51 So. 3d 851
La. Ct. App.2010Background
- Bourgeois and Wilson, professional horse trainers, were found by the LSRC to have raced horses treated with a long-lasting tranquilizer (Fluphenazine) within less than 20 days of racing, violating Rules of Racing
- Fluphenazine is a Category II drug under the Penalty Guidelines; post-race positives are prohibited
- Bourgeois admitted knowledge of a 30-day tranquilizer given to Diamondmint Deputy, but claimed no knowledge of the drug’s name or nature
- Wilson admitted requesting a 30-day tranquilizer for Tru Nac and that the tranquilizer administered was Fluphenazine, though he claimed no awareness of the drug’s identity
- Evangeline Downs stewards suspended Bourgeois and Wilson for six months and referred the matters to LSRC; LSRC conducted de novo hearings and affirmed the penalties
- District court reviewed the LSRC decision on appeal under La. R.S. 49:964, relying on transcript record without live testimony
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review for administrative appeal | Bourgeois/ Wilson argue district court misapplied review rules | LSRC contends de novo review with credibility given to agency findings | De novo factual review with due regard to agency credibility |
| Trainer liability under absolute insurer rule | Trainers should be excused if third parties administered drug | Trainers are absolute insurers of horse condition regardless of third-party actions | Trainer is the absolute insurer; liability attaches |
| Whether post-race positive for Fluphenazine supported penalty | Positive test demonstrates violation of Category II substance rules | Evidence supports violation and appropriate penalties under guidelines | Record supports six-month suspension and $1,500 fine as minimum guideline |
| Deviation from minimum guideline penalties | Penalties should be kept at minimum | Discretion allows deviation from minimum where warranted | LSRC properly could deviate from minimum; no abuse of discretion shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Arrington v. La. State Racing Commission, 482 So.2d 200 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1986) (establishes integrity and governmental interest in racing; absolute insurer concept)
- Owens v. La. State Racing Commission, 466 So.2d 764 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1985) (adopts Briley reasoning on trainer liability and public interest)
- Briley v. Louisiana State Racing Commission, 410 So.2d 802 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1982) (trainer liability and governmental interest in honest racing)
- Cathey v. Louisiana State Racing Com'n, 855 So.2d 414 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2003) (proper scope of appellate review with deference to agency credibility findings)
- Segura v. La. State Racing Commission, 577 So.2d 1031 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1991) (recognizes trainer liability framework in racing matters)
- Smith v. State Dept. of Health and Hospitals, 895 So.2d 735 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2005) (appellate review of agency decisions; credibility and evidence standard)
- Reaux v. Louisiana Board of Medical Examiners, 850 So.2d 723 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2003) (nature of agency review and deference in expert determinations)