Spitz v. Board of Examiners of Psychologists
127 Conn. App. 108
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Spitz appeals a board suspension of two years with stay and two years of probation for violating APA Ethics § 10.08 by engaging in a sexual relationship with former patient L.B. within two years after termination; counts 2 and 5 underpin the findings, with L.B. as former patient and wife of R.B. and mother of E.B. involved in the related treatment dynamics.
- Administrative hearings (Nov. 28, 2007; Feb. 1 and Apr. 18, 2008) included three psychologists and one lay member; Spitz was represented and cross-examined witnesses.
- The board found counts 2 and 5 proven by a preponderance, applying its expertise to assess professional conduct and the psychologist–patient relationship under APA § 10.08.
- Spitz asserted (i) inadequate notice of charges, (ii) bias by two board members, (iii) FOIA violation and (iv) lack of substantial evidence to support the board’s decision.
- The trial court dismissed Spitz’s administrative appeal, holding adequate notice, no actual bias, proper remediary FOIA remedy, and substantial-evidence support for the board’s findings; Spitz appealed.
- Key procedural posture: CT APA review under UAPA; the court found the notice adequate and that the board’s use of specialized knowledge was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Spitz had adequate notice of the charges | Spitz claims inadequate notice of acts constituting negligence/wrongful conduct | Board provided notice linking to § 20-192 and APA § 10.08 and described alleged facts | Yes, notice adequate and not prejudicial |
| Whether the board members were actually biased | Two board members biased, e.g., chair’s handling of initials and cross-examination; lay member’s executive-session inquiry | Presumption of impartiality; plaintiff must show actual bias, which he did not | No actual bias established |
| Whether FOIA violation voided the board's decision or required remedy | FOIA violation by executive session | Remedies via FOIA commission; exclusive remedy under § 1-206(b) with opportunity to appeal | Remedy proper; not reversed on UAPA grounds |
| Whether the board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence | Record lacks substantial evidence to prove L.B. was a patient and improper conduct | Record shows L.B. attended sessions; credibility of witnesses supports board’s findings | Yes, substantial evidence supports the board’s conclusion (L.B. was a patient; sexual relationship violated § 10.08) |
Key Cases Cited
- Towbin v. Board of Examiners of Psychologists, 71 Conn.App. 153 (Conn. App. 2002) (substantial evidence standard in administrative review)
- Pet v. Dept. of Health Services, 228 Conn. 651 (1994) (credibility and specialized agency expertise)
- Goldstar Medical Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Social Services, 288 Conn. 790 (2008) (agency expertise; notice and procedures under APA § 4-178)
- Cannata v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 239 Conn. 124 (1996) (proper application of law to facts; deference to agency conclusions)
- Rivera v. Liquor Control Commission, 53 Conn.App. 165 (1999) (adequacy of notice under § 4-177(b))
- Pane v. Danbury, 267 Conn. 669 (2004) (FOIA exclusive remedy context; administrative remedies)
- Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324 (2009) (reaffirmation of administrative review standards)
- Tele Tech of Connecticut Corp. v. Dept. of Public Utility Control, 270 Conn. 778 (2004) (statutory notice standards; 4-177 vs 4-182(c) considerations)