Gustason v. Board of Osteopathic Examiners

ROTH, J.,

pro tem.

Appellant appeared before the above-entitled board and the members thereof on a complaint filed with said board, charging appellant with unprofessional conduct under subdivision third, section 14, chapter 354, of the Statutes of 1913. Unlawful advertising is forbidden by the said section to members of the medical profession. The pertinent portion of said section reads as follows:

“All advertising of medical business which is intended or has a tendency to deceive the public or impose upon credulous or ignorant persons, and so be harmful or injurious to public morals or safety.’’ (Stats. 1913, p. 733.)

From the evidence, the respondent board found that appellant had in separate listings in the telephone directory of the city of Los Angeles advertised and held himself out to the public as a specialist in the following services, illnesses

[438]

and diseases: Accident, illness, health service, blood diseases, cancer, eye, ear, genito-nrinary, goiter, hemorrhoid, hernia, lung, men’s diseases, nervous diseases, nose, plastic surgery, general surgery, skin diseases, syphilis, throat, tonsil, women’s diseases, X-ray and clinical services, blood pressure, bone, chest and children’s diseases, epilepsy, gland, heart, kidney diseases, and practically everything else known to the science of medicine and surgery.

Appellant was found guilty by the board of the violation of the section quoted, and his license was revoked. On petition for a writ of review in the superior court and on a hearing pursuant thereto, the writ was denied. This appeal is from the judgment of the superior court denying the petition for review.

Appellant’s first contention is that the law creating defendant board is unconstitutional. The legality of the board is, however, settled.

(Board of Osteopathic Examiners

v.

Riley,

192 Cal. 158 [218 Pac. 1018];

Suckow