State Ex Rel. Kriedeman v. Upham

Ohio Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Kriedeman v. Upham

157 N.E. 20, 116 Ohio St. 606, 116 Ohio St. (N.S.) 606, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 296

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 25, 1927

Docket20321 and 20322

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 157 N.E. 20 (State Ex Rel. Kriedeman v. Upham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Ex Rel. Kriedeman v. Upham, 157 N.E. 20, 116 Ohio St. 606, 116 Ohio St. (N.S.) 606, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 296 (Ohio 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

The state medical board having considered the evidence offered by each of these relators, and having refused to issue certificates without examination, the powers and duties of the courts in relation to the matter present questions which are not of first impressions in this cause. The questions are in all respects similar to those which were considered and decided in State ex rel. Copeland v. State Medical Board, 107 Ohio St., 20, 140 N. E., 660. It was decided in that case that the medical board has a large measure of discretion, and that, before it can be required by the writ of mandamus to' dispense with the preliminary examination of an applicant, the applicant must “establish to the satisfaction of the state medical board the fact of having actually practiced those limited branches for the full period of five years continuously, prior to October 1, 1915.” It would be absurd to claim that treatment of a very few patients during a period of five years would constitute a continuous practice during that period. On the other hand, it would be unreasonable and an abuse of discretion on the part of the board to refuse a certificate in a case where the applicant had devoted his entire time to the practice of his profession and had treated many thousands of patients during that period. Between those limits the board must be held to have a discretion which the courts may not control. The practice of these relators was certainly very meager during that five-year period, and it is absolutely certain that they have *609 not been legally practicing, their profession since the effective date of Section 1274-2, General Code (106 O. L., 202). Upon the principles and. for the reasons declared in State ex rel. Copeland v. Medical Board, supra, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Day, Allen, Kinkade. .Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

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

By the Court.

The state medical board having considered the evidence offered by each of these relators, and having refused to issue certificates without examination, the powers and duties of the courts in relation to the matter present questions which are not of first impressions in this cause. The questions are in all respects similar to those which were considered and decided in State ex rel. Copeland v. State Medical Board, 107 Ohio St., 20, 140 N. E., 660. It was decided in that case that the medical board has a large measure of discretion, and that, before it can be required by the writ of mandamus to' dispense with the preliminary examination of an applicant, the applicant must “establish to the satisfaction of the state medical board the fact of having actually practiced those limited branches for the full period of five years continuously, prior to October 1, 1915.” It would be absurd to claim that treatment of a very few patients during a period of five years would constitute a continuous practice during that period. On the other hand, it would be unreasonable and an abuse of discretion on the part of the board to refuse a certificate in a case where the applicant had devoted his entire time to the practice of his profession and had treated many thousands of patients during that period. Between those limits the board must be held to have a discretion which the courts may not control. The practice of these relators was certainly very meager during that five-year period, and it is absolutely certain that they have *609 not been legally practicing, their profession since the effective date of Section 1274-2, General Code (106 O. L., 202). Upon the principles and. for the reasons declared in State ex rel. Copeland v. Medical Board, supra, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Day, Allen, Kinkade. .Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 N.E. 20, 116 Ohio St. 606, 116 Ohio St. (N.S.) 606, 1927 Ohio LEXIS 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-kriedeman-v-upham-ohio-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack