Medical Board v. Superior Court

Good Law
106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 381·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 325·2001 Daily Journal DAR 4221·88 Cal. App. 4th 1001
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 2001C033351California6,958 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kolkey, J.

This appeal requires us to decide whether Business and Professions Code section 2305 —a more specific statute—impliedly repeals section 141—a more general one that covers the same subject. Section 2305, the more specific statute, mandates disciplinary action against a medical licensee based on out-of-state discipline that “would have been grounds for discipline in California,” whereas section 141, the more general statute, permits state licensing boards to impose discipline based on “a disciplinary action taken by another state.”

The trial court concluded that a physician can be disciplined only under the more specific statute, section 2305, relying on the principle that “ ‘a general provision is controlled by one that is special, the latter being treated as an exception to the former.’ ” (San Francisco Taxpayers Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1992) 2 Cal.4th 571, 577 [ 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 245 , 828 P.2d 147 ].) It therefore ruled that the Medical Board of California (sometimes referred to as the Board) “exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing the suspension [of the license of a physician] ... on the basis of . . . section 141.”

We disagree. As we shall explain, while sections…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.