Petitioner physician appealed the judgment from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which denied a writ of mandate to compel respondent state medical board to annul its order revoking a physician’s license. The board and the trial court considered the transcript of criminal proceedings against the physician that were dismissed after a trial resulted in a disagreement of the jury.
The transcript of the criminal trial showed that the physician gave morphine to a non-patient undercover agent in small amounts for cash with no physical examinations, no records, and with comments that implied that the agent was an addict. The trial court found that the findings and order of the board were supported by the weight of the evidence and that the hearing was fair and regular. On appeal, the court held that Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2391.5 provided that the violation of any of the statutes of the state regulating narcotics constituted unprofessional conduct. The court found that the evidence supported findings that the physician had violated Cal. Nakase Wade ada violations, the california unruh civil rights act Health & Safety Code §§ 11163, 11164, 11500, that “dispense” as used to § 11164 was not limited to the filling of prescriptions, and that the evidence rebutted his contention that he complied with § 11330 and furnished narcotics for treatment. The court held that laymen were competent without expert testimony to find that the physician had not properly diagnosed or treated the agent and that he had violated the narcotics laws. The court also held that the board had no abused its discretion in its penalty.
The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court that denied a writ of mandate to compel the board to annul its order of revocation of the physician’s license.
Appellant manufacturing representative sought review of a decision from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which entered a judgment in favor of respondent, a manufacturing representative and corporation owner, in an action on a common count for money had and received.
The corporation had brought the action for money had and received, and sought judgment against the manufacturing representative in the amount of $ 11,000. The corporation owner’s claim arose out of, and was based on, a contract entered into between the parties which purported to settle a dispute between them concerning their former joint business relationship. The contract was introduced and evidence presented on each side. The trial court granted judgment, based on the contract, in the corporation owner’s favor in the amount of $ 2,115.48. The main issue presented both at the trial and in this appeal was whether there was sufficient admissible evidence to support the finding that $ 11,000 was due as the corporation owner had represented. On appeal, the court held that evidence relating to this finding was improperly admitted. The court held that the foundational testimony for the business records exception to the hearsay rule was totally inadequate. The court held that without this evidence insufficient evidence was introduced to support the disputed finding. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the trial court.
The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, which had entered a judgment in favor of a manufacturing representative and corporation owner in an action on a common count for money had and received. The court held that the foundational testimony for the business records exception to the hearsay rule was totally inadequate.