Adoni Health Institute v. Delaware Board of Nursing ( 2018 )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
ADONI HEALTH INSTITUTE, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. N17A-10-003 JAP
)
DELAWARE BOARD OF NURSING, )
)
Appellee. )
)
)
Upon appeal from the Delaware Board of Nursing: AFFIRMED.
OPINION
This is Adoni Health Institute’s second appeal from the
Delaware State Board of Nursing.1 In 2015, the Board revoked
Adoni’s conditional approval to operate its practical nursing program.
On appeal in 2016, this court reversed all of the Board’s factual
findings except one, and remanded the matter to the Board with
instructions to decide one remaining issue: whether the fact that the
school misstated the duration of its curriculum warranted the
1 Adoni Health Institute was formerly known as “Leads School of Technology.”
Board’s withdrawal of the school’s conditional approval to operate.
On remand, the Board considered evidence that was not previously
considered in its original 2015 hearing, but was related to the
duration of the school’s curriculum. The Board issued a decision in
September 2017, holding that Adoni’s misstatement of its curriculum
length warranted revocation of its approval. Adoni appealed to this
court arguing, among other things, that the Board erred as a matter
of law by reopening the factual record. For the reasons that follow,
the Board’s decision should be AFFIRMED.
I. BACKGROUND
The underlying facts of this case are described in some detail in
this court’s July 2016 opinion,2 and will be summarized only briefly
here. In 2007, the Board granted Adoni a conditional approval to
operate after determining the school did not qualify for full approval.
The Board identified three deficiencies in Adoni’s program: (1)
substandard NCLEX exam pass rates; (2) inadequate annual reports;
and (3) student complaints. Adoni implemented an action plan
intended to revamp its program, and in July 2012 the Board
2 Ex. A to Appellant’s Opening Br. at 2-11 (Court’s Opinion dated July 29,
2016).
2
approved Adoni’s action plan. Under the plan, continued approval
for the school to operate hinged on the success of the 2012 cohort on
the NCLEX, that is, approval hinged on only the students who started
in September 2012 and participated in the revamped program. Yet,
when the NCLEX results for the pre-2012 cohort continued to be poor
and the school’s 2014 annual report was deficient, the Board voted
to withdraw its approval. A hearing was held in June 2015. On July
8, 2015, the Board issued a written opinion formally withdrawing
Adoni’s approval.3
Adoni appealed to the Superior Court. On July 29, 2016, this
court reversed the Board’s decision and all but one of its factual
findings. The court upheld the Board’s finding that Adoni misstated
the duration of its curriculum in its 2014 annual report. The court
remanded the matter, holding in relevant part:
The court’s decision to uphold the Board’s finding concerning the
misstated length of the curriculum is not sufficient, at this juncture,
to sustain the Board’s decision to withdraw [Adoni’s] approval.
Although the Board found that the faults in [the school’s] 2014
Annual report, in their entirety, justified withdrawal of [Adoni’s]
approval, it made no finding that the misstatement of the
curriculum length alone justified such an extreme measure. The
court, of course, is not equipped to make that decision, and therefore
3 See Ex. 1 to Declaration of Michael R. Grandy (Board’s July 8, 2015 Opinion
and Order).
3
the matter will be remanded to the Board for its determination of
that issue.4
Following the court’s remand, the Board wrote a letter to Adoni
in October 2016 stating its intent to schedule a hearing “in early
2017,” and also requesting that Adoni produce certain information
related to the school’s curriculum length in preparation for the
hearing. The requested documents included: (1) a list of the students
in each cohort beginning in 2011 through 2016; (2) the date each
student began at the school; (3) the date each student finished at the
school; (4) an indication of how each student separated from the
school; and (5) an indication of whether there were duplicate names
in different cohorts.5 Adoni produced the documents on December
7, 2016.
On December 19, 2016, the Board’s Practice and Education
Committee reviewed the documents, determined that the documents
demonstrated a long-standing pattern by Adoni of misstating its
curriculum length to the Board and its students, and then
recommended that the Board move forward with withdrawal of the
4 Ex. A to Appellant’s Opening Br. at 48.
5 See Ex. 4 to the Declaration of Michael R. Grandy at 1-2 (Board’s September
13, 2017 Opinion and Order).
4
school’s approval. The Board reviewed the documents and voted to
accept the Committee’s recommendation to withdraw based on the
misstatement of its curriculum length. The Board notified Adoni of
it proposal to withdraw and later scheduled a hearing, which was
postponed several times at the request of Adoni.
On July 10, 2017, two days before the scheduled hearing, Adoni
filed a motion in limine “to preclude the re-opening of the factual
record on remand as contrary to the directive of the Superior Court.”
The Board, however, denied the motion in limine finding that, “the
Court’s Opinion does not state that the Board is limited to
considering only the record established in the original proceeding,”
and emphasizing that the court “remanded the matter to the Board
for proceedings consistent with the Court’s Opinion.”6
At the July 12, 2017 hearing, the Board considered the
seventeen exhibits produced by Adoni, consisting of the student
enrollment dates, transcripts, and annual reports. The school also
presented its own evidence. The Board heard testimony from Dr. Ola
6 Id. at 5-6 (emphasis in original).
5
Aliu, the President of the school, and Dr. Lucille Gamberdella, former
Board President who helped Adoni revamp its nursing program.
The Board issued its decision on September 13, 2017, finding
that Dr. Aliu’s “multiple and varied explanations for the curriculum
length” during his testimony were not credible.7 It also found Dr.
Gamberdella’s testimony did not provide good cause to extend the
school’s conditional approval.8 The Board held that Adoni’s
misstatement about the length of its curriculum in its 2014 annual
report was sufficient justification to withdraw the school’s conditional
approval because it: 1) “reveals that [Adoni] is not operating a
legitimate practical nursing education program;” 2) “exposes that the
school is deceiving its students about when they will become
employable;” 3) “reveals that [Adoni] has repeatedly deceived the
Board about the length of its curriculum in order to obscure the fact
that it’s also deceiving students;” and 4) the misstatement “renders
the Board wholly incapable of determining whether the school is
providing adequate resources . . . .” The school again appealed the
7 Id. at 18.
8 Id. at 21.
6
Board’s decision to the Superior Court; this time on the basis that
the record was improperly expanded on remand.
II. ANALYSIS
This court reviews the Board’s decision to determine “whether
it acted within its statutory authority, whether it properly interpreted
and applied the applicable law, whether it conducted a fair hearing
and whether its decision is based on sufficient substantial evidence
and is not arbitrary.”9 Substantial evidence is “such relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion.”10 But, this court will not weigh evidence, determine
questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings.11 Questions
of law are reviewed de novo.12 And absent an error of law, the Board’s
decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.13
It is well-settled that when the Superior Court remands a matter
to the Board for further proceedings, the Board must follow the
court’s “instruction concerning treatment of an issue on remand even
9 Avallone v. State/Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 14 A.3d 566, 570 (Del. 2011).
10 Delaware Bd. of Nursing v. Gillespie, 41 A.3d 423, 425 (Del. 2012).
11 Id. at 426.
12 Id.
13 Sweeney v. Del. Dep’t of Transp., 55 A.3d 337, 341-42 (Del. 2012).
7
if the [court] has left the ultimate issue undecided.”14 The Delaware
Supreme Court held:
It is axiomatic that on remand for further proceedings after decision
by an appellant court, the trial court must proceed with the mandate
and the law of the case as established on appeal. A trial court must
implement both the letter and spirit of the mandate, taking into
account the appellate court’s opinion and the circumstances it
embraces. Where the reviewing court in its mandate prescribes that
the court shall proceed in accordance with the opinion of the
reviewing court, such pronouncement operates to make the opinion
a part of the mandate as completely as though the opinion had been
set out at length.15
Although the Board must follow the remand instruction and law of
the case as established by the appellate court, the Board is not
precluded from holding further proceedings to determine outstanding
issues.16 The Board on remand can “make any order or direction in
further progress of the case so long as it is not inconsistent with the
decision of the appellate court, as to any question not settled by the
decision.”17
14 See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Shreveport, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 988 F.2d 414,
429 n.19 (3d Cir. 1993).
15 Bankers Trust Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 761 F.2d 943, 949 (3d Cir.1985)
(internal quotations citations omitted).
16 See Cede & Co. v. Technicolor, Inc., 884 A.2d 26, 38 (Del. 2005) (“Although
the trial court on remand is not constrained by the mandate as to issues not
addressed on appeal, the trial court is required to comply with the appellate
court’s determinations as to all issues expressly or implicitly disposed of in its
decision.”).
17 Siga Techs., Inc. v. PharmAthene, Inc., 132 A.3d 1108, 1129 (Del. 2015), as
corrected (Dec. 28, 2015).
8
On appeal, Adoni argues that the Board erred as a matter of law
by reopening the factual record because, according to Adoni, the
court’s “mandate required the Board to make a single determination
on a closed factual record.” By opening the record, Adoni argues, the
Board failed to follow the court’s instruction and law of the case. The
only authority cited by Adoni in support of its position are cases
standing for the proposition that on remand the Board must follow
the court’s mandate and make findings consistent with the appellate
court’s rulings. But this legal requirement is not in dispute, and
importantly, it is not inconsistent with the Board’s authority to hold
further proceedings and consider additional evidence necessary to
decide outstanding issues.
Here, the court’s mandate narrowed the scope of remand to one
outstanding issue:
One issue remains: the Board found that Leads’ 2014 report was
deficient because it misstated the duration of its curriculum. The
remaining matter will be remanded to the Board for its
determination whether this deficiency alone warrants withdrawal of
Leads’ approval to operate.18
The court then instructed that the matter was “reversed and
remanded for proceedings consistent” with its opinion—for
18 Ex. A to Appellant’s Opening Br. at 13.
9
determination of whether the misstatement of the curriculum length
warranted revocation of the school’s approval—and the court did not
retain jurisdiction.19 The Board’s hearing that followed in July 2017
was both within the power of the Board and consistent with the
court’s opinion.
The Board’s consideration of additional evidence related to the
curriculum length and was not inconsistent with the court’s
mandate. The Board requested that Adoni produce student
enrollment dates and transcripts because it needed “the additional
information in order to understand the program”20—specifically to
clarify its confusion about the length of Adoni’s curriculum.21 The
Board was not considering evidence to determine if there was
sufficient evidence supporting that the curriculum was misstated—
that was already sustained by this court—but rather, the Board
considered evidence to determine if the lone fact that the curriculum
was misstated was enough to warrant the revocation as the court
instructed. Any factual findings based on the seventeen new exhibits
19 Id. at 49.
20 June 2015 Hearing Tr. at 155.
21 See Ex. 4 to the Declaration of Michael R. Grandy at 21.
10
that were added to the record on remand22 were simply related to the
Board’s reasoning that the school’s past conduct warranted
revocation. The Board’s reasoning was also based on its
determination that the testimonies from Dr. Aliu and Dr.
Gamberdella presented by Adoni at the hearing should be given little
to no weight.
When the case was before the Board the first time in 2015, the
Board had no reason to believe it had to decide whether the
misstatement of Adoni’s curriculum length alone was sufficient for
revocation of the school’s license to operate. In fact, the Board’s
revocation was based on a number of its factual findings. Only after
this court reversed all of its factual findings except one—
misstatement of the curriculum length—was the Board faced with
the necessity of determining whether that fact alone was sufficient to
sustain the revocation. Holding a hearing to make that
determination was reasonable.
The school’s current position that it wanted the Board to take
the case under advisement on remand without conducting a further
22 Id. at 16.
11
review belies Adoni’s later argument that its due process rights were
violated. Because the Board had no reason to believe it had to
consider such a narrow issue at the 2015 hearing, the parties also
had no reason to argue (nor did they argue) the specific issue of
whether the curriculum misstatement alone warranted revocation.
On remand the parties had the right to comment on that issue before
the Board made its determination. Accordingly, the Board held a
hearing, where it was permitted to consider evidence within the scope
of the remanded issue. The Board indeed answered the question
posed on remand; that withdrawal of Adoni’s conditional approval
was warranted by Adoni’s misstatement of its curriculum length.
Thus, the Board did not disregard the Superior Court’s instruction
on remand, and therefore, did not err as a matter of law.
Adoni also argues on appeal that the Board violated its due
process rights by adding evidence not included in its original 2015
hearing and by failing to give the school notice and opportunity to
respond to the Board’s new factual findings on the expanded record.
This argument is without merit. Before the hearing, the Board
informed Adoni that it had “the right to present evidence, to be
represented by counsel, and to appear personally” and that Adoni or
12
its counsel had the “right to examine and cross-examine witnesses.”23
Adoni was well aware of the exhibits that would be submitted at the
hearing; it produced the documents approximately seven months
prior, and then two days before the hearing, filed a motion in limine
trying to suppress them.
Likewise, Adoni had ample notice of the purpose of the hearing.
The school had ample opportunity to prepare for the hearing and
respond to the evidence, and it indeed took advantage of those
opportunities by obtaining postponements of the hearing on several
occasions, and by calling witnesses. Adoni presented its own
evidence at the hearing in the form of testimony from Dr. Aliu and
Dr. Gamberdella. That the Board ultimately found this testimony not
credible was within the Board’s power alone, and not this court’s.24
Any alleged prejudice was non-existent or inconsequential as the
school got another bite at the apple, or otherwise had the opportunity
to respond to the evidence at the hearing.
23 App. to Answering Br. at B13.
24 Gillespie, 41 A.3d at 426 (stating that on appeal this court will not weigh
evidence, determine questions of credibility, or make its own factual findings).
13
III. CONCLUSION
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the
Delaware Board of Nursing is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 09, 2018
_____________________________
John A. Parkins, Jr., Judge
oc: Prothonotary
cc: Matthew F. Boyer, Esquire, Connolly Gallagher LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware
Jennifer L. Singh, DAG, Department of Justice, Dover, Delaware
14