Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Garlington v. Smith

Supreme Court of Arizona

November 19, 1945

E. F. GARLINGTON, Appellant,
v.
CHARLES S. SMITH, CHARLES C. BRADBURY, EDWARD J. GOTTHELF, J. H. PATTERSON and GEORGE O. BASSETT, as Members of and Constituting the BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellees

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Howard C. Speakman, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. W. H. Chester, Mr. Herbert Watson, for Appellant.

Mr. John L. Sullivan, Attorney General; Mr. J. Hubert Smith, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.

Stanford, C. J. LaPrade and Morgan, JJ., concur.

OPINION

Stanford, C. J.

Page 686

[63 Ariz. 461] Plaintiff was charged in the District Court of the United States for the District of Arizona in three counts with the crime of violating the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, 26 U.S.C. A. Int. Rev. Code, §§ 2550 et seq., 3220 et seq. He thereafter entered a plea of guilty to the third count, being the selling of [63 Ariz. 462] morphine to Ernesto Sierra, "the said Ernesto Sierra not being then and there a patient of the said E. F. Garlington, and the said morphine was then and there dispensed and distributed by the said E. F. Garlington not in the course of his professional practice only." The State Board of Medical Examiners of the State of Arizona, after his plea of guilty, and before the expiration of two years, issued a citation and complaint against the plaintiff requiring him to appear before said Board on April 2, 1941, and to show why his certificate to practice medicine and surgery should not be revoked for acts of unprofessional conduct. After hearing the board revoked the license of plaintiff. Thereafter plaintiff filed his action in the superior court to show cause why the Board's action in respect to plaintiff should not be set aside on certiorari or reversed on appeal. Said court, by its judgment, sustained the decision and order of defendants, the State Board of Medical Examiners, in revoking and canceling the license of plaintiff to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Arizona. From that judgment this appeal is taken.

It is the claim of plaintiff before this court that the Board of Medical Examiners had no jurisdiction for the cancellation of his license for the reason that the defendants had only the authority granted to them under the act creating their board; that the board was created by the act of the Legislature, Senate Bill No. 167, Chapter 99, Session Laws of Arizona 1935, and that by reason of that act the old medical board, as set up in the Code of 1928, was dissolved, and a new board created having only the power provided for in the act that created the board; and that the effect of the creation of the new law in 1935 was to drop the provisions of prior laws including the power to revoke or cancel licenses or give examinations.

[63 Ariz. 463] Plaintiff relies on the case of Donaldson v. Sisk, 57 Ariz. 483, 114 P.2d 907, 909. While he does not quote particularly from that case we quote an important sentence: "While the new commission takes over the functions of the old one in great part it is, as a matter of law, a separate and distinct entity, governed solely by the Act which created it, and we can look only to that Act to determine its powers, duties and limitations. . . ." We consider this case which involves the matter of the Unemployment Compensation Commission of Arizona quite different from the case before us.

In our case of Marlar v. Patterson, 60 Ariz. 240, 135 P.2d 218, 221, we

Page 687

said:

"The Medical Practice Act was amended in 1935, chapter 99, session laws of that year, and we are unable to see why the plaintiff claims that they made the board of examiners merely a board of registration. The first change made deals with the make-up of the board and the length of term each shall serve, and the second made the practice of medicine without having a valid recorded certificate a felony instead of a misdemeanor. Then there was added a section providing that every person practicing medicine, surgery or osteopathy in the state shall renew his license each year by the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.