Arizona Board of Osteopathic Examiners in Medicine & Surgery v. Ferris

Citations: 20 Ariz. App. 535; 514 P.2d 288; 1973 Ariz. App. LEXIS 779Docket: No. 1 CA-CIV 2197

Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; September 27, 1973; Arizona; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Maricopa County Superior Court reversed the State Board of Osteopathic Examiners' decision denying Dr. Gary Wayne Ferris osteopathic licensure, claiming a lack of evidence supporting the Board's conclusions regarding his internship and moral character. The Board had ruled that Dr. Ferris did not complete an accredited one-year internship as mandated by A.R.S. 32-1822, subsec. 3, par. c, nor did he meet the good moral character standards due to false statements. The Superior Court's review was limited to the record and could not substitute its conclusions for those of the Board, which can only be overturned if proven arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Upon review, it was determined that substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings regarding Dr. Ferris's failure to demonstrate the requisite internship. Dr. Ferris claimed to have completed an AMA-accredited internship, a year in radiology residency, a six-month pathology residency, and emergency room experience, arguing these constituted an equivalent internship. However, the statute and Board rules require that any equivalent training be comparable to an A.O.A.-accredited internship, which the Board interpreted as necessitating osteopathic orientation. The Board's discretion is not unlimited but must align with statutory standards, which the court found were upheld in this case.

Extensive evidence presented at the Board hearing highlighted the distinct nature of osteopathic medicine compared to allopathic (M.D.) practices, particularly in diagnosing illnesses through osteopathic lesions and the application of osteopathic manipulative therapy. The training of osteopathic physicians includes a fifth-year internship, where osteopathic concepts are integral to their education, as outlined in the Osteopathic Postdoctoral Training Requirements, which emphasize the interdependence of body structure and function, self-regulation, and the importance of musculoskeletal elements in health and disease.

Dr. Ferris bore the burden of proving that his training equated to the required osteopathic internship. He tried to demonstrate this by citing his A.M.A.-sanctioned internship and M.D. training but failed to show that these experiences included adequate instruction in osteopathic concepts. The central issue before the Court was whether Dr. Ferris could practice as an osteopathic physician in Arizona, which necessitates compliance with specific legislative requirements for osteopathic training that are distinct from those for M.D. licensure. Arizona's legislative framework clearly delineates between the two professions, asserting separate licensure requirements and recognizing them as independent practices.

A.R.S. 32-1401, subsec. 9 clarifies that certain acts or individuals are excluded from the definition of practicing medicine under the M.D. chapter, while subsecs. 10 and A.R.S. 32-1854, subsec. 11 reference other healing arts. A.R.S. 32-1821 specifies that the osteopathic chapter does not restrict alternative healing methods by licensed individuals. Licensing boards must consist of M.D.s for the medical board and osteopathic physicians for the osteopathic board (A.R.S. 32-1402, subsec. B; 32-1801, subsec. B). Candidates for M.D. and osteopathic physician licenses must complete the necessary training (A.R.S. 32-1423; 32-1822). The law mandates that to be licensed as an osteopathic physician in Arizona, one must complete an accredited internship by the American Osteopathic Association, and similar experience lacking osteopathic elements does not meet this requirement. Consequently, the Board's denial of Dr. Ferris's licensure based on insufficient proof of an accredited internship is upheld, reversing the Superior Court's judgment. While the Board's finding regarding Dr. Ferris's moral character is noted to be less convincing, the court finds no evidence of bias against him by the Board, rejecting his claims of prejudice. The Superior Court's judgment is reversed, reinstating the Board's decision.