Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

trialwill

plaintiffdefendanttrialwill

Related Cases

State ex rel. Collet v. Scopel, 316 S.W.2d 515

Facts

William Scopel operated a clinic and a school of naturopathic medicine in Kansas City, Missouri, without a license to practice medicine. Despite claiming to be a naturopath, he engaged in activities that included diagnosing and treating patients, prescribing medications, and using medical instruments. The State sought to enjoin his practice, arguing it was a public nuisance detrimental to public health. Evidence presented showed Scopel's lack of formal medical education and his inadequate qualifications to treat patients.

Defendant admittedly has neither sought nor obtained a license to practice medicine in this State [see Sections 334.010, 334.030 and 334.040, as amended Laws of 1951, p. 727], but his contention is ‘that he is a naturopath and as such does not practice medicine and that his business is not subject to the licensing or control of any board or agency under the laws of Missouri.’

Issue

Whether William Scopel's unlicensed practice of medicine constituted a public nuisance that warranted injunctive relief from the State.

Rule

The court held that the legislature has the authority to regulate the practice of medicine to protect public health and welfare, and that unlicensed medical practice can be enjoined if it constitutes a public nuisance.

In the valid exercise of such authority, our general assembly has seen fit to require that ‘(a)ll persons desiring to practice medicine or surgery in this state, or to treat the sick or afflicted,’ shall furnish satisfactory evidence of certain educational qualifications and shall attain a specified average grade upon medical examination conducted by the State Board of Medical Examiners [Section 334.040, as amended Laws of 1951, p. 727].

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, which included testimonies about Scopel's inadequate qualifications and the nature of his practice. It concluded that despite Scopel's claims of being a naturopath, his activities fell within the definition of practicing medicine as outlined in Missouri law. The court emphasized that the focus should be on what Scopel did rather than what he called himself, and found that his actions posed a danger to public health.

Without holding that unlicensed medical practice constitutes a public nuisance per se, we are satisfied that the record before us, taken in its totality, conclusively demonstrates defendant's utter inadequacy and incompetence for the role he has assumed and satisfactorily establishes that his extensive and unlicensed practice is, in fact, a public nuisance within the above-quoted definition of that term.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the trial court's decree and remanded the case with directions to permanently enjoin Scopel from practicing medicine without a license.

The decree of the trial court is set aside and the cause is remanded with directions to enter a decree finding the issues for plaintiff and permanently enjoining defendant in accordance with the prayer of plaintiff's petition.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the court found that Scopel's unlicensed practice constituted a public nuisance and warranted injunctive relief.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Directed to Keeper of Records of My Sister’s Place, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2002 WL 31341083, 2002 -Ohio- 5600

People v. Taggart, 621 P.2d 1375

General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.4th 1164, 876 P.2d 487, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 63 USLW 2065, 128 Lab.Cas. P 57,741, 9 IER Cases 1089

Stein v. United States, 142 S.Ct. 425 (Mem), 211 L.Ed.2d 251

Marks v. Intergraph Corp., Inc., 740 So.2d 1066