In Rapaport v. Civil Service Commission (1933) 134 Cal.App. 319, Mendocino State Hospital attempted to discharge one of its doctors on grounds that he had neglected his duties by failing to visit a hospital ward for several consecutive days. ( Rapaport v. Civil Service Commission, supra, 134 Cal.App. 319, 321.) The appellate court pointed out that the applicable statute did not authorize dismissals on the grounds of neglect. ( Id. at p. 322.) The court noted that there was no allegation that any patients suffered as a result of the doctor's failure to visit the ward. ( Id. at p. 323.) The court found that the allegation of neglect was insufficient because it failed to allege that the failure to visit the ward was intentional and willful. (Ibid.) In a passage relied on here, the court said: "If neglect of duty were specifically mentioned as a cause for removal, the charge filed against the petitioner would still be insufficient upon which to place petitioner upon trial. The mere failure to perform a certain act, with nothing more, does not constitute either a neglect of duty in fact or in law. The elements which we have mentioned showing either wilfulness, intention, design or inexcusableness must be present." (Ibid.)