
    WOZNIAK v. STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY
    1. Licenses — Optometrists — Unethical Practices — Hearing — Remedy — Injunction.
    Refusal to enjoin a state optometry board hearing on charges of gross incompetence and malpractice against an optometrist were proper where there was no basis on which relief could be given to plaintiff optometrist whose remedy was in an appeal, if necessary, from the board’s decision.
    2. Licenses — Optometrists — Unethical Practices — Hearing — Sufficiency of Notice.
    Incorporation of a complaint for unethical practices into the notice of hearing served upon an optometrist sufficiently apprised him of the nature of the charges against him and informed him of the scope of the hearing to be held by the state optometry board regarding possible suspension or revocation of his license (MCLA § 338.254).
    3. Licenses — Optometrists — Unethical Practices — Standards — Statutes.
    Failure of the optometry statute to set forth a specific listing of unethical practices does not mean that there are insufficient standards upon which to base a complaint of gross incompetence and malpractice since words in a statute are given their usual and customary meaning, unless otherwise defined, and the statute, when read in its entirety, will be construed in the light of its objectives (MCLA § 338.254).
    References for Points in Headnotes
    
       51 Am Jur 2d, Licenses and Permits §§ 85, 149.
    
       51 Am Jur 2d, Licenses and Permits §§ 60, 61.
    
       51 Am Jur 2d, Licenses and Permits §§ 53-56, 60.
    Appeal from Genesee, Philip C. Elliott, J.
    Submitted Division 2 April 8,1970, at Lansing.
    (Docket No. 7,774.)
    Decided May 1, 1970.
    Leave to appeal denied July 27, 1970.
    See 383 Mich 809.
    Oomplaint by Erwin J. Wozniak against Michigan Board of Examiners in Optometry, to enjoin the board from requiring him to answer charges of gross incompetence and malpractice. Summary judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Edward P. Joseph, for plaintiff.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Maurice M. Moule, Assistant Attorney General, for defendants.
    Before: McGregor, P. J., and Danhof and Larnard, JJ.
    
      
       Circuit Judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
    
   Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, a duly licensed and practicing optometrist, was served with notice of hearing issued by the Board of Examiners in Optometry, to answer charges of gross incompetence and malpractice. He filed a complaint, asking that the board show cause why the hearing should not be enjoined pending final determination of his complaint and, further, that upon a hearing on the merits, a permanent injunction be issued restraining the hearing. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court’s finding of no claim on which relief could be granted was erroneous.

Plaintiff first contends that he was not apprised of the nature of the hearing. We disagree: the notice of hearing issued by the board incorporated the complaint, so that plaintiff was properly informed as to the scope of the license hearing.

Plaintiff further contends, in effect, that the Optometry Act, PA 1909, No 71, as amended, MOLA § 338.251 et seq. (Stat Ann 1969 Rev § 14.641 et seq.), in failing to set forth a specific listing of unethical practices, lacked sufficient standards upon which to base a complaint. This charge has been answered in Sanchick v. State Board of Optometry (1955), 342 Mich 555. Plaintiff’s remedy herein is appeal from the board’s decision, if necessary.

Affirmed.  