Appellant board of barber examiners sought review of a decision by the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which issued a peremptory writ of mandate. The trial court found that the minimum price schedules for barbers were invalid and that the respondent barbers' certificates should be reinstated.
Respondent barbers' certificates were revoked by appellant board of barber examiners for furnishing barbering services at prices below those prescribed in the minimum price schedule established by appellant. Respondents sought a writ of mandate directed to compel appellant to vacate and set aside its orders revoking respondents' certificates, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1084 et seq. The trial business and corporate attorney issued the writ on the basis that the statutory provisions authorizing appellant to establish minimum schedules for the barbering industry, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 6551- 6557, violated the due process clauses of the U.S. Const. amend. XIV, and Cal. Const. art. I. In addition, the trial court held that the statutes constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power to an administrative agency. The court affirmed the judgment and held that when the delegation of power to fix prices is to an administrative agency made up of interested members of the industry, the courts have insisted on insist upon stringent standards to contain and guide the exercise of the delegated power.
The judgment of the trial court which had issued a peremptory writ directing the board of barber examiners to vacate and set aside its order revoking respondents' barber certificates was affirmed. The delegation of legislative power to an administrative agency without stringent standards was illegal.
Appellant physician challenged a decision of the Superior Court of Sacramento County (California), which declined to issue writs of administrative mandate against respondents, California State Department of Health (department) and State Board of Medical Quality Assurance (board), which determined respectively that appellant violated Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22 § 51470 and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2411.
An accusation was filed against appellant physician before respondents, California State Department of Health (department) and State Board of Medical Quality Assurance (board), for submission of bills for services not personally rendered in violation of Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22 § 51470 and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2411. After a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that appellant violated the said provisions, but without an intention to defraud. The ALJ recommended a six month suspension of appellant as a provider of services, but respondent department found that the charge supported a greater penalty and ordered a one-year suspension, which respondent board imposed. The trial court sustained the determinations. The court affirmed the trial court's decision because appellant engaged in professional misconduct in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2411 for falsely certifying that he was the provider of services that he did not provide. The court further held that appellant came within the meaning of Cal. Code Regs. tit. 22 § 51470 because he submitted a bill for services not rendered.
The court affirmed the trial court's decision that declined to issue writs of administrative mandate against respondents, California State Department of Health and State Board of Medical Quality Assurance. The court held that appellant engaged in professional misconduct for falsely certifying that he was the provider of services that he did not provide and for submitting a bill for services not rendered.
