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.

STATE BOARD MEDICAL EDUCATION AND LICENSURE v. WILLIAMS (01/20/53)

January 20, 1953

STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND LICENSURE
v.
WILLIAMS



COUNSEL

Benjamin R. Donolow and Louis J. Carter, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Elmer T. Bolla, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Robert E. Woodside, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold and Gunther, JJ.

Author: Dithrich

[ 172 Pa. Super. Page 449]

DITHRICH, Judge.

The State Board of Medical Education and Licensure revoked the license of Alma E. Williams to practice naturopathy, a form of drugless therapy. Her appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County having been dismissed, she appeals to this Court.

On February 22, 1951, appellant was duly served with a citation to appear at a hearing before the Board to be held March 6, 1951, for the purpose of determining

[ 172 Pa. Super. Page 450]

    whether her license should be revoked under the authority of § 12 of the Medical Practice Act of June 3, 1911, P.L. 639, as amended by the Act of July 19, 1935, P.L. 1329, § 4, 63 P.S. § 410, which provides in part: 'The Board of Medical Education and Licensure may * * * revoke * * * the right to practice medicine and surgery in this State for any or all of the following reasons, to wit: * * * the board may so act upon satisfactory proof of grossly unethical practice, or of any form of pretense which might induce citizens to become a prey to professional exploitation.'

Appellant did not appear on the day set for hearing, but by counsel requested a continuance based on illness. Upon refusal of the request appellant's counsel withdrew from further participation in the proceedings; but the Board proceeded to take testimony and make findings of fact, and concluded that 'by prescribing and administering medicines, pills, tablets and capsules as drugs for treatment when in fact she had no license to prescribe and administer such drugs,' she was guilty of 'grossly unethical practice' and 'a form of pretense which induced citizens to become a prey to her professional exploitations.'

Appellant filed no exceptions to the Board's adjudication and in her appeal to the court below contended only that the adjudication was invalid under § 31 of the Administrative Agency Law of June 4, 1945, P.L. 1388, 71 P.S. § 1710.31, which provides in part: 'No adjudication shall be valid as to any party unless he shall have been afforded reasonable notice of a hearing and an opportunity to be heard.' The learned president judge of the court below dismissed the appeal because of appellant's failure to file exceptions to the adjudication*fn1

[ 172 Pa. Super. Page 451]

    and also because he was satisfied, after a consideration of the merits of the appeal, that § ...


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.