Jameson v. Board of Dental Examiners

CRAIG, Acting P. J.

The defendants and appellants here, respondents in a

certiorari

proceeding in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, appealed from a judgment rendered therein annulling a judgment of said board which suspended the license of the petitioner to practice dentistry in this state.

Omitting formal parts of the accusation, it was charged that respondent used in his practice “a name other than the name under which he is licensed to practice dentistry . . . and whereby he did indicate and does now indicate that he is practicing dentistry under such name ...” A citation was issued and served pursuant to the statutory requirement that “said verified accusation has been presented to this board for its consideration, which this board deems sufficient”, and after plea of not guilty and the introduction of evidence, said board rendered its findings and judgment suspending the license in question.

[107]

The appellants’ first contention is that the act of the dental board in passing upon the sufficiency of the accusation was purely ministerial and that its decision was conclusive and not subject to review in a

certiorari

proceeding. It has been decided that while such bodies do not exercise “the judicial powers of the state” as the phrase is used in conferring judicial power upon the courts, that they exercise a gwasi-judicial power in adjudicating valuable property rights of qualified members to practice their professions, and that their action is subject to revision by way of

certiorari. (Lanterman

v.

Anderson,

36 Cal. App. 472 [172 Pac. 625];

Suchow

v.

Alderson,

182 Cal. 247 [187 Pac. 965].) And in other jurisdictions it has also been held that “where the act to be done involves the