Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OW TEXAS AUSTIN.TEXAS

April 27, 1950

Hon. H. B. McCoy, D.C;, President Board of ChlropraotlcExmnlners Austin, Texas op-a Ho. ,v-1047. Re: The ellgibllltyfor a chl- roprac$lc license of one ,prevlouslgconvloted of a Dear Sir1 '~ .feloIly. ',~ 33eferencelb made to your recent request which reads In part as follows: "T&I B&HI has.ati.applibatlon from a doator who was convicted of a felony in Call- 'fornla on August 28,.X944.. He was dlsoharged 'April1, lj46:: Ii&ha? resided in Texas since 1947, ~aaca~ing %o the record w6 have. :,. ?!here IS a questloi in our Blindsa8"ti whether or not',thls.doctorwould be eligible for a ChlropraotlcLloense'conslderlngthe above felony convlatlon.~The doctor meets all other qualiflcatlonsfor'-llcenslng. c mQuestion: Cons,lderlng the above felony convlatlon,but meeting other requirements, 1s #la doctor ellglbls~fora llaense?? Section 14 of House~Blll 721, Aots of the 51st &eglslature,B.S. 1949, Ch. 94, p. 160, .provlde?in part as followsx 'The Texas Board of CliiropractlcE&l& era shall have the &ythorltg to Evoke, can- oel, or suspend the license of any person or refuse to admit persons t6:its examlnatioim " and to issue licenses to practice chlroprao- tit+to any person or persona for any of,tiae > following reasons: *4. Convlotion of a erlme of the graae of a felony, oilone which Involves moral tur- pltude, or the 'proaurlngor assisting in the promring of,a crlmbaal abortion; . .'.".:

..

Hon. M. B. McCoy, D.C., page 2 (v-1047)

It is stated ln 3 SutherlandStatutory Con- struction, 92, 93, Grants of Power, Sec. 5811, that: 'Certain principles peculiar to statu- ,toryprovlslons involving grants of power or authority have evolved ,forthe determlnatlon of their man&tory or direotory character. Under the general rule that grants,of powers are strictly construed, such provisionsare generally mandatory In the sense that the power granted can be exercised only in strict conformitywith the statutory eondltlons therefor.' But in those fields of adminlstra- tlve action w4ere an exercise of discretion 1s normally intended. as with 1loenSinn au- %horlty. provisions urantlnn power may b hela to be dlreotory only."(Buphaslsa*&) See also~Smlth v. State Board of Meedical'Examlners, 46 Ga. App. 356, 167 S.E. 769 (19331. In view .of.theforegoing it is our opinion un- der the facts submitted that the~statutti makes~lt dis- cretlojmrywith the Board of ChiropracticEWuLners whe- thee the Board vi11 accept en applioant for examination .whohas been convlotetlof a felony. -Of course the fact that the applicant has beea convicted of a felony my also be considered by the Board in determiningwhether the applloant is a person of good moral cbaraater under Sectlou 10 of the above Act. L

Whether the Board of ChiropraotlcE%an~- lners will issue or refuse to issue a license to a person yho haa been donvloted of a fel- ony to praaflce chlropractlois left by the Statute to the discretion of such Board. SW. 14, H.B. 721, Acts 51st Leg., R.S. 1949, ch. 94, p. 160; 3 Sutherlanb Statutory Constmo- tlon 92, 9, Grants of,Power,Sec. 5811. APPRCVEDx Yours very truly, J. C. Davis, Jr. PRICE MNIFZ County Affairs DlvlsIau Attorney General J.~R. Oreenhlll First Assistant

Price Daniel mAi&tant Attorney General BAIbh