129 Conn. App. 575
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Physician Charles Ray Jones, M.D. faced Department of Public Health charges under §19a-17 and §20-13c for alleged standards-of-care violations in treating two minor children.
- A three-member medical hearing panel (two physicians, one layperson) held 11 days of hearings over 14 months; the panel issued findings in December 2007.
- The department found improper diagnosis and treatment, including prescribing antibiotics without examination, inadequate monitoring, and diagnosing disease with low exposure risk.
- Consequently, Jones received a reprimand, $10,000 in fines, two years of probation, and a physician monitor for record reviews and meetings.
- Jones moved for reconsideration claiming bias by panel member John Senechal; the department denied the motion.
- Jones filed an administrative appeal; the Superior Court upheld most findings, remanding for further proceedings under §4-183(j).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice complied with §4-177(b) and/or §4-182(c). | Jones contends the charges violated notice requirements. | Board asserts notice followed §4-182(c) before the revocation hearing. | Notice did not satisfy §4-177(b); §4-182(c) governs; substantial prejudice not shown. |
| Whether panel bias violated due process. | Senechal was biased against Lyme disease physicians and prejudged issues. | No actual bias; presumption of impartiality; no prejudgment of adjudicative facts. | Jones failed to prove actual bias; no clear error in the trial court’s finding. |
| What standard of proof governs revocation proceedings before the board. | Clear and convincing standard should apply, as in attorney discipline. | Preponderance of the evidence is appropriate under the UAPA. | Preponderance of the evidence applies; Supreme Court precedent forecloses applying clear and convincing standard here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tele Tech of Connecticut Corp. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 270 Conn. 778 (2004) (distinguishes notice under 4-182(c) vs 4-177(b))
- Levinson v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 211 Conn. 508 (1989) (due-process notice must be sufficiently particular)
- Rado v. Board of Education, 216 Conn. 541 (1990) (burden on challenger to show disqualifying interest)
- Clisham v. Board of Police Commissioners, 223 Conn. 354 (1992) (bias requires prejudgment of adjudicative facts)
- Breiner v. State Dental Commission, 57 Conn.App. 700 (2000) (mere opinions on standards of practice do not prove bias)
- Moraski v. Connecticut Board of Examiners of Embalmers & Funeral Directors, 291 Conn. 242 (2009) (actual bias must be proven; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Goldstar Medical Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Social Services, 288 Conn. 790 (2008) (preponderance standard in administrative proceedings under UAPA)
- Sobocinski v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 215 Conn. 517 (1990) (distinction between administrative agency and grievance committee)