Krusling v. Ohio Bd. of Pharmacy
2012 Ohio 5356
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Krusling is a long-licensed pharmacist in Batavia, Ohio.
- In 2010 the Pharmacy Board issued a 16-page Notice of Opportunity for Hearing alleging multiple improper acts.
- The Board proposed sanctions including permanent license revocation.
- A hearing was held March 9, 2011, where Krusling testified and presented evidence.
- The Board revoked Krusling’s license permanently after finding gross immorality, dishonesty, and other misconduct.
- The Clermont County Court of Common Pleas upheld the Board’s decision; Krusling appeals asserting due-process deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Krusling’s due process rights were violated by not being informed that permanent revocation could be imposed | Krusling argues no notice that permanent revocation was possible | Board argues notice and hearing complied with the law and due process | No due-process violation; notice and hearing were adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. White, 29 Ohio St.3d 39 (1987) (revocation can be permanent; 'revoke' interpreted as permanent in pharmacy context)
- Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform and opportunity to be heard)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (abuse of discretion standard; substantial evidence review in agency decisions)
- Richter v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 161 Ohio App.3d 606 (2005) (review of board actions; permanency of revocation discussed in context)
- LTV Steel Co. v. Indus. Comm., 140 Ohio App.3d 680 (2000) (Mathews framework for due process in administrative proceedings)
- Korn v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 61 Ohio App.3d 677 (1988) (protected property interest in professional license; due process considerations)