DocketNumber: No. HHD CV 95-0705601
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 11327, 15 Conn. L. Rptr. 532
Judges: HODGSON, J.
Filed Date: 10/10/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
This appeal raises the issue whether the standard of proof of misconduct leading to sanctions listed in General Statutes §
In essence, the plaintiff asks this court to conclude, pursuant to its powers of review set forth in General Statutes §
Procedural History
In July 1990 the Department of Health Services presented the Board of Chiropractic Examiners ("Board") with a complaint of misconduct against Michael Swiller charging that he had engaged in conduct in his practice as a chiropractor that violated General Statutes §
On November 14, 1994, the Board issued a memorandum of decision finding that misconduct was proven and imposing the following sanctions:
1. suspension of the plaintiff's chiropractic license for nine months for each of three violations, to be imposed concurrently, for an aggregate suspension of nine months.
2. an indefinite period of probation in which the plaintiff is required to employ a female to be present in the room when he is engaged in the practice of chiropractic with a female patient and maintenance of records of the person so present to be supplied to the Department of Health Services upon its request.
3. a civil penalty in the amount of $3,000.00.
The plaintiff filed this appeal on December 27, 1994. CT Page 11329
Aggrievement
As a party whose rights and property interest in the continued practice of his chosen occupation are effected by the Board's decision, the plaintiff has established aggrievement as alleged at paragraph 4 of his complaint.
Discussion
The only issue pursued by the plaintiff in his brief and at oral argument is his claim that the Board erroneously applied the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard of proof when it should not have imposed sanctions without clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, this court will treat as abandoned the other issues raised in the appeal but not briefed or argued. Commissioner ofEnvironmental Protection v. Connecticut Building Wrecking Co.,
The General Assembly has authorized the Board of Chiropractic Examiners to suspend or revoke chiropractic licenses and impose fines against licensees who engage in misconduct as defined in General Statutes §
The Board takes the position that it has adopted the hearing procedures of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act ("UAPA"), General Statute §
The Connecticut Supreme Court has never held that the decisions of professional examining boards undertaken pursuant to CT Page 11330 the UAPA require a standard of proof higher than proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, which are based on citation of cases superseded by later decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, the preponderance of the evidence standard has been adjudged applicable to administrative hearings as to deprivations as severe as loss of citizenship; Vancev. Terrazas,
The plaintiff cites a Mississippi ruling, Hogan v.Mississippi Board of Examiners,
This court notes that the Connecticut Supreme Court has adopted the clear and convincing standard as applicable to adjudication of misconduct by attorneys. Statewide GrievanceCommittee v. Presnick,
Regulation of the conduct of attorneys and disciplining members of the bar are functions entrusted to the judicial branch. Those functions are not governed by the UAPA but by court rules enacted by the judges of the Superior Court. StatewideGrievance Committee v. Presnick,
The higher standard of proof is not constitutionally required. The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the procedures required by the UAPA exceed the minimal procedural safeguards mandated by the due process clause; Levinson v. Boardof Chiropractic Examiners,
The potential harm that can be inflicted by those licensed to deal with physical problems is different in kind and arguably greater than the harm that can be caused by the misconduct of lawyers, whose misdeeds can often be cured by the legal process or curtailed by the adversary process. This difference supplies a sufficient reason for allocating the benefit in the choice of the standard of proof to the consumer rather than to the licensee. Use of the higher standard of proof would potentially permit more misconduct to go unregulated. Use of the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard gives greater effect to the legislative goal of protecting the public through regulation of the practice of various occupations. On the basis of this analysis, this court rejects the reasoning of the California Court of Appeals inEttinger v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance,
The plaintiff asks this court to rule that the UAPA is unconstitutional if it is interpreted to require proof by a preponderance of the evidence because deprivation of a professional license implicates a property interest of a regulated professional. In the context of revocation of probation, where the liberty interest was the vital one against incarceration, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the preponderance of the evidence standard is adequate to satisfy the constitutional guarantee of due process. State v. Davis,
Conclusion
The plaintiff's sole claim, the use of an unconstitutional standard of proof in the administrative hearing, has not been established.
The appeal is dismissed.
Beverly J. Hodgson Judge of the Superior Court
Ettinger v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance , 185 Cal. Rptr. 601 ( 1982 )
Taylor v. Robinson , 171 Conn. 691 ( 1976 )
Hogan v. Mississippi Bd. of Nursing , 457 So. 2d 931 ( 1984 )
Leib v. Board of Examiners for Nursing , 177 Conn. 78 ( 1979 )
Catino v. Board of Education , 174 Conn. 414 ( 1978 )
Adamchek v. Board of Education , 174 Conn. 366 ( 1978 )
Vance v. Terrazas , 100 S. Ct. 540 ( 1980 )
Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Commission , 101 S. Ct. 999 ( 1981 )