James J. Decoulos v. Board of Registration of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Professionals., 23-P-0663

James J. Decoulos, a Licensed Site Professional (LSP), had his license suspended for one year by the Massachusetts Board of Registration of Hazardous Waste Site Cleanup Professionals for violating professional conduct rules at two hazardous waste cleanup sites.
At Site A (Eagle Gas Station), Decoulos failed to properly investigate diesel contamination, favoring passive over board-mandated active remediation, and did not provide sufficient support for claims about the source of contamination.
At Site B (Speedy Lube), Decoulos incorrectly determined there was "no significant risk" of contamination using improper calculations, despite evidence showing worsening contamination.
After investigation, hearings before an administrative officer, and board review, the board imposed a one-year suspension and continuing education requirements.
Decoulos appealed, claiming the board's decision was arbitrary and capricious, discovery and procedural rulings were unfair, and his constitutional rights had been violated due to delay and bias.
The Superior Court upheld the board's decision, and Decoulos appealed to the Appeals Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Arbitrary & Capricious Decision	Decision lacked rational explanation; procedural unfairness.	Board acted within its technical competence and regulations; decisions well-supported.	Board’s actions were rational, within discretion, and supported by substantial evidence.
Witness and Document Discovery	Improper subpoena denials and refusal to compel MassDEP discovery compromised defense.	Presiding officer followed regulations; requests duplicate/irrelevant or not under board control.	Presiding officer properly applied discovery rules; denials were not arbitrary or capricious.
Delay as Due Process Violation	Long delay prejudiced Decoulos, impacting witness memory and fairness.	No substantial prejudice shown; delay partially due to plaintiff; no intentional delay by board.	Delay did not rise to level of due process violation absent demonstrated prejudice.
Bias in Hearing Officer Selection	Board member’s role in selecting hearing officer who heard case created impermissible bias.	No evidence of improper influence or bias; selection process not shown to affect fairness.	No actual bias or due process violation found; decisions within discretion of presiding officer.

Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258 (limitations on summary decisions as precedent)
Olde Towne Liquor Store, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm'n, 372 Mass. 152 (deference to agency factfinding)
Frawley v. Police Comm'r of Cambridge, 473 Mass. 716 (arbitrary and capricious standard)
MacLaurin v. Holyoke, 475 Mass. 231 (arbitrary and capricious standard)
School Comm. of Wellesley v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 376 Mass. 112 (deference to agency credibility determinations)
D'Amour v. Board of Registration in Dentistry, 409 Mass. 572 (agency has authority to determine witness credibility)
Goldstein v. Board of Registration of Chiropractors, 426 Mass. 606 (high bar for showing hearing officer bias)