Collins v. Texas
Headline: Texas medical licensing law upheld, allowing the State to bar unregistered osteopaths from charging patients and requiring proof of scientific training before practicing for pay.
Holding: The Court held that Texas may require proof of medical training and licensing and that an osteopath who treated a patient without state verification violated the law, so the criminal conviction and detention are lawful.
- Allows Texas to prosecute unlicensed osteopaths who charge for treatments.
- Requires proof of training or a state license to practice medicine for pay.
- Permits fines, imprisonment, and loss of payment for unlicensed practice.
Summary
Background
A practitioner of osteopathy in Texas was charged after treating a patient for hay fever and accepting money without first getting state verification or a license under a 1907 Texas law. The law created a Board of Medical Examiners, required proof of diploma or passing an exam from reputable medical schools, listed scientific subjects for testing, and defined ‘‘practising medicine’’ to include treating disease for pay. The defendant had a two-year diploma from the American School of Osteopathy, had spent money equipping his practice, and had not sought verification or a license.
Reasoning
The core question was whether the Texas licensing law violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court concluded it did not. The opinion explains that the state may require evidence of scientific training for those who hold themselves out as medical practitioners. An osteopath who claims to cure by scientific manipulation falls within the statute’s broad definition of practising medicine. The Court rejected arguments that the law was unconstitutional because the defendant did not use drugs, because the statute reached a single paid treatment, or because he had an established business before the law.
Real world impact
The ruling affirms that Texas can require verification or an exam before someone treats patients for money and can punish unlicensed practice with fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of fees. It leaves open whether other healing systems not raised here might present different issues, but on these facts the conviction and detention were upheld.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?