STATE ex rel. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF REGISTERED DENTISTS v. DIXON

STATE ex rel. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF REGISTERED DENTISTS v. DIXON
1950 OK 229
222 P.2d 756
203 Okla. 410
Case Number: 33771
Decided: 09/26/1950
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Syllabus

¶0 1. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS - Board of Dental Examiners without authority under the statutes to appoint an investigating committee.
The Board of Dental Examiners existing by authority of 59 O.S. 1941 § 221 et seq. has no authority to appoint an investigating committee to hear charges filed with the Board of Governors of the Registered Dentists of Oklahoma against a member of the organization.
2. SAME - Hearing held before purported investigating committee without authority of law and a nullity.
A hearing conducted by such a committee is without authority of law and a nullity.
3. SAME - Member must be charged, notified, and given hearing as provided by State Dental Act.
Before a member of the Registered Dentists of Oklahoma may be disciplined by the Board of Governors of said organization the member must be charged, notified and given a hearing as provided by the State Dental Act.

Appeal by P. F. Dixon from decree of Board of Governors of the Registered Dentists of Oklahoma, suspending him from the practice of dentistry. Reversed.

Wheeler & Wheeler, of Tulsa, Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma, Fred Hansen, 1st Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.

Logan Stephenson, F. C. Swindell and O. C. Lassiter, all of Tulsa, for defendant.

ARNOLD, V.C.J.

¶1 By his petition filed herein Dr. P. F. Dixon seeks a review by this court of the jurisdiction of the Board of Governors of the Registered Dentists of Oklahoma to make and enter its order and judgment of July 25, 1948, suspending his license to practice dentistry in the State of Oklahoma. (59 O.S. 1941 § 279).

¶2 An examination of the record discloses that the question now presented is identical with that presented to and determined by us in the recent case of State ex rel. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists of Oklahoma v. Rifleman, 203 Okl. 294, 220 P.2d 441. The order and judgment here complained of was entered on the same day as in the Rifleman case and was based upon the findings and report of the same committee reflecting its proceedings herein at the same time and place as in the above-cited case.

¶3 We do not deem it necessary to do more than refer to our opinion in that case for an expression of our views on the question involved.

¶4 Judgment reversed.

¶5 CORN, GIBSON, LUTTRELL, JOHNSON, and O'NEAL, JJ., concur.