McLaughlin

On March 9, 1971, the executive secretary of the Board of Medical Examiners (hereinafter “board”) caused to be filed an accusa *1012 tion against Dr. Henry M. McLaughlin, appellant, charging him with unprofessional conduct as defined in Business and Professions Code section 2361, subdivision (e), 1 in that appellant had committed an act involving moral turpitude, to wit, soliciting a male adult to engage ip a lewd or dissolute act.

The matter was heard by Milford A. Marón, hearing officer of the Office of Administrative Procedure. Appellant appeared in person and was represented by counsel. The hearing officer prepared and filed with the board a proposed decision containing findings of fact, determination of issues and order. He found the charge to be true and recommended that appellant’s license to engage in the practice of medicine and surgery be revoked, provided, however, that execution of the order of revocation be stayed and that appellant be placed on probation for a period of five years, upon several terms and conditions: (1) he shall comply with all the laws of the United States and the State of California and its political subdivisions and with the rules and…

I respectfully dissent from the court’s holding that the record before us contains substantial evidence on the vital question: whether the act of moral turpitude involved affects appellant’s ability to practice his profession. Neither the court, nor the respondent board disputes the proposition that appellant cannot be disciplined merely because he has committed an act involving moral turpitude. “[T]he power of the state to regulate professions and conditions of government employment must not arbitrarily impair the right of the individual to live his private life [footnote omitted] apart from the job, as he deems fit. Likewise, here, private conduct of a man who is also a physician, is a proper concern to those who license him only to the extent that it marks him as a physician. Where his professional achievement is unaffected, where the patient community is placed in no jeopardy, his private acts are his own business and may not be the basis of discipline. . . .” (Grannis v. Board of Medical Examiners, 19 Cal.App. 3d 551, 561 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 863 ]; 1 see also Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners, 68 Cal.2d 67, 73 , fns. 5 and 6 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 785 , 435 P.2d 553 ].)

To put this…

On March 9, 1971, the executive secretary of the Board of Medical Examiners (hereinafter "board") caused to be filed an accusation against Dr. Henry M. McLaughlin, appellant, charging him with unprofessional conduct as defined in Business and Professions Code section 2361, subdivision (e), [1] in that appellant had committed an act involving moral turpitude, to wit, soliciting a male adult to engage in a lewd or dissolute act.

The matter was heard by Milford A. Maron, hearing officer of the Office of Administrative Procedure. Appellant appeared in person and was represented by counsel. The hearing officer prepared and filed with the board a proposed decision containing findings of fact, determination of issues and order. He found the charge to be true and recommended that appellant's license to engage in the practice of medicine and surgery be revoked, provided, however, that execution of the order of revocation be stayed and that appellant be placed on probation for a period of five years, upon several terms and conditions: (1) he shall comply with all the laws of the United States and the State of California and its political subdivisions and with the…