Charles P. Akin, D.D.S. v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 03-14-00390-CV

Appellant Charles P. Akin, D.D.S., applied for a dental license after release from prison; the Texas State Board of Dental Examiners denied licensure and the trial court affirmed.
The Board relied on evidence that Akin wore a nametag reading “D.D.S. Retired” while working as an office manager at a Denture Shop (Dripping Springs location).
Separately, the Board relied on allegations that Akin accepted and deposited patient checks related to dental work at a Burnet Road Denture Shop location.
Akin testified he wore the nametag at the Dripping Springs office but denied wearing it at the Burnet Road office when the contested checks were accepted.
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision treated the nametag and the check-deposit incidents as distinct matters; Akin argues the Board conflated them and that the record lacks proof of elements required to sustain discipline.
On appeal, Akin argues (1) the Board misstated the facts linking the nametag to acceptance of checks and (2) the Board misapplied precedent regarding the burden and sufficiency of proof for administrative discipline.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is evidence Akin accepted/deposited patient checks while wearing a "D.D.S. Retired" nametag	Akin: Evidence shows he wore the nametag at Dripping Springs but the check-deposit incidents occurred at Burnet Road; no evidence he wore the badge when checks were accepted	Board: Akin wore the nametag while working and accepted/deposited checks, implying public misrepresentation	The reply brief contends the Board misstated facts; ALJ distinguished the two locations and record lacks proof linking the nametag to the checks
Whether the Board must meet a criminal-indictment level of certainty in its formal complaint	Akin: Relies on McClellan, Korndorffer, Kittman, Neeley to argue Board must prove each element of alleged violations, not rely on piecemeal evidence	Board: Cites Chalifoux for the proposition that administrative complaints need not meet criminal standards and may be less exacting	Akin argues Chalifoux is distinguishable; he maintains precedent requires proof of each element and that Board’s evidence is insufficient
Whether Chalifoux controls the standard for notice or proof in disciplinary proceedings	Akin: Chalifoux is inapplicable; that case addressed notice sufficiency, not the Board’s burden to prove allegations	Board: Relies on Chalifoux to support lower administrative standards	Akin: Chalifoux does not undermine cited published precedents requiring substantial proof; reply brief urges reversal

Texas State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs v. McClellan, 307 S.W.2d 317 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston 1957) (administrative complaints and proof requirements examined)
Korndorffer v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, 460 S.W.2d 879 (Tex. 1970) (administrative board must support disciplinary action with proof)
Kittman v. State Board of Pharmacy of Texas, 607 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1980) (standards for proof in professional discipline)
Dental Examiners v. Neeley, 574 S.W.2d 244 (Tex. App.—Austin 1978) (review of board action requires demonstration of alleged violations)