Summary
affirming denial of writ; alternative remedy for challenging denial by board of health of license to practice medicine was by writ of certiorari
Summary of this case from State ex Rel. Kelley v. MitchellOpinion
January 23, 1940.
MEDICAL SCHOOL: Mandamus. Mandamus to compel the State Board of Health to hear evidence as to whether a medical college is a reputable one is denied because the relator, a graduate of such school, has an adequate remedy under Section 9114, Revised Statutes 1929, by certiorari, to review the question of fact.
Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis. — Hon. Robert J. Kirkwood, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Thomas P. Moore for appellant.
(1) The judgment of forfeiture and ouster rendered against the St. Louis College of Physicians and Surgeons in the case of State ex inf. Otto v. St. Louis College of Physicians Surgeons could not relate back so as to bar the relator from realizing the benefit of his successful pursuit of his medical studies upon the ground that at the time of the issuance of his diploma to relator the charter of the college had been forfeited, provided the relator had completed his medical studies and was entitled to graduate from the college at the time the decree of ouster became effective. R.S. 1929, secs. 9113, 9114; 18 C.J. 1042; State ex rel. Granville v. Gregory, 83 Mo. 123; Valentine v. Casey Independence School Dist., 187 Iowa 555; State ex rel. Crandall v. McIntosh, 205 Mo. 589; State ex inf. Otto v. St. Louis College of Physicians Surgeons, 295 S.W. 537. (2) Unless the relator was so barred by the decree of forfeiture and ouster he was entitled to a hearing from the State Board of Health at which he might offer evidence of any change or reform in the conduct of the College of Physicians and Surgeons after the events upon which the decree of ouster was rendered and which might establish that at the time of his completion of his studies therein the college was a reputable medical college. R.S. 1929, sec. 9113; State ex rel. Abbott v. Adcock, 225 Mo. 335, 124 S.W. 1100; State ex rel. Crites v. Clark, 230 S.W. 609; State ex rel. Horton v. Clark, 320 Mo. 1190, 9 S.W.2d 641. Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, and Russell C. Stone, Assistant Attorney General, for respondents.
(1) Relator required, under the provisions of section 9113, Revised Statutes 1929, to show as a part of his preliminary qualifications, that he has received a diploma from a reputable medical college before being permitted to take an examination as to his fitness to practice medicine. Sec. 9113, R.S. 1929; State ex rel. Crandall v. McIntosh, 205 Mo. 589, 103 S.W. 612; Bradley v. Reppell, 133 Mo. 545, 32 S.W. 645; Meramec Spring Park Co. v. Gibson, 268 Mo. 394, 188 S.W. 179; 14 C.J., pp. 200, 226, secs. 207, 233. (2) Mandamus will not lie where a complete and adequate remedy is provided for by law. State ex rel. Crites v. Clark, 230 S.W. 609; State ex rel. Kansas City University of Physicians Surgeons v. North, 294 S.W. 1012, 316 Mo. 1050; Horton v. Clark, 293 S.W. 362; State ex rel. Horton v. Bourke, 129 S.W.2d 866; State ex rel. Schneider v. Bourke, 89 S.W.2d 31, 338 Mo. 86; State ex rel. Granville v. Gregory, 83 Mo. 123.
Mandamus in the circuit court to compel the State Board of Health to hear evidence on the question of whether the St. Louis College of Physicians Surgeons was a reputable medical college during the school terms covering the period from the autumn of 1924 to the spring of 1927. Judgment for respondents and relator appealed.
On November 8, 1923, a committee appointed by the State Board of Health to inspect said school reported that it made the inspection and found that the school was not a reputable medical college. The board adopted the report as its ruling on the question and thereafter refused to recognize said school as a reputable medical college.
On June 16, 1925, the Attorney General filed in this court an information in the nature of quo warranto thereby seeking a forfeiture of the charter of the St. Louis College of Physicians Surgeons. On November 2, 1925, the commissioner of this court reported his finding of facts and conclusions of law and recommended that a judgment of forfeiture and ouster be entered. The report of the commissioner was adopted and judgment accordingly entered on May 23, 1927. [State ex inf. Otto v. St. Louis College of Physicians Surgeons, 317 Mo. 49, 295 S.W. 537.]
Relator graduated from the Mt. Olive High School at Mt. Olive, Ill., an accredited high school. Thereafter he completed the first and second premedical years of study at the St. Louis University and completed the freshman year as a medical student of said university. In October, 1924, he entered the medical school of the St. Louis College of Physicians Surgeons as a sophomore on credits from the St. Louis University. He continued as a medical student in the St. Louis College of Physicians Surgeons, and, on June 1, 1927, received a diploma of graduation from said college. From August 1, 1927, to July 31, 1929, he was "house physician at the Evangelical Deaconess Hospital of St. Louis."
In due time before the meeting of the board in July, 1936, relator made application in writing for an examination as to his qualifications to practice medicine and surgery in this State. He submitted evidence of his preliminary qualifications, as required by Section 9113, Revised Statutes 1929. All of the evidence was satisfactory to the board except the evidence of his attendance as a student at the St. Louis College of Physicians Surgeons. The board contended that said school was not a reputable medical college and for that reason refused to permit him to take the examination. Relator contended that the board should hear evidence tending to show that after the finding of the board that said school was not a reputable medical college, material changes were made in the faculty, course of study, equipment and finances of the school, which made it a reputable medical college. He further contended that it was such a college during the three years that he attended the school. The board refused to hear evidence on the question. In this situation relator had a remedy, which follows:
"The question as to whether any medical school is one entitled to recognition, by the state board of medical examiners, as a medical school of good standing and the action of said medical examiners in refusing a license to any applicant is hereby declared to be a question of fact and any person aggrieved by reason of the action of the board, shall have the right to have such question reviewed by suing out a writ of certiorari in the circuit court and such question shall be tried de novo by the court issuing such writ, and the court of review shall render such judgment as should have been rendered in the first instance." [Sec. 9114, R.S. 1929.]
Thus it appears that relator had an adequate statutory remedy. The judgment quashing the alternative writ and denying the peremptory writ should be affirmed. It is so ordered. All concur.