Staley v. Board of Medical Examiners
109 Cal. App. 2d 1, 240 P.2d 61, 1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1790 (1952)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who manufactures, recommends, or sells corrective shoes and appliances for the feet does not engage in the unlicensed practice of medicine by pointing out manifest abnormalities of a customer's feet as part of the recommendation and sales process, as this activity is statutorily exempt from the definition of diagnosis.
Facts:
- For approximately 20 years, a plaintiff has been in the business of fitting, manufacturing, and selling corrective shoes and arch supports.
- He uses a conventional measuring rule for shoe size and a device called a pedograph to take a footprint and observe the curve of the customer's arch.
- Based on this information, he manufactures and sells custom arch supports to customers.
- In connection with recommending and selling these appliances, the plaintiff points out what he describes as 'manifest abnormalities' of the customers' feet to explain his recommendations.
- Investigators for the defendant board, posing as customers, testified that the plaintiff told them specific details about their feet, such as that their metatarsals were in bad shape, potentially leading to neuritis, or that misaligned arches could cause back trouble.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant board filed a complaint with the city attorney's office, charging the plaintiff with violating the Business and Professions Code by practicing medicine without a license.
- The plaintiff filed a complaint in the trial court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to have his business practices declared lawful.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, declaring his actions were exempt from the statute and enjoining the board from prosecuting him for those actions.
- The defendant board appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
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 shoe salesman engage in the unlicensed practice of medicine, specifically by making a prohibited 'diagnosis,' when he uses a pedograph and points out manifest abnormalities of a customer's feet in the course of recommending and selling corrective shoes and appliances?
Opinions:
Majority - Drapeau, J.
No. A shoe salesman does not engage in the unlicensed practice of medicine by pointing out manifest abnormalities of a customer's feet when recommending corrective appliances, as this conduct is statutorily exempt. The court held that Business and Professions Code § 2148, which exempts the 'recommendation' of corrective foot appliances, carves this specific activity out from the general prohibition against unlicensed diagnosis in § 2141. Citing a similar New York case, the court reasoned it would be an unreasonable construction of the statute to prohibit a salesman from pointing out obvious facts about a customer's feet. While the Board's investigators provided testimony that could support a finding of illegal diagnosis, the appellate court must defer to the trial court's factual findings where there is substantial evidence to support them. The injunction issued by the trial court was also proper as an ancillary remedy to the declaratory judgment, as it merely protects the plaintiff's declared rights without preventing the Board from enforcing the law in other circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the line between permissible commercial 'recommendation' and prohibited medical 'diagnosis' within a statutorily regulated industry. It establishes that ancillary commentary about a customer's physical condition, when directly related to the sale of a statutorily exempt product, does not automatically constitute the unlicensed practice of medicine. The ruling protects individuals in quasi-health fields from prosecution for activities essential to their trade, so long as they do not hold themselves out as medical practitioners. It also reinforces the principle of appellate deference to a trial court's findings of fact when substantial evidence supports the conclusion.
