Hartman v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners

THE COURT.

An appeal from the judgment in favor of the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners in a proceeding brought by appellant Hartman to review an order by the board revoking his license to practice chiropractic in the state of California.

The Chiropractic Act (Stats. 1923, p. lxxxviii) provides in section 10 that the board may revoke a license “for the employment of fraud or deception in applying” for it, and also that “Any person who is a licentiate . . . against whom any of the foregoing grounds for revoking ... is presented to the board with a view of having the board revoke ... a license, shall be furnished with a copy of the complaint and shall have a hearing before the board in person or by attorney, and witnesses may be examined by the board respecting the guilt or innocence of the accused.”

On March 8, 1930, a complaint was filed with the board, charging that appellant had employed fraud and deception in applying for a license in that he falsely stated in his application that he had never been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; but in truth he was on November 2, 1916, in the Superior Court of San Joaquin County, California, convicted of murder in the first degree. A copy of the complaint with a citation was served on appellant, and a hearing was had before the board on August 2, 1936, at which he was present and testified. Whether he was represented by counsel at the time is not clear from the record; however, he there stated that he wished to make his own defense. A certified copy of the judgment in the criminal case was introduced, showing the conviction alleged, and that thereupon the appellant was sentenced to the state prison for

[78]

life. It was further shown, however, that the term was subsequently commuted and served. Appellant admitted this, and that he had made a false answer as to the fact of his conviction in his application to the board. He insisted, however, that moral turpitude was not involved in the offense, and that therefore the evidence upon which the board acted was insufficient to justify the order of revocation.

It was proper for the board, in determining the moral character of the applicant, to inquire concerning previous convictions of crime; and a false answer to such a question was a wilful deception.