Magit v. Board of Medical Examiners
17 Cal. Rptr. 488, 57 Cal. 2d 74, 366 P.2d 816 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A licensed physician who employs or aids an unlicensed individual in the practice of medicine, including the administration of anesthesia, is guilty of unprofessional conduct, even if the unlicensed individual is competent and acts under the physician's direct supervision.
Facts:
- Dr. Jack R. Magit was a licensed physician and the chief anesthesiologist at the Beverly Hills Doctors Hospital.
- Dr. Magit employed Francisco Rios, Luciano Celori, and Ahmet Ozbey, knowing they were not licensed to practice medicine in California.
- The three men were medical doctors from other countries with specialized training in anesthesiology and were considered highly competent.
- With Dr. Magit's knowledge and authorization, the three men administered general, spinal, and epidural anesthetics to patients.
- All anesthetic administrations by the unlicensed men occurred under the supervision, direction, and control of a licensed physician.
- Dr. Magit acted on legal advice from the hospital's attorney that the practice was not illegal and believed it was a common practice in California.
- Dr. Magit immediately stopped the practice upon learning that the Board of Medical Examiners considered it illegal.
Procedural Posture:
- The Board of Medical Examiners filed an accusation against Dr. Jack R. Magit, a licensed physician.
- Following an administrative hearing, the Board found Dr. Magit guilty of unprofessional conduct and ordered his medical license revoked.
- Dr. Magit filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the superior court (trial court) to review the Board's decision.
- The superior court exercised its independent judgment on the record, found Dr. Magit not guilty of unprofessional conduct, and granted the writ, setting aside the Board's revocation order.
- The Board of Medical Examiners, as appellant, appealed the superior court's judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a licensed physician engage in unprofessional conduct by employing unlicensed individuals, who are not nurses or otherwise statutorily exempt, to administer anesthetics under his direct supervision?
Opinions:
Majority - Gibson, C. J.
Yes. A licensed physician engages in unprofessional conduct by employing unlicensed individuals to administer anesthetics under his supervision. The administration of anesthetics constitutes the practice of medicine, as it involves using drugs on and penetrating the tissues of human beings to treat the sick. Except for narrow statutory exceptions, such as for licensed nurses or medical interns in approved programs, practicing medicine requires a state-issued license. The supervision of a licensed physician does not legalize the medical acts of an unlicensed person, and a physician who aids and abets such practice is guilty of unprofessional conduct. The competence of the unlicensed individuals is irrelevant, as the state's licensing requirement is the sole determinant of one's legal authority to practice. While Dr. Magit was guilty of unprofessional conduct, the penalty of license revocation was an abuse of discretion given his good faith, reliance on legal advice, and the lack of clear prior judicial precedent on the issue.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that administering anesthesia falls squarely within the definition of practicing medicine, which requires a license. It strictly construes exceptions, clarifying that the previously established exception for licensed nurses does not extend to other non-licensed personnel, regardless of their training or competence. The case reinforces the principle that supervision by a licensed professional cannot cure the illegal practice of medicine by an unlicensed one. Finally, it establishes an important distinction for administrative law, showing that while good faith is not a defense to the violation itself, it is a critical factor in determining whether the penalty imposed by an administrative board is an abuse of discretion.
