Opinion
The trial court found that each of the plaintiffs, in attempting to satisfy the statutory condition of eligibility for a license to practice medicine, that he be the recipient of a diploma from a reputable medical school, had represented to the examining board that he was a graduate of a certain college, whereas each had, in fact, with little or no study, merely paid for the privilege of an examination, received an "honorary diploma" and was not a bona fide graduate of the institution. Held that this finding supported the trial court's conclusion that the plaintiffs had committed fraud in procuring their licenses.
Argued April 17th, 1928
Decided June 18th, 1928.
APPEALS by the plaintiffs from the action of the State Department of Health in revoking their licenses to practice medicine, taken to the Superior Court in New Haven County and tried to the court, Simpson, J.; judgments rendered dismissing the appeals, from which the plaintiffs appealed. No error in any appeal.
Charles W. Bauby, for the appellants (plaintiffs Aronson, Bockman, DeJanis and J'Anthony).
James W. Carpenter, with whom, on the brief, were Benjamin W. Alling, Attorney General, Cyril Coleman and J. H. Bartholomew, Jr., for the appellees (defendants).
Each of these appellants appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court sustaining the revocation of his license to practice medicine by the State Department of Health under circumstances identical with those involved in Mower v. State Department of Health, ante, p. 74. Many of the issues are determined adversely to the appellants by our decision in that case. They raise, however, certain further questions. One is that the court erred in its conclusion that the appellants committed fraud in procuring their licenses. The statute then in force required that each applicant should present to the examining board satisfactory evidence that he had received a diploma from some legally incorporated and reputable medical school. General Statutes, § 2865. This of course could only mean that he must present satisfactory evidence that he was a bona fide graduate of such an institution. Each of these appellants represented under oath that he was a graduate of the Kansas City College of Medicine and Surgery. As to each the trial court finds that, with little or no study at that institution, he appeared before its head, paid $30 for the privilege of an examination, was passed, and received an "honorary diploma," and that he was not a bona fide graduate of the college. In view of these facts, the conclusion of the trial court that the appellants committed fraud in procuring their licenses is unassailable. The further claims of these appellants, that certain depositions were taken without adequate notice to them, and that the court erred in allowing an amendment to the answer, find no support in the record, and their attempt to secure corrections of the finding in certain respects is futile in view of the fact that they have not pursued the statutory methods established for securing such corrections.