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.

NATHANIEL W. BOYD v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (03/27/74)

decided: March 27, 1974.

NATHANIEL W. BOYD, III, D.O., APPELLANT,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, STATE BOARD OF OSTEOPATHIC EXAMINERS, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the State Board of Osteopathic Examiners, in case of In the Matter of the Suspension or Revocation of the License to Practice Osteopathy and Surgery Issued to Nathaniel W. Boyd, D.O., dated April 11, 1973.

COUNSEL

Daniel W. Shoemaker, with him John W. Thompson, Jr. and Shoemaker & Thompson, for appellant.

Lawrence Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, with him Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. President Judge Bowman did not participate. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 622]

The State Board of Osteopathic Examiners (Board) suspended the license issued to Nathaniel W. Boyd, III, D.O. (appellant) to engage in the practice of osteopathy and surgery for a period of six (6) months. The suspension was based on his alleged violation of Section 14 of the Act of March 19, 1909, P.L. 46, as amended, 63 P.S. ยง 271 (Osteopathic Law) and Section 9 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board.*fn1 The Act provides in part: "The State Board of Osteopathic Examiners may refuse, revoke or suspend the right to practice osteopathy and surgery in this State upon any or all of the following reasons, to wit: . . . the violation of the practice of osteopathy and surgery as defined in this act; misrepresentation; unethical conduct; or misleading, fraudulent or unethical advertising, including any form of pretense which might induce citizens to become a prey to professional exploitation: . . ."

The Board's adjudication quotes certain subsections of Regulation 9 of its Rules and Regulations which the Board considers relevant.*fn2 The "relevant portions" are as follows:

[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 623]

"It shall be considered unethical for an osteopathic physician to engage in the following course or courses of action:

"9.1. Inviting the attention of persons afflicted with particular or specific diseases.

"9.2. Publishing reports of cases in the daily press, on television, or other nonprofessional mass communication media.

"9.3. Presenting cases or reports of cases over the radio, television, or other nonprofessional ...


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.