State Board of Medical Examiners v. Macy

Citations

• 92 Wash. 614
• 159 P. 801
• 1916 Wash. LEXIS 814

Syllabus

<p>Physicians and Surgeons — License—Revocation — Complaint— Objections — Sufficiency. Where a complaint before the state medical board for the revocation of license to practice, substantially in the language of the statute, was not objected to, and on trial de novo, a stipulation for the admission of certain advertisements answered all the purposes of a bill of particulars, objection cannot be made to the sufficiency of the complaint, as it will be most liberally construed, and is not subject to the strict rules of pleading incident to actions at law.</p> <p>Same — License—Revocation—Statute—Validity. Rem. & Bal. Code, § 8397%, subds. 3 and 4, defining unprofessional conduct, for which a license to practice may be revoked by the state medical board, as all advertising of a medical business intended or having a tendency to deceive credulous or ignorant persons and so be harmful to public morals or safety, is not void or unconstitutional for uncertainty in that it furnishes no standard for determining what is unprofessional conduct.</p> <p>Jury — Right to Jury Trial — Physicians—Revocation of License. Upon appeal from the revocation by the state medical board of a license to practice, there is no constitutional right to a jury trial; since under the common law there was no such proceeding, and our constitutional provision that the “right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate” means only that such right shall continue as it existed at the time of the adoption of the constitution.</p> <p>Same. Rem. & Bal. Code, § 8399, providing that an appeal from the revocation by the state medical board of a license to practice shall stand for trial in all respects as ordinary civil actions and be tried de novo, does not provide for a trial by jury; since a jury trial is not required in all civil actions.</p>