In re the Suspension or Revocation of the License of Blum
Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division; February 24, 1970; New Jersey; State Appellate Court
Collester, J. A. D. delivered the court's opinion regarding George Blum, a chiropractor appealing the State Board of Medical Examiners' decision to revoke his chiropractic license for fraudulent advertising. Blum was charged under N. J. S. A. 45:9-16(d) for placing misleading advertisements in local newspapers between October 1967 and April 1968. These advertisements included claims about chiropractic treatments for high blood pressure and advice on drug use, which were deemed inaccurate and misleading by expert witnesses Dr. Martino and Dr. Oianeiulli. The Board found 16 of Blum's advertisements to contain false statements injurious to the public, resulting in the revocation of his license. Blum raised three appeal grounds: 1) he was denied due process due to lack of an impartial tribunal; 2) the Board did not prove he had fraudulent intent in making misrepresentations; and 3) the Board lacked authority to charge him based on statements derogatory to the medical profession. The court addressed the due process claim, stating that even if the merger of investigation, prosecution, and adjudication functions within the Board existed, it would not constitute a due process violation, referencing prior case law. Additionally, the evidence did not support Blum's argument of functional merger. An inspector from the Division of Professional Boards conducted the investigation, while a deputy attorney general, independent of the Board, prosecuted the case, which was ultimately decided by the Board. The appellant's argument regarding the lack of merit in proving intentional fraud was rejected. To establish a violation of N.J.S.A. 45:9-16(d), evidence of intentional falsehood in advertising can be inferred from the accused's conduct and surrounding circumstances. The evidence demonstrated that the appellant made false and misleading statements in advertisements, despite knowing the limitations of his chiropractic practice and having insufficient basis for the claims. The Board found that the appellant knowingly deceived the public, characterizing his advertisements as 'false and deceitful' and confirming his guilt of fraudulent advertising. Additionally, the appellant contested the Board’s conclusion that nine of his advertisements were derogatory and misleading regarding the practice of medicine. However, the Board determined these advertisements misled the public into avoiding necessary medical treatment, which is beyond chiropractic care. The findings of the Board were upheld based on substantial evidence. The decision was affirmed.