DocketNumber: No. CV97 0573367
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 1962
Judges: McWEENY, J.
Filed Date: 2/19/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
General Statutes §
The plaintiff Dr. Michael Swiller has held a license to practice chiropractic. The Examining Board initiated disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff, by means of a statement of charges dated May 2, 1996. An Amended Statement of Charges1
issued December 31, 1996 contained six counts alleging grounds for disciplinary action pursuant to §
The plaintiff brought this appeal pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA), General Statutes §§
The plaintiffs difficulties date to an earlier Examining Board decision dated November 10, 1994, which suspended his chiropractic license for inappropriate contact with female patients. (R. Vol. I, pp. 33-51.) The 1994 decision required an indefinite period of probation which would necessitate the presence of a female employee's when he was treating a female patient. The plaintiff appealed the 1994 suspension order. During the pendency of the appeal, there was a court ordered stipulation staying the suspension but requiring plaintiff to comply with the terms of probation during the appeal. The 1994 decision was affirmed by the Superior Court, but subsequently modified by stipulation during the pendency of an appeal to the Appellate Court. The stipulation reduced the suspension from nine to six months, eliminated a $1,000 civil penalty, added a requirement of psychiatric evaluation and retained the remaining terms of the decision including the terms of indefinite probation.
In the July 1997 decision the Examining Board found that, in violation of the 1994 decision and stipulation for stay, the plaintiff had provided chiropractic care to female patients without having another female present in the room (Vol. 1, p. 6.); that plaintiff had made sexually suggestive comments to a patient and "placed his erect penis against her fingers." (R. Vol. I, p. 7) and practiced chiropractic during the period of suspension resulting from the 1994 decision.
All issues raised by plaintiff but not briefed are viewed as abandoned. Collins v. Goldberg,
Plaintiff's fourth claim is that the charges of sexual misconduct should have been prosecuted criminally, and thus, the Examining Board had no jurisdiction. Plaintiff cites no authority for his position, which is clearly contrary to the Examining Board authority pursuant to §
"Judicial review of an administrative agency decision requires a court to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the agency's findings of basic fact and whether the conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable. . . . Neither this court nor the trial court may retry the case or substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the weight of the evidence or questions of fact." (Citations and internal quotation marks.)Dolgner v. Alander,
"The substantial evidence rule governs judicial review of administrative fact-finding under the UAPA. General Statutes §
In support of the findings related to the treatment of female patients without a female attendant the record contains the testimony of Ms. Brown (R. T. pp. 25-28) and Ms. Hwang (R. T. pp. 63-68. Ms. Hwang's testimony also supported the finding related to inappropriate sexual contact. It was clearly for the Examining Board to assess the credibility of the testimony. Pet v.Department of Health Services,
The finding regarding practice of chiropractic while his license was suspended is supported by Blue Cross/Blue Shield billing records, (Vol. I, pp. 110-148) the testimony of Daniel Young (Vol. II, pp. 227-29) and the plaintiff's own testimony (Vol. IV, pp. 231, 271-74, 285-86 and 290-91).
The Examining Board's decision is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
Robert F. McWeeny, J.