104 So. 3d 820
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- This LSRC case involves a jockey, Trevino Clark, who received a five-year suspension for refusing to submit to a urine test as ordered, under LAC 35:1.1791.
- Clark appealed the LSRC's decision to the district court, which dismissed his petition for judicial review of the LSRC ruling; the district court affirmed the suspension.
- On Feb. 15, 2011, Clark provided a urine sample at Louisiana Downs; the sample was found substituted/not consistent with human urine after testing by Secon and a split-sample test confirmed the substitution.
- The stewards’ March 8, 2011 ruling suspended Clark for six months and referred the matter to the LSRC for further action under the same rule.
- Clark exercised his right to appeal; he claimed (i) the collector witnessed the collection, (ii) he submitted a second test with a negative result; he also argued issues about chain of custody and due process.
- The LSRC hearing on April 18, 2011 was conducted without Clark representation or subpoena of witnesses; the record shows Clark stipulated to the tested sample as his and the LSRC relied on expert testimony to interpret the test results, ultimately upholding a five-year suspension on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Clark's notice compliant with due process? | Clark argues notice failed to alert him that prior violations would raise penalties. | LSRC notes notice cross-referenced the Stewards’ ruling and informed of prior violations via RCI history; hearing proceeded with proper statutory notice. | Notice satisfied due process; cross-reference to the Stewards’ ruling and prior violations was sufficient. |
| Was Clark denied due process by not confronting witnesses or challenging evidence? | Clark contends failure to subpoena witness Hannested and to cross-examine Dugas violated due process; challenges chain of custody and expert qualification. | Clark had opportunity to be represented and to subpoena witnesses; he stipulated to custody and cross-examination was available; administrative bodies may admit expert testimony. | Due process satisfied; Clark had opportunity to challenge evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and the findings were credible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Louisiana State Racing Comm'n, 505 So.2d 744 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1987) (residuum rule and improper reliance on hearsay in administrative hearings)
- Rothbard v. Gerace, 354 So.2d 225 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1978) (hearsay evidence and admissibility in administrative proceedings; factors for credibility)
- Durham v. Louisiana State Racing Comm'n, 439 So.2d 1191 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1983) (notice sufficiency when referenced stewards’ ruling and no request for more definite statement)
- Bourque v. Louisiana State Racing Comm'n, 611 So.2d 742 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1992) (due process and hearsay considerations in racing commission decisions)
- Reaux v. Louisiana Bd. of Med. Examiners, 850 So.2d 723 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for agency decisions and deference to agency findings)
- Holladay v. Louisiana State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 689 So.2d 718 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1997) (arbitrary or capricious standard; deference to agency discretion)
- George v. Department of Fire, 637 So.2d 1097 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1994) (competent foundational proof and admission of evidence in administrative hearings)