22 A.3d 921
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Maryland Board charged Deborah K. Tabb with multiple violations under Health Occupations Article and ADA Code for treatment of 29 patients; discovery dispute led ALJ to exclude appellee’s expert summaries and testimony under COMAR 10.44.07.08(B).
- ALJ found violations of 4-315(a)(6), (16), (18) and ADA Code §5B, but not (3) or (22); Board later upheld all charges.
- Board ordered reprimand, eighteen months probation, and additional remedial measures.
- Circuit Court reversed the Board, holding the ALJ erred in excluding the experts and remanding for a new hearing on specified charges.
- Board reaffirmed some findings on appeal and the case was remanded; the Circuit Court’s reversal was affirmed on appeal, with remand for a new hearing.
- The Court of Special Appeals ultimately affirmed the circuit court and remanded for new proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the ALJ’s exclusion of expert witnesses lawful? | Board argues exclusion was proper under COMAR 10.44.07.08(B)(2). | Tabb contends summaries were adequate and ALJ erred in excluding experts. | No; exclusion was an error of law and prejudicial, requiring remand. |
| Was there substantial evidence to support violations of 4-315(a)(3), (22), and COMAR 10.44.23.02? | Board contends substantial evidence supports fraud and false claims and improper amalgam removals. | Tabb argues ALJ’s findings on these charges were correct and Board erred in rejecting them. | Substantial evidence does not sustain those Board findings; circuit court’s reversal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Colburn v. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. Servs., 403 Md. 115 (Md. 2008) (substantial evidence, agency findings, and deference considerations)
- Mehrling v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 371 Md. 40 (Md. 2002) (finding of fact and need for detailed agency reasoning)
- United Steelworkers v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 298 Md. 665 (Md. 1984) (agency findings must be supported by adequate reasoning)
- Fowler v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 394 Md. 331 (Md. 2006) (need for explicit findings and rationale in agency decisions)
- Sweeney v. Montgomery County, 107 Md. App. 187 (Md. 1995) (purpose of findings to aid judicial review)
- Md. Dep’t of Transp. v. Maddalone, 187 Md.App. 549 (Md. 2009) (limits on reviewing court’s scope of review of agency action)