From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sherrerd v. Johnson

Colorado Court of Appeals
Jun 26, 1973
511 P.2d 923 (Colo. App. 1973)

Opinion

No. 72-134

Decided June 26, 1973.

Although applicants for optometry license averaged above 75 on the three-part licensing examination, board of optometric examiners advised the applicants that they had failed because they had scored below 75 on one of the three parts of the examination. In action to review board's decision, district court ordered that applicants be granted the desired licenses, and the board appealed.

Affirmed

1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURECandidates — Optometrist License — Average 75 — Whole Examination — Issuance of License — Properly Ordered. Since the optometrist licensing statute delineates all areas that are to be tested and provides that each candidate for an optometrist license must score 75 on the entire examination but does not provide for categorization of test scores, trial court properly ordered that licenses be issued to candidates who had scored below 75 on one section of the exam but whose average score on the whole examination was well above 75.

Appeal from the District Court of the City adn County of Denver, Honorable John Brooks, Jr., Judge.

Bruno and Bruno, Frank A. Bruno, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, John P. Moore, Deputy, William Tucker, Assistant, for defendants-appellants.

Division II.


Appellees sought to be licensed by the State of Colorado as optometrists. Each satisfied the requirements of C.R.S. 1963, 102-1-8, and were therefore allowed to take the optometry examination required by C.R.S. 1963, 102-1-9. They took the examination and were advised that they had failed. After exhausting their administrative remedies they sought review in the district court. The court ruled that appellees had satisfied all the requirements of C.R.S. 1963, 102-1-1 et seq., to obtain an optometry license and ordered that each be granted a license. The Colorado State Board of Optometric Examiners appeals. We affirm the district court.

The dispute on appeal centers upon an interpretation of C.R.S. 1963, 102-1-9(2). That section provides that "every person making a passing grade of seventy-five" on the optometry examination and otherwise qualified "shall be granted a license." In the test administered appellees, the board divided the exam into three separate parts and required the candidates to score at least 75 on each part. Both appellees scored below 75 on just one section and therefore, under the board's grading system, failed. In concluding that the appellees had passed the examination, the district court determined that the statute required the board to arrive at one numerical average. Therefore, it averaged the three scores which placed each appellee's score well above 75.

[1] The board argues that it is within its prerogative to administer the examination as it sees fit for the betterment of the optometry profession, and that this includes categorizing test scores. However, as is the case with any administrative agency, the board must strictly comply with its enabling statute. Flavell v. Department of Welfare, 144 Colo. 203, 355 P.2d 941. See also, Colorado State Board of Dental Examiners v. Schroeder, 174 Colo. 343, 483 P.2d 970. Here, the statute delineates all of the areas that are to be tested and provides that each candidate must score 75 on the entire examination in order to pass. It does not provide for the categorization of test scores. therefore, the ruling of the trial court was proper.

Judgment affirmed.

CHIEF JUDGE SILVERSTEIN and JUDGE COYTE concur.


Summaries of

Sherrerd v. Johnson

Colorado Court of Appeals
Jun 26, 1973
511 P.2d 923 (Colo. App. 1973)
Case details for

Sherrerd v. Johnson

Case Details

Full title:Dennis P. Sherrerd v. Earl H. Johnson, as Executive director of the…

Court:Colorado Court of Appeals

Date published: Jun 26, 1973

Citations

511 P.2d 923 (Colo. App. 1973)
511 P.2d 923

Citing Cases

Rodgers v. Atencio

We hold that it does not. Administrative agencies are legally bound to comply strictly with enabling…

No. 81-38

3 Sutherland, supra, § 64.01. This principle has been repeatedly pronounced by the courts in Colorado. Rogers…