People v. Cochran (1922) · DecisionDepot

People v. Cochran

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Feb 11, 1922 No. Crim. No. 806.Published

Before: Craig

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the information sufficiently charged the defendant with practicing a system of treating the sick without a valid certificate in violation of the Medical Practice Act, and that the practice of healing by physical means constitutes treatment regardless of whether a diagnosis is made.

Issues

Whether the information sufficiently stated a public offense under the Medical Practice Act.
Whether the act of 'adjusting' the vertebra without diagnosis constitutes 'treating' the sick under the statute.
Whether the information was defective for failing to allege the defendant practiced a 'system' or for failing to specify the use of drugs.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This information complies with section 950 of the Penal Code in that it is fully sufficient to charge a public offense.”

“It is impossible to dissassociate diagnosis from the practice of the art of healing by any physical, medical, mechanical, hygienic, or surgical means.”

“The judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

CRAIG, J.

The appellant was convicted of “practicing mode of treating sick without having valid unrevoked certificate of license from State Board of Medical Examiners.” From the judgment pronounced and an order denying motion for new trial this appeal was taken.

[1]

The charging part of the information reads as follows: “That the said A. D. Cochran on or about the 16 day of December, 1920, at, and in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously practice, attempt to practice and advertise and hold himself out as practicing a system and mode of treating the sick and afflicted in the State of California, without then and there having a valid unrevoked certificate authorizing him to practice a system or mode of treating the sick and afflicted in the State of California, from the State Board of Medical Examiners of the State of California.”

The principal contention of the defendant and appellant is that the information does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense. Our attention is called to the fact that in addition to the Medical Practice Act (Stats. 1913, p. 722) there is a statute in force in this state regulating the practice of veterinary surgeons. We think no person of common understanding could fail to know from a reading of the information that it charges the defendant with having treated sick and afflicted persons in violation of the Medical Practice Act rather than having violated the statute concerning the practice of veterinary surgeons. This information complies with section 950 of the Penal Code in that it is fully sufficient to charge a public offense.

[2]

Appellant asks us to declare a legal distinction between “adjusting” and “treating” persons suffering from disease or discomfort. We are told that the defendant declared that he did not diagnose any case and so informed the patients who came to him; that he only “adjusted the vertebra” in order that nature might correct the difficulty. It is urged that, unless a diagnosis is made, it cannot be

[396]

said that a physician “treats” a patient. The proposition here argued is not an open question in this state. In

People v. Cochran

AI Brief

Synopsis

CRAIG, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief