Jordan v. Alderson

KOFORD, J.,

pro tem,

This is an appeal from a judgment refusing on

certiorari

to annul an order of the state board of medical examiners revoking petitioner’s license to practice medicine in the state of California.

The proceedings before the board were taken under the provisions of the Medical Practice Act Stats. 1913, p. 722, c. 354; Stats. 1915, p. 184, c. 105, and also amended in 1917 [p. 93, c. 81] and 1919 [p. 1299, c. 632].) The complaint charged the petitioner with unprofessional conduct under subdivision 1 of section 14 of the act, by procuring a criminal abortion upon a pregnant woman.

Appellant contends that the record of the proceedings had and taken before the board shows such an absence of proper evidence a® to amount to lack of jurisdiction in the board to make the order under review. It will serve no useful purpose to again state the powers of the court upon

certiorari,

particularly with reference to the action of the board of medical examiners in revoking a physician’s license for unprofessional conduct in procuring an abortion. This subject has been fully discussed in several recent decisions:

Thrasher

v.

Board of Medical Examiners,

44 Cal. App. 26, [185 Pac. 1006];

Lanterman

v.

Anderson,

36 Cal. App. 472, [172 Pac. 625]; expressly approved in

Suckow

v.

Alderson,

182 Cal. 247, [187 Pac. 965] ;

Anderson

v.

Board of Dental Examiners,

27 Cal. App. 339, [149 Pac. 1006],

The record shows that there was an ample sufficiency of proper evidence to prove that the woman operated upon was pregnant at .the time of the offense charged. The woman herself so testified, and on oath reaffirmed the truth of a full, detailed written statement giving circumstances, conditions, and symptoms, signed by her at the emergency hospital shortly after the offense. Also, expert medical testimony given by a physician who had made an examination of the patient shortly after the offense, was proper evidence and of a convincing character. There was a conflict in the testimony of the expert witnesses, and appellant complains that his cross-examination of the woman at the hearing on her belief as to her previous pregnancy was erroneously limited by the board.