Virginia Board of Medicine v. John Henry Hagmann, M.D.
67 Va. App. 488
| Va. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- The Virginia Board of Medicine summarily suspended Dr. John H. Hagmann’s medical license and scheduled a formal administrative hearing; the Board provided voluminous exhibits (mostly produced by Hagmann) and set hearing dates in April and then June 2015.
- Hagmann obtained one continuance (pro se) and then retained Ramon Rodriguez, III; Rodriguez requested a second continuance to October 2015, which the Board panel chair denied and denied reconsideration.
- Rodriguez notified the Board neither he nor anyone would attend the June hearing but submitted 22 exhibits; Hagmann did not appear at the June 19, 2015 hearing.
- After a 6+ hour hearing with live testimony from multiple former students, the Board revoked Hagmann’s license.
- Hagmann appealed to the circuit court, which reversed solely on due-process grounds for denial of the second continuance (finding inadequate time to prepare and secure counsel of choice) and remanded for a new hearing; the Board appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether denial of the continuance, notice, presence/confrontation, evidence production, and panel bias violated due process or VAPA procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Hagmann's Argument | Board/Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Denial of second continuance (right to counsel of choice) | Denial deprived Hagmann of his due process right to counsel of his choosing and required continuance until October docket | Board had discretion; Hagmann had adequate prior notice, failed to show good cause or attempt to secure substitute counsel, and continuance would impair witness availability and docketing | Denial did not violate due process; Board did not abuse discretion — circuit court erred in reversing |
| 2) Adequacy of notice to prepare | Six weeks’ notice (from rescheduling) was insufficient given scope of allegations and exhibits | Hagmann had 14 weeks from summary suspension and had nearly all exhibits earlier; remaining materials were limited; Board’s timeline was reasonable | Notice was adequate under due process; circuit court erred to substitute its judgment for Board’s |
| 3) Right to be present and confront witnesses | Denial prevented Hagmann (who had planned travel) from being present and confronting accusers | Travel was not timely disclosed; flight booked after suspension; he could have modified travel; absence was not compelled by Board | Circuit court correctly rejected this claim; no due process violation shown |
| 4) Failure to require production of all witness statements (disclosure) | Board had duty to obtain and produce all 30 USUHS witness statements (exculpatory evidence) | Board produced nine statements it had; additional documents were withheld by USUHS or privileged; Hagmann never contemporaneously objected or requested subpoenas under VAPA | Circuit court correctly rejected claim as waived and unsupported; no reversible procedural error |
| 5) Recusal of panel chair | Chair’s denial of continuance and comments showed bias requiring recusal | Denial and comments were permissible exercise of discretion; statements taken in context provided alternative rationales; Hagmann bore burden to show bias | Circuit court correctly upheld denial of recusal; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (establishes that license suspensions invoke constitutional due process protections)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (sets minimum procedural due process rights in administrative hearings)
- Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (recognizes broad discretion in scheduling and continuances)
- Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575 (continuance denials reviewed in context of reasons presented; not every denial is unconstitutional)
- Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (right to counsel does not guarantee counsel of choice if judge reasonably exercises scheduling discretion)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (due process notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (presumption that adjudicators are impartial absent proof to the contrary)