131 So. 3d 391
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Board revoked Davis's CPA license, imposed a $55,000 fine and $105,679.85 in costs, and Davis timely appealed; district court affirmed revocation and fine but reversed the attorney-fees component; Board appeals that fee ruling.
- Court conducted de novo review of the record and sustained Board’s findings of fraud and unprofessional conduct; license revocation affirmed.
- Board authority includes revoking certificates for professional violations and imposing penalties, including costs; due-process requirements apply to license revocation, with limited evidentiary rules at agency hearings.
- Davis’s conduct included underreporting sales, misusing collected sales tax funds, misrepresenting funds, improper Roth IRA structures, forged signatures, and other listed violations.
- Record shows Davis’s actions involved multiple acts over years; the court emphasized expert agency evaluation and credibility determinations in sustaining Board findings.
- Statutory interpretation issue: prior to 2013 amendment, attorney fees could not be included in “costs”; amendment later expanded costs but not retroactive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board’s findings support license revocation | Davis argues Board’s conclusions lack support | Board contends findings are within its expertise and supported | Yes; Board findings sustained; license revoked |
| Whether attorney fees can be included as costs under 37:79 B(3) | Davis contends fees not within pre- amendment costs | Board argues implied inclusion of fees | No; district court correct to exclude attorney fees as costs under pre- amendment law |
| Whether retroactivity applies to 2013 amendment on attorney fees | Amendment should apply retroactively to cover fees | Amendment not retroactive; pre- amendment law controls | Amendment not retroactive; fees not included under pre- amendment statute |
| Standard and scope of review for agency credibility determinations | Defer to agency credibility findings | Court may reweigh credibility de novo where appropriate | Court defers to agency credibility but reviews de novo on questions of law and mixed law-facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Louisiana State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 868 So.2d 830 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2004) (strong presumption of validity in professional-oversight agency decisions)
- Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1971) (due process in license revocation matters)
- Carpenter v. State, Dept. of Health and Hospitals, 944 So.2d 604 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2006) (de novo legal review on agency findings; credibility not absolute)