Court Opinion

ID: 9628412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:20:00.886329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:00.251982
License: Public Domain

SUMMERS, Justice,
dissenting:
The Board of Medical Examiners has misread the statute in question. The Board believed that after a graduate of a foreign medical school was admitted to take the FLEX Exam and passed it, then the Board still had discretion to inquire into the student’s educational background and refuse licensure if that education was not comparable to what she might have received in the state of Oklahoma. (Tr. 12, 13) All parties agree that the eligibility for admittance to the exam and for licensing is governed by statute. Specifically the statute controlling graduates of foreign medi*764cal schools was 59 O.S.1986 § 493(b),1 which at the time read:
“Where an applicant is a graduate of a foreign medical school, but the Board has reason to believe that the applicant may have professional qualifications, as of the date of his application, through recognized postgraduate work done in this country, or through professional experience, or. both, which have given him premedical training substantially equivalent to that offered in the premedical course at the University of Oklahoma, or professional training substantially equivalent to that of the medical school of that university, the Board may make such further inquiry, including a personal interview, as satisfies the Board that he has such equivalent premedical and medical training. If a majority of the Board is so satisfied, it may waive the educational prerequisites imposed by the laws of this state, and admit the applicant to examination. ...” (Emphasis added)
This subsection contained the only statutory reference to medical training substantially equivalent to that available at O.U. And, as specifically as the statute writer could write, it did not apply to post-exam licensing. It applied, rather, to the Board’s decision as to whether or not to “admit the applicant to examination.” Nothing more nor less.
Continuing in the'statutes, § 494 provided what was required once an applicant had been admitted to the examination:
“The applicant, having been admitted to the examination in those subjects required for graduation from approved medical schools and such other subjects as may be required by the Board, shall be required to attain an average grade of seventy-five percent (75%) in the fields of basic and clinical medical information and in the application of his knowledge in clinical medical situations. Should the applicant’s grade fall below an average of seventy-five percent (75%), reexamination in all or part of the examination shall be required.” (Emphasis added)
Section 494 thus “required” the applicant to score 75% or higher. What happened if she did so? Section 495 provided the answer.
“When an applicant shall have shown himself qualified as herein required, a certificate, in form approved by the board and signed by all members of the board, or a quorum thereof, and attested by the seal of the board, shall be issued to him by said board, authorizing him to practice medicine and surgery within the meaning of this Act, within the State of Oklahoma.” (Emphasis added)
In other words, once the foreign graduate is admitted to take the exam and passes it, discretion is no longer statutorily present at that late date to evaluate the applicant’s medical school. “Shall be issued” as appears in § 495 means just that, the Board’s concerns notwithstanding.2
Beyond the clear language of the statutes, moreover, the Board’s own rules adopted September 30, 1985 confirm that attaining a passing score on the required examination entitles applicants to a medical license. Rule four of Article five of those rules provides that
“[sjubmission of proof of scores of an overall average of 75 percent or higher on the Federal Licensing Examination shall constitute satisfactory evidence of the applicant’s educational qualification for licensure. Art. V, Sec. C(4) Rules and Regulations, Oklahoma State Board of Medical Examiners (emphasis supplied).
The clear language of both the statutes and the Board’s own rules require that Dr. Di Mauro be issued a license to practice *765medicine in Oklahoma. She was admitted to the FLEX examination and attained a passing score. Her score satisfied the Board’s rule and the statutory prerequisites. The mandatory language of Section 495 of Title 59 required the Board to issue her a certificate to practice medicine in this state.
The Board’s witness testified that if she had scored a “90%” on the FLEX “it would help sway us a little bit”. Today’s decision affirming the Board establishes precedent for the potentially arbitrary and capricious use of authority by the Board. We have long recognized that
“the rights of men are to be determined by the law itself, and not by the let or leave of administrative officers or bureaus. This principle ought not to be surrendered for convenience, or in effect nullified for the same expediency.” Application of State Board of Medical Examiners in re Nathan, 201 Okl. 365, 206 P.2d 211, 215 (1949).
It is regrettable that the court perpetuates what I believe to be an erroneous reading of the former statutes. Because the majority’s opinion authorizes administrative discretion in defiance of the clear statutory language I must respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Vice Chief Justice Opala and Justice Kauger do likewise.

. The licensure statutes were substantially amended in 1987, but those amendments do not affect the present litigation because "absent a plain legislative intent to the contrary, statutes are presumed to operate prospectively only." Trinity Broadcasting Corp. v. Leeco Oil Co., 692 P.2d 1364, 1366 (Okla.1984).

. Those concerns have apparently been instrumental in causing the statutes to be amended effective 1987 as mentioned in footnote one.