Gates v. Kilcrease, (Arizona) 188 P. 2d, is not persuasive in my opinion.
There is another significant situation. If osteopathic physicians and surgeons have the same rights, powers and duties as persons holding a degree of doctor of medicine, why should the legislature provide separate standards for the practice of medicine and surgery, and why should separate boards be provided for the examining and licensing of persons seeking to practice the two professions. That situation alone indicates to me that the legislature clearly intended and clearly expressed such intention to draw a line of demarcation between the two schools relating to the practice of medicine and surgery. Of course, manipulation of the members of the human body is a species of surgery, as evidenced by the foregoing definition of osteopathy from Dorland.
*701I think the distinction made by the statutory enactments between the two kinds of physicians and surgeons, and that certain powers, duties and obligations of licentiates, are confined to their respective professions or schools.
No doubt there is merit in all of the schools of medicine and it is to be hoped that the future will bring forth improvements, progress and advancement in all, so that the lot of humanity in general may be ameliorated.
I think that the statutes regulating the practice of medicine surgery and osteopathy have been improperly construed and misapplied in this suit, and therefore, I dissent.