# Mann v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners

> Court of Appeals of Texas · May 11, 1966 · 403 S.W.2d 218

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776871

## Case

- **Full name:** Nathan MANN, M.D., Appellant, v. TEXAS STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** May 11, 1966
- **Citations:** 403 S.W.2d 218; 1966 Tex. App. LEXIS 2714
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Phillips
- **Judges:** Hughes, Phillips
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776871

## Opinion text

PHILLIPS, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
Article 4506 states that “Any person whose license to practice medicine has been cancelled, revoked or suspended by the Board may, within twenty (20) days after the making and entering of such order, take an appeal to any of the district courts in the county of his residence, but the decision of the Board shall not be enjoined or stayed except on application to such district court after notice to the Board.” (Emphasis added.)
Thus, the burden of appealing and/or staying the order of the Board is upon the one appealing therefrom. After the dismissal of the appeal, the Board’s order remained in effect. There was no trial de novo.
Article 4506 further states that an order of cancellation by the Board can be set aside only in an appeal to any District Court in the county of residence of the licensee. Thus under the provisions of Article 4506 mandamus is not an available remedy for setting aside the Board’s order of cancellation.
Appellant’s suit in Travis County constituted a collateral attack on the final judgment of the District Court of Nueces County which was not appealed from or set aside. Consequently, the District Court of Travis County was not in error in denying the relief sought.
*222 See Texas State Board of Examiners in Optometry v. Lane, Tex.Civ.App., 337 S.W.2d 801 , error ref.
The record does not disclose why the Board revoked Mann’s license. In my opinion, this Court, in effect, is issuing a medical license. We have no such authority.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776871. Public record. Not legal advice.