Gilmore v. Composite State Board of Medical Examiners

Supreme Court of Georgia

Gilmore v. Composite State Board of Medical Examiners

254 S.E.2d 365, 243 Ga. 415, 1979 Ga. LEXIS 918

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 4, 1979

Docket34625

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 254 S.E.2d 365 (Gilmore v. Composite State Board of Medical Examiners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gilmore v. Composite State Board of Medical Examiners, 254 S.E.2d 365, 243 Ga. 415, 1979 Ga. LEXIS 918 (Ga. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, Chief Justice.

The Composite State Board of Medical Examiners sought from the Hospital Authority of Washington County access to and examination of certain written materials deemed to be related to the fitness of Dr. Gilmore to practice medicine. The Hospital Authority resisted the subpoena. The Board then filed in the Superior Court of Washington County a complaint against the Hospital Authority to obtain an order requiring obedience of the subpoena. Dr. Gilmore intervened, seeking an injunction against the proceedings and contending that the Board’s subpoena powers as set forth in Ga. L. 1974, pp. 1156, 1162 (Code Ann. § 84-916 (d)) are unconstitutional in that they deny him due process of the laws. The trial court denied all relief sought by Dr. Gilmore and he appeals.

1. No charges have been preferred against Dr. Gilmore. Rather, the matter is in the investigative stages. The investigator is attempting to gain information concerning Dr. Gilmore’s fitness to practice medicine. Due process does not require at this state of the matter that Dr. Gilmore be informed of the nature of the charges that have been made to the Board or the names of his accusers, nor is he denied due process because he is not permitted to participate in selecting the documents to be collected by the investigator or to participate in the deliberations prior to the decision to initiate proceedings against him. Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134 (94 SC 1633, 40 LE2d 15) (1973); In re Wiggins, 144 Ga. App. 707 (242 SE2d 290) (1978).

2. The cited statutory provision is not unconstitutional nor is the judgment of the trial court erroneous for any reason asserted.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. *416 Joseph B. Bergen, Laurie K. Abbott, for appellant. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, John C. Jones, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas Hutcheson, Jones, Bird & Howell, Robert Walling, for appellees.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Nichols, Chief Justice.

The Composite State Board of Medical Examiners sought from the Hospital Authority of Washington County access to and examination of certain written materials deemed to be related to the fitness of Dr. Gilmore to practice medicine. The Hospital Authority resisted the subpoena. The Board then filed in the Superior Court of Washington County a complaint against the Hospital Authority to obtain an order requiring obedience of the subpoena. Dr. Gilmore intervened, seeking an injunction against the proceedings and contending that the Board’s subpoena powers as set forth in Ga. L. 1974, pp. 1156, 1162 (Code Ann. § 84-916 (d)) are unconstitutional in that they deny him due process of the laws. The trial court denied all relief sought by Dr. Gilmore and he appeals.

1. No charges have been preferred against Dr. Gilmore. Rather, the matter is in the investigative stages. The investigator is attempting to gain information concerning Dr. Gilmore’s fitness to practice medicine. Due process does not require at this state of the matter that Dr. Gilmore be informed of the nature of the charges that have been made to the Board or the names of his accusers, nor is he denied due process because he is not permitted to participate in selecting the documents to be collected by the investigator or to participate in the deliberations prior to the decision to initiate proceedings against him. Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134 (94 SC 1633, 40 LE2d 15) (1973); In re Wiggins, 144 Ga. App. 707 (242 SE2d 290) (1978).

2. The cited statutory provision is not unconstitutional nor is the judgment of the trial court erroneous for any reason asserted.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. *416 Joseph B. Bergen, Laurie K. Abbott, for appellant. Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, John C. Jones, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas Hutcheson, Jones, Bird & Howell, Robert Walling, for appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 S.E.2d 365, 243 Ga. 415, 1979 Ga. LEXIS 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilmore-v-composite-state-board-of-medical-examiners-ga-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack