Hammad v. Bureau of Professional & Occupational Affairs, State Board of Veterinary Medicine
124 A.3d 374
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Dr. Mohamed Ali Hammad, a licensed veterinarian, was charged by the Department with eight counts alleging violations of the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act and Board regulations (recordkeeping and professional conduct), including dispensing expired heartworm medication and inadequate medical records.
- Hammad denied the allegations, requested documents and a hearing before the full Board, and moved to dismiss, asserting a good-faith error and alleged religious prejudice; the Board denied the motion and delegated the matter to a Hearing Examiner.
- Notices were sent for an initial and a rescheduled hearing; Hammad elected not to appear at the November 19, 2012 hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
- The Department presented witness testimony and documentary evidence (owner testimony, investigator, and veterinary expert), and the Hearing Examiner issued a proposed adjudication finding each allegation proven and recommending discipline.
- The Board issued a Notice of Intent to Review; Hammad filed exceptions and requested a hearing before the full Board, but the Board adopted the Hearing Examiner’s proposed adjudication and order imposing a $5,000 fine and a two-year suspension (stayed for six months active suspension and 18 months probation).
- Hammad appealed to Commonwealth Court arguing denial of opportunity to present his case to the full Board; the Court affirmed, holding the delegated hearing satisfied due process and that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board’s delegation to a Hearing Examiner denied due process by preventing Hammad from addressing the full Board before sanctions | Hammad argued he was entitled to present his case directly to the full Board and to have the Board hear testimony before imposing discipline | The Board argued GRAPP and the Act permit delegation to a presiding officer who conducts the hearing and issues a proposed report; the Board retained ultimate authority to review, rehear, alter, or adopt the report | The Court held delegation to a Hearing Examiner complied with applicable rules and did not violate due process; Hammad received notice and opportunity to be heard but chose not to appear |
| Whether Hammad was denied the opportunity to confront/cross‑examine witnesses or otherwise participate | Hammad contended he was prevented from presenting and challenging evidence before the Board | The Board noted Hammad was notified of hearing rights (including to cross‑examine) and elected not to attend; the record contains testimony and exhibits supporting findings | Held that Hammad’s refusal to participate does not convert proper procedure into a denial of rights; his confrontation rights were preserved at the hearing he declined to attend |
| Whether the Board’s disciplinary findings are supported by substantial evidence | Hammad argued the allegations lacked foundation and he had corrected practices after a good‑faith error | The Department presented sworn testimony, medical records, a veterinary expert report, and evidence of expired medication and deficient records | The Court found substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings and that the agency did not abuse its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. State Board of Veterinary Medicine, 863 A.2d 129 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (scope of appellate review of agency adjudication)
- Shrader v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, 673 A.2d 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (definition of substantial evidence)
- A.O. v. Department of Public Welfare, 838 A.2d 35 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (permissibility of agencies relying on hearing examiners’ records for credibility and findings)
- McDermond v. Foster, 561 A.2d 70 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (administrative adjudication procedures and use of presiding officers)
- Pastore v. Commonwealth, Insurance Department, 558 A.2d 909 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (due process notice and hearing requirements for administrative investigations)
- Chester Water Authority v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 868 A.2d 384 (Pa. 2005) (constitutional due process in administrative contexts is flexible and fact‑specific)
- Pennsylvania Bankers Association v. Pennsylvania Department of Banking, 956 A.2d 956 (Pa. 2008) (administrative adjudications require reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard)