“Carl H.” is probably “George Carl H. McPheeters.” Mentioned in the 1953-03-05-11 Minutes of the Pima County Medical Society, 1904-1954. First name mentioned in the 1954-08-12-03 minutes. Topics: abortion charge; tax evasion
J Am Med Assoc, Mar 1928; 90: 859: California. ... Licenses Revoked and Suspended. -- At the regular meeting of the state board of medical examination, Los Angeles, March 1, the licenses of the following physicians were revoked : ... Dr. George Carl H. McPheeters, Fresno, revealing professional secrets. ...
J Am Med Assoc, Nov 1930; 95: 1696: Medicolegal ... Wilful Betrayal of a Professional Secret. (McPheeters v. Board of Medical Examiners (Calif.), 284 P. 938). The California Medical Practice Act provides that a license to practice medicine may be revoked for unprofessional conduct and includes in the definition of what constitutes unprofessional conduct "the wilful betraying of a professional secret." The board of medical examiners revoked McPheeters' license on the charge that he had been guilty of wilfully betraying a professional secret in that he wrote certain letters to a former office assistant in which he described operations performed on certain patients and imparted other information concerning the condition of the patients. The letters contained nothing which would in any manner tend to disgrace, embarrass or incriminate any of the patients and none of the patients made any objections whatever to the disclosures. The superior court, Fresno County, set aside the order of the board revoking the license and the board appealed to the District Court of Appeals, first district, division 1. The phrase "wilful betrayal of professional secrets," said the court, cannot be held .to apply to any and all disclosures that a physician may intentionally make. The statute is in its nature penal and is to be construed strictly in favor of an accused. By the use of the word "wilful" the legislature without doubt intended to mean an act that implied an actual and conscious infraction of duty and it would be a harsh and unreasonable construction to hold otherwise or to say that the disclosures here involved were of that character intended to be remedied by the statute. If such a construction was imperative, any disclosures, though harmless and innocently made without objection from the patients and regardless of their nature, would deprive a physician of his right to practice medicine, a right which has taken him years of study and a large expenditure of money to acquire. ... The court affirmed, therefore, the judgment of the superior court, annulling the order of revocation made by the board of medical examiners.
J Am Med Assoc, Apr 1943; 121: 1234: Court Nullifies Revocation of License. -- A writ of mandate, issued by the San Francisco Superior Court, nullifying the revocation of the license of Dr. George C. H. McPheeters, Fresno, by the state board of medical examiners, has been entered in the medical register in the Fresno County clerk's office, newspapers reported February 6. Dr. McPheeters' license to practice was revoked by the state board Oct. 21, 1942, following a hearing in Sacramento in which he was said to have been found guilty of offering to procure an abortion.
California and Western Medicine, Dec 1942; 57(6): 392: BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ... Board Proceedings ... The following changes were made in the status of California licentiates, after hearing before the Board: … George Carl H. McPheeters, M. D., on Oct. 22, 1942, revoked.
California and Western Medicine, Mar 1944; 60(3): 128: BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ... Board Proceedings ... [see section "California and Western Medicine Advertiser," p. 38]: "Dr. George Carl H. McPheeters, whose perennial brushes with the law have kept the California Medical Board in a dither for a decade, was back in the legal fire again today with a summons to show cause why he should not have his medical license revoked. Fresno police served a citation on the local physician to appear before the Medical Board in Los Angeles on February 7, at which time he will answer charges brought by Lieut. Edward F. Eckman of Camp Pinedale, near here, that he performed an abortion on Eckman's 18-year-old wife, Lillian...." (San Francisco Examiner, January 9, 1944.)
California and Western Medicine, Aug 1944; 61(2): 128: BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ... Board Proceedings ... The following case was continued to the Sacramento meeting of Board, commencing October 16, 1944: McPheeters, George C. H., M. D.
McPheeters v. Board of Medical Examiners, 82 Cal.App.2d 709
http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/22807
[Civ. No. 13447. First Dist., Div. One. Dec. 4, 1947.]
GEORGE CARL HECKMAN McPHEETERS, Appellant, v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Respondents.
COUNSEL
A. A. George and Lionel Browne for Appellant.
Fred N. Howser, Attorney General, and J. Albert Hutchinson, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondents.
OPINION
BRAY, J.
The superior court denied appellant's petition to mandamus respondents, Board of Medical Examiners of the State of California and its members, to annul an order of said board setting the continued hearing of certain proceedings at Sacramento and to require said board to hold all hearings thereof at Los Angeles. The allegations of the petition pertinent here were as follows: that ever since 1914, appellant has been duly licensed to practice medicine and surgery in California; that in September, 1945, a sworn complaint was filed with said board by one of its inspectors, charging appellant with violation of section 2377 of the Business and Professions Code, and asking for the revocation of appellant's license to practice; that appellant is a resident of Fresno...
See also:
McPHEETERS v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, 74 Cal.App.2d 46 (1946)
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=CAAPP&cite=168+...
http://www.lawlink.com/browse_codes.aspx?caselevel3=21642
Another McPheeters (W.P. McPheeters) in legal trouble:
J Am Med Assoc, Mar 1934; 102: 959: Medicolegal. Medical Practice Acts: Internal Curative Medicine; Use by Osteopath Unlawful. The defendant, a licensed osteopath, treated a patient for hemorrhoids by the interstitial infiltration method, using a solution of 95 per cent Wesson oil with 5 per cent phenol. The state of Iowa, contending that this constituted the practice of medicine, sought to enjoin him. The trial court denied the injunction and the state appealed to the Supreme Court of Iowa. ... According to the defendant's own testimony, he administered the phenol internally to set up counterirritation in the system near the hemorrhoid which he was treating. In other words, he desired the counterirritant in the treatment, in addition to the ordinary manipulations of an osteopath. As thus administered, the phenol was an internal curative medicine. As was said in State v. Stoddard (Iowa), 245 N. W. 273: Internal curative medicine ... is some substance or preparation administered internally for the cure, removal, or healing of some disease or condition demanding medical treatment. … Clearly, then, said the Supreme Court, by thus administering the phenol, the defendant gave internal curative medicine to his patient. He departed from the boundaries of osteopathy into the field of the practice of medicine and under no circumstances does his license to practice osteopathy entitle him so to do. In so practicing he violated the medical practice act and hence may be restrained by permanent injunction. For the reasons stated above, the Supreme Court ordered that an injunction be issued, enjoining the defendant from practicing medicine.—State v. McPheeters (Iowa), 249 N. W. 349.
J Am Med Assoc, Mar 1928; 90: 859: California. ... Licenses Revoked and Suspended. -- At the regular meeting of the state board of medical examination, Los Angeles, March 1, the licenses of the following physicians were revoked : ... Dr. George Carl H. McPheeters, Fresno, revealing professional secrets. ...
J Am Med Assoc, Nov 1930; 95: 1696: Medicolegal ... Wilful Betrayal of a Professional Secret. (McPheeters v. Board of Medical Examiners (Calif.), 284 P. 938). The California Medical Practice Act provides that a license to practice medicine may be revoked for unprofessional conduct and includes in the definition of what constitutes unprofessional conduct "the wilful betraying of a professional secret." The board of medical examiners revoked McPheeters' license on the charge that he had been guilty of wilfully betraying a professional secret in that he wrote certain letters to a former office assistant in which he described operations performed on certain patients and imparted other information concerning the condition of the patients. The letters contained nothing which would in any manner tend to disgrace, embarrass or incriminate any of the patients and none of the patients made any objections whatever to the disclosures. The superior court, Fresno County, set aside the order of the board revoking the license and the board appealed to the District Court of Appeals, first district, division 1. The phrase "wilful betrayal of professional secrets," said the court, cannot be held .to apply to any and all disclosures that a physician may intentionally make. The statute is in its nature penal and is to be construed strictly in favor of an accused. By the use of the word "wilful" the legislature without doubt intended to mean an act that implied an actual and conscious infraction of duty and it would be a harsh and unreasonable construction to hold otherwise or to say that the disclosures here involved were of that character intended to be remedied by the statute. If such a construction was imperative, any disclosures, though harmless and innocently made without objection from the patients and regardless of their nature, would deprive a physician of his right to practice medicine, a right which has taken him years of study and a large expenditure of money to acquire. ... The court affirmed, therefore, the judgment of the superior court, annulling the order of revocation made by the board of medical examiners.
J Am Med Assoc, Apr 1943; 121: 1234: Court Nullifies Revocation of License. -- A writ of mandate, issued by the San Francisco Superior Court, nullifying the revocation of the license of Dr. George C. H. McPheeters, Fresno, by the state board of medical examiners, has been entered in the medical register in the Fresno County clerk's office, newspapers reported February 6. Dr. McPheeters' license to practice was revoked by the state board Oct. 21, 1942, following a hearing in Sacramento in which he was said to have been found guilty of offering to procure an abortion.
California and Western Medicine, Dec 1942; 57(6): 392: BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ... Board Proceedings ... The following changes were made in the status of California licentiates, after hearing before the Board: … George Carl H. McPheeters, M. D., on Oct. 22, 1942, revoked.
California and Western Medicine, Mar 1944; 60(3): 128: BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ... Board Proceedings ... [see section "California and Western Medicine Advertiser," p. 38]: "Dr. George Carl H. McPheeters, whose perennial brushes with the law have kept the California Medical Board in a dither for a decade, was back in the legal fire again today with a summons to show cause why he should not have his medical license revoked. Fresno police served a citation on the local physician to appear before the Medical Board in Los Angeles on February 7, at which time he will answer charges brought by Lieut. Edward F. Eckman of Camp Pinedale, near here, that he performed an abortion on Eckman's 18-year-old wife, Lillian...." (San Francisco Examiner, January 9, 1944.)
California and Western Medicine, Aug 1944; 61(2): 128: BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ... Board Proceedings ... The following case was continued to the Sacramento meeting of Board, commencing October 16, 1944: McPheeters, George C. H., M. D.
McPheeters v. Board of Medical Examiners, 82 Cal.App.2d 709
http://www.lawlink.com/research/CaseLevel3/22807
[Civ. No. 13447. First Dist., Div. One. Dec. 4, 1947.]
GEORGE CARL HECKMAN McPHEETERS, Appellant, v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA et al., Respondents.
COUNSEL
A. A. George and Lionel Browne for Appellant.
Fred N. Howser, Attorney General, and J. Albert Hutchinson, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondents.
OPINION
BRAY, J.
The superior court denied appellant's petition to mandamus respondents, Board of Medical Examiners of the State of California and its members, to annul an order of said board setting the continued hearing of certain proceedings at Sacramento and to require said board to hold all hearings thereof at Los Angeles. The allegations of the petition pertinent here were as follows: that ever since 1914, appellant has been duly licensed to practice medicine and surgery in California; that in September, 1945, a sworn complaint was filed with said board by one of its inspectors, charging appellant with violation of section 2377 of the Business and Professions Code, and asking for the revocation of appellant's license to practice; that appellant is a resident of Fresno...
See also:
McPHEETERS v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, 74 Cal.App.2d 46 (1946)
http://www.loislaw.com/livepublish8923/doclink.htp?alias=CAAPP&cite=168+...
http://www.lawlink.com/browse_codes.aspx?caselevel3=21642
Another McPheeters (W.P. McPheeters) in legal trouble:
J Am Med Assoc, Mar 1934; 102: 959: Medicolegal. Medical Practice Acts: Internal Curative Medicine; Use by Osteopath Unlawful. The defendant, a licensed osteopath, treated a patient for hemorrhoids by the interstitial infiltration method, using a solution of 95 per cent Wesson oil with 5 per cent phenol. The state of Iowa, contending that this constituted the practice of medicine, sought to enjoin him. The trial court denied the injunction and the state appealed to the Supreme Court of Iowa. ... According to the defendant's own testimony, he administered the phenol internally to set up counterirritation in the system near the hemorrhoid which he was treating. In other words, he desired the counterirritant in the treatment, in addition to the ordinary manipulations of an osteopath. As thus administered, the phenol was an internal curative medicine. As was said in State v. Stoddard (Iowa), 245 N. W. 273: Internal curative medicine ... is some substance or preparation administered internally for the cure, removal, or healing of some disease or condition demanding medical treatment. … Clearly, then, said the Supreme Court, by thus administering the phenol, the defendant gave internal curative medicine to his patient. He departed from the boundaries of osteopathy into the field of the practice of medicine and under no circumstances does his license to practice osteopathy entitle him so to do. In so practicing he violated the medical practice act and hence may be restrained by permanent injunction. For the reasons stated above, the Supreme Court ordered that an injunction be issued, enjoining the defendant from practicing medicine.—State v. McPheeters (Iowa), 249 N. W. 349.
Master pnID
AMH-PN2449
Src2 PCMSMin
PCMS-Min
PCMS pnID
pn0683
Residence(s)
Fresno CA