Schramm v. Physical Therapists Examining Board

D.C. Circuit

Schramm v. Physical Therapists Examining Board

394 F.2d 972, 129 U.S. App. D.C. 347

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 16, 1967

DocketNos. 20260, 20261, 20343

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 394 F.2d 972 (Schramm v. Physical Therapists Examining Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schramm v. Physical Therapists Examining Board, 394 F.2d 972, 129 U.S. App. D.C. 347 (D.C. Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

The appellants in the above consolidated cases having sought registration as physical therapists, without examination, pursuant to the provisions of D.C. CODE § 2-458 (Supp. V 1966), their respective applications having been denied, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals having affirmed, and review having been sought in this court, where the said cases came on to be heard on the records on appeal from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and argument was had on April 19, 1967, when the respective parties appeared by counsel and were fully heard; and this court having considered the arguments, the briefs and the administrative records, and the opinions of the said District of Columbia Court of Appeals; and finding itself satisfied that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals correctly concluded: (1) that the Physical Therapists Examining Board for the District of Columbia had not acted arbitrarily and capriciously, (2) that the said appellants had not established their claimed right to registration as physical therapists without examination, and (3) the said Board had not unfairly denied the pending applications by misapplication of the basic statute;

and this court being further satisfied that the rulings of the said Board and of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals are not in contravention of such rights as may pertain to the appellants by virtue of section 4(e) of the Physical Therapists Practice Act;

Now, upon consideration of the foregoing and of the records before the court,

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgments of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals appealed from in these cases are affirmed.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

The appellants in the above consolidated cases having sought registration as physical therapists, without examination, pursuant to the provisions of D.C. CODE § 2-458 (Supp. V 1966), their respective applications having been denied, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals having affirmed, and review having been sought in this court, where the said cases came on to be heard on the records on appeal from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and argument was had on April 19, 1967, when the respective parties appeared by counsel and were fully heard; and this court having considered the arguments, the briefs and the administrative records, and the opinions of the said District of Columbia Court of Appeals; and finding itself satisfied that the District of Columbia Court of Appeals correctly concluded: (1) that the Physical Therapists Examining Board for the District of Columbia had not acted arbitrarily and capriciously, (2) that the said appellants had not established their claimed right to registration as physical therapists without examination, and (3) the said Board had not unfairly denied the pending applications by misapplication of the basic statute;

and this court being further satisfied that the rulings of the said Board and of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals are not in contravention of such rights as may pertain to the appellants by virtue of section 4(e) of the Physical Therapists Practice Act;

Now, upon consideration of the foregoing and of the records before the court,

It is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgments of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals appealed from in these cases are affirmed.

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency and Russell E. Train, Administrator, Velsicol Chemical Corporation and Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii, Intervenors. Earl L. Butz, Secretary of Agriculture of the United States v. Russell E. Train, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Velsicol Chemical Corporation, Intervenor. Velsicol Chemical Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, Russell E. Train, Administrator, Velsicol Chemical Corporation v. Russell E. Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

548 F.2d 998 (D.C. Circuit, 1977)

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency

548 F.2d 998 (D.C. Circuit, 1976)

Leona E. Schramm v. Physical Therapists Examining Board for the District of Columbia, Cecilia M. Hlebanja v. Physical Therapists Examining Board for the District of Columbia, Robert Waverly Hicks v. Physical Therapists Examining Board for the District of Columbia

394 F.2d 972 (D.C. Circuit, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

394 F.2d 972, 129 U.S. App. D.C. 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schramm-v-physical-therapists-examining-board-cadc-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack