Walker v. Physical Therapy Board of California
D071984M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 16, 2017Background
- Walker, a licensed physical therapist since 1978 with no prior alcohol-related discipline, was involved in a January 1, 2011 collision in which she struck parked cars and left the scene; police later arrested her and breath tests showed BAC ≈ .19–.20. She pled guilty to misdemeanor hit-and-run; DUI counts were dismissed.
- The Physical Therapy Board of California (Board) filed an accusation alleging (1) a crime substantially related to practice, (2) use of alcohol in a dangerous manner (Medical Practice Act §2239), and related regulatory violations.
- An administrative hearing produced findings the Board adopted: Walker was intoxicated when she hit cars, her hearing testimony on post-accident drinking was not credible, and she used alcohol in a manner dangerous to herself/others.
- The Board revoked Walker’s license but stayed revocation and placed her on probation with alcohol-evaluation requirements; probation conditions could be removed if evaluation cleared her.
- Walker petitioned for a writ of administrative mandamus in superior court; the court rejected her challenge to the alcohol-based discipline (finding statutory authority under §§2239 and 2660) but found the hit-and-run misdemeanor not sufficiently related to practice for discipline.
- Walker appealed, arguing section 2239 requires more than a single isolated incident of dangerous alcohol use (i.e., a separate nexus or proof of habitual use) to support discipline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2239 and §2660 authorize discipline based on a single isolated instance of alcohol use in a dangerous manner without a separate nexus finding | Walker: A single isolated incident is insufficient; §2239 requires a specific finding that the conduct substantially affected fitness to practice or demonstrates habitual misuse | Board: §2239 (incorporated into §2660) statutorily defines dangerous alcohol use as unprofessional conduct substantially related to fitness; no separate nexus finding required | Court: Affirmed. The Legislature implicitly established the nexus by statute; a separate factual nexus finding is not required for discipline under §§2239/2660, even for a single incident |
| Whether Walker waived the statutory-interpretation argument by not raising it administratively | Walker: Not applicable; she raised related arguments below and in superior court | Board: Walker waived the issue by failing to raise it at the hearing | Court: Walker did not waive the claim; issue preserved and considered on the merits |
| Whether the hit-and-run misdemeanor alone constituted substantially related crime supporting discipline | Walker: Misdemeanor hit-and-run is not sufficiently related to physical therapy practice | Board: Conviction can be disciplinary ground if substantially related | Court: Superior court found hit-and-run not sufficiently related; Board’s discipline upheld on the §2239 basis rather than the conviction ground |
| Whether delay between incident and discipline precludes enforcement | Walker: Four-year delay and lack of further incidents undercut link to fitness to practice | Board: Delay encompassed plea, proceedings; Board mitigated via probation/evaluation | Court: Delay not shown unreasonable; Board’s conditional approach (evaluation to remove conditions) acceptable |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Superior Court, 176 Cal.App.4th 1407 (concluding §2239 can constitutionally supply the nexus between dangerous alcohol use and fitness to practice)
- Griffiths v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.4th 757 (discussing alcohol-related convictions and nexus requirements)
- Sulla v. Board of Registered Nursing, 205 Cal.App.4th 1195 (upholding discipline for a single DUI incident under a similar statutory provision)