Narinder Duggal, M.d. v. Medical Quality Assurance Commission
48258-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 22, 2016Background
- The Medical Quality Assurance Commission charged Dr. Narinder Duggal with unprofessional conduct, sexual misconduct, and abuse; he denied wrongdoing and requested an adjudicative hearing and opportunity for settlement.
- After counsel substituted shortly before the hearing, Duggal and his new counsel signed a Stipulated Findings and Agreed Order surrendering his Washington medical license; the Agreed Order contained multiple provisions stating it was not binding until accepted and signed by the Commission.
- Department staff described the settlement as "tentatively settled" in memos and sought to present the proposed Agreed Order to the Commission for approval.
- Before the Commission signed the Agreed Order, Duggal sent a letter requesting withdrawal/reopening, asserting he had not reviewed voluminous discovery and that prior counsel had not pursued certain depositions.
- An ALJ (Prehearing Order No. 5) denied Duggal’s motion to withdraw the stipulation, relying on WAC 246-11-270 to treat his agreement as binding; the Commission later signed the Agreed Order.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the ALJ, holding the ALJ misapplied WAC 246-11-270, the Agreed Order was not binding until Commission acceptance, and Duggal suffered substantial prejudice (loss of license without a hearing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Duggal) | Defendant's Argument (Commission/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WAC 246-11-270 barred withdrawal of the Agreed Order | WAC 246-11-270 applies only to admissions in initiating documents; it does not make settlement stipulations irrevocable | The signed Agreed Order constituted a binding contract/ admission when Duggal signed it, so he should be bound | Court: WAC 246-11-270 inapplicable — it governs responses to initiating documents, not post-response settlement agreements; ALJ misapplied it |
| Whether Duggal could withdraw the Agreed Order before Commission approval | The Agreed Order expressly stated it was not binding until accepted and signed by the Commission; Duggal therefore could withdraw before acceptance | The State argued the parties’ signatures created a binding agreement (analogy to settlement/judicial approval contexts) | Court: Duggal could withdraw — the Agreed Order and surrounding memos show the agreement was tentative and conditioned on Commission acceptance |
| Whether contract principles allow withdrawal before acceptance | Contract language and extrinsic evidence show intent that the order was contingent on Commission approval, so no binding contract existed pre‑acceptance | State claimed signatures and consideration (e.g., avoiding hearing in exchange for surrender) made contract binding | Court: Contract interpretation supports nonbinding, conditional status until Commission acceptance; ALJ erred in treating it as binding |
| Whether Duggal suffered substantial prejudice requiring relief | Duggal lost his medical license without the hearing protections due process requires | State argued the settlement was voluntary and foreclosed hearing by agreement | Court: Substantial prejudice shown — loss of license is a protected interest; relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Nguyen v. Department of Health, Medical Quality Assurance Commission, 144 Wn.2d 516 (review of administrative disciplinary proceedings)
- Ames v. Department of Health, Medical Quality Assurance Commission, 166 Wn.2d 255 (deference to agency interpretation but review of legal questions de novo)
- Overlake Hospital v. Department of Health, 170 Wn.2d 43 (statutory/regulatory construction principles)
- Koenig v. City of Des Moines, 158 Wn.2d 173 (plain language controls statutory construction)
- RSD AAP, LLC v. Alyeska Ocean, Inc., 190 Wn. App. 305 (contract interpretation; effect given to parties’ intent)
- Hahn v. Department of Retirement Systems, 137 Wn. App. 933 (substantial evidence standard)
- Johnson v. Department of Health, 133 Wn. App. 403 (arbitrary and capricious standard in administrative review)
- Lehrer v. Department of Social & Health Services, 101 Wn. App. 509 (enforceability of clear and unambiguous contract language)