Background - Laurie Ann Denham, a Delaware-licensed professional counselor (LPCMH), treated client A.I. from Nov. 2013–July 2015 and engaged in frequent out-of-session socializing, shared alcohol during sessions, and non‑therapeutic interactions that were not documented. - Denham asked A.I. to perform personal tasks (photography, following the estranged wife of Denham’s boyfriend), solicited A.I.’s continued participation in social/charitable activities, and mixed personal and therapeutic relationships. - After abruptly terminating therapy in July 2015, Denham allegedly pressured A.I. to retract complaints and threatened to disclose personal information; she also asked A.I. to lie to investigators and deleted social media/text messages. - Complaints by A.I.’s treating professionals led to a DPR hearing. The Hearing Officer found multiple violations of the NBCC Ethics Code (social media, documentation, multiple relationships, exploitation, abrupt termination, misuse of influence). - The Hearing Officer recommended a stayed suspension and probation with conditions; the Board accepted the findings but, deeming the discipline insufficient given prior discipline and the egregious facts, revoked Denham’s license. - Denham appealed, arguing due process defects, erroneous admission of expert testimony, improper reliance on prior discipline, and insufficient deference as a pro se litigant; the Superior Court affirmed. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Whether Denham was denied due process / meaningful hearing | Denham: hearing was not meaningful; she lacked prehearing evidence and was not afforded deference as pro se | Board: Denham had opportunity to present testimony and exhibits; APA procedures followed; no discovery right guarantees | Court: No due process violation; Denham was informed of charges and allowed to present; APA standards met | | Whether expert testimony (Dawn Schatz) was improperly admitted | Denham: Schatz should not have been allowed to give expert opinion without ruling on proffer | Board: Schatz was a mixed fact/expert witness; hearing informal under APA; testimony limited and not essential | Court: No error—informal admin hearing allowed mixed witness; Schatz’s testimony was limited and did not drive legal conclusions | | Whether Board erred by considering prior discipline when imposing sanctions | Denham: Prior discipline wasn’t alleged or entered at hearing; improper aggravator | Board: Prior discipline may be considered in assessing sanction; no rule limiting record to complaint only | Court: No error—Board may consider prior discipline as aggravating factor; record need not be restricted to complaint evidence | | Whether substantial evidence supports findings and revocation | Denham: (implicitly) findings unsupported / discipline excessive | Board: Record shows harmful dual relationship, exploitation, threats, lack of records and policies—warranting revocation | Court: Affirmed—substantial (indeed overwhelming) evidence supported violations of Ethics Code and justified revocation | ### Key Cases Cited Lehto v. Bd. Of Educ. of Caesar Rodney Sch. Dist., 962 A.2d 222 (Del. 2008) (defines substantial-evidence standard of review) Breeding v. Contractors-One-Inc., 549 A.2d 1102 (Del. 1988) (explaining substantial evidence is more than a scintilla) Olney v. Cooch, 425 A.2d 610 (Del. 1981) (agencies may rely on institutional expertise in licensing matters) Mentor Graphics Corp. v. Shapiro, 818 A.2d 959 (Del. 2003) (administrative findings upheld if product of orderly, logical deductive process) * Draper v. Med. Ctr. Of State, 767 A.2d 796 (Del. 2001) (pro se litigants receive some latitude but are held to same procedural rules)