Randall v. Board of Medical Examiners
Before: Schmidt
SCHMIDT, J.,
pro tem.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in a proceeding in
certiorari
annulling a judgment of the Board, of Medical Examiners, by the terms of which last-mentioned judgment the respondent herein was found guilty of a violation of the Medical Practice Act and was granted probation for a period of five years.
The Medical Practice Act, in so far as applicable to this case, provides: “Whenever any holder of a certificate herein provided for is guilty of unprofessional conduct as the same is defined in this act and the said unprofessional conduct has been brought to the attention of the board granting said certificate, ... it shall be the duty of the board, and the board shall have the power to suspend the right of the holder of said certificate to practice for a period not exceeding one year, or to place the holder of said certificate upon probation, or suspend judgment in such cases, or revoke his certificate or take such other action in relation to the punishment of the holder of said certificate as it may deem proper. . . . The words ‘unprofessional conduct’ as used in this act are hereby declared to -mean: . . . Tenth: Advertising, announcing or stating directly, indirectly, or in substance, by
[63]
any sign card, newspaper, advertisement or other written or printed sign or advertisement, that the holder of such certificate or any other person, company or association by which he is employed or in whose service he is, will cure or attempt to cure, or will treat, any venereal disease, or will cure or attempt to cure or treat any person or persons for any sexual disease, for lost manhood, sexual weakness or sexual disorder or any disease of the sexual organs; or being employed by or being in the service of any person, firm, association or corporation so advertising, announcing or stating.” (Stats. 1913, p. 722, as amended; Stats. 1929, p. 626.)
The complaint before the Medical Board charged respondent with unprofessional conduct in violation of subdivision 10 of section 14 of the act, in that he had-placed an advertisement in the “Los Angeles Evening Herald”, a newspaper of wide circulation in the city of Los Angeles, in words and figures as follows: “T. J. Randall, M. D. 602 S. Flower St., cor. 6th. Acute chronic Blood, Skin and infectious disease, Prostate, bladder, also dropsy, rheumatism, stomach and other chronic ailments.
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)