Jacobsen v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners
Before: Van Dyke
VAN DYKE, P. J.
Petitioner herein was charged with a violation of Section 10, subdivision (a) of the Chiropractic Act, an initiative act adopted in 1922 [Stats. 1923, p. lxxxv, Deering’s Gen. Laws, Act 4811], which now appears as sections 1000-1 through 1001, Business and Professions Code [West’s Annotated Codes]. By the decision of the board petitioner was found guilty of having violated said section 10, subdivision (a), by the following advertisement in the Sacramento Union;
■ ‘ Sick ?
“Nervous?
“Run Down?
“For many years Dr. Jacobsen has specialized in the treatment of chronic ailments—the diseases that are said to be responsible for 93% of the ill health of the nation. The years of research and experience have enabled us to develop treating methods that are highly skillful and restful. Many patients have been successfully treated here which is your best insurance that we can do the same for you.
Female Disorders Sterility Liver Sleeplessness Colon Prostate Stomach Ulcers Gall Bladder Mental Upsets Constipation Piles Backache Rheumatism Dizziness Nerves Headaches Marital Problems Depression Lumbago Frustration Fears Overweight Glands Rectal Disorders Lack of Vigor Skin Disorders
“Laboratory and Physical Examination “If you are one of the thousands suffering from poor health you are invited to consult me and discuss your case freely without obligation. If I can help you I will frankly tell you so. Specialized treating methods and experience counts. Over 20 years in practice. ...”
[392]
The charge was that by the said advertisement, petitioner “did advertise directly and indirectly, and in substance, that he, as the holder of a chiropractic license, would treat, cure, or attempt to treat or cure, any person, for loss of manhood, sexual weakness or sexual disorder, or any disease of the sexual organs, namely female disorders and sterility.” Section 10, subdivision (a) of the Chiropractic Act provides in part as follows:
‘
‘ The board shall refuse to grant, or may suspend or revoke, a license to practice chiropractic in this State upon any of the following grounds, to wit:
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)