Johnson v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists

litigate sought to the issue opportunity” to judgment. by the earlier

barred affirmatively judgment

The 1992 roll judge erroneously trial had that the

shows judgment on the Board’s

rested his confes- (of respond. judgment) failure sion facially apparent,, fatal flaw makes the

This preclusion. I judgment unfit for issue today’s holding.

hence dissent D.M.D., Ray JOHNSON,

Charles

Appellee/Counter-Appellant, OF

BOARD OF GOVERNORS REGIS OF the STATE OF

TERED DENTISTS

OKLAHOMA, Body Corpo Politic and

rate, Appellant/Counter-Appellee.

No. 82371.

Supreme Court Oklahoma. 19, 1996.

March Opinion Opala

Concurring of Justice 25, 1996.

Corrected March 2,May

As Corrected

Hammons & Associates Mark Ham- mons, Oklahoma, City, appel- Oklahoma for Johnson, Ray lee/counter-appellant Charles D.M.D. Loving, Attorney B. General

Susan Oklahoma, Ramana, Rabindranath Scott Johnson, Boughton, James Robert Assistant General, Attorneys City, Oklahoma Okla- homa, appellant/counter-appellee Registered of Governors of Dentists State of Oklahoma.

HODGES, Justice. I. Issues (1) The issues before this Court are wheth- (2) jurisdiction, er the district court had agency required an whether administrative adopt rule-making procedures rules under out setting imposition standards for the (3) punishment, proof what is the standard of discipline imposing proceeding a against person a who holds a (4) license, establishing whether the rule the proof standard of prepon- in this matter as a properly derance the pro- evidence was rule, (5) mulgated emergency as an whether district court erred when it or- dered the members the Board of Gover- Registered nors of Dentists of the State of (Board Board), Oklahoma or Dental including conducting investigation, member (1) disqualified. We hold the district court (2) jurisdiction matter, had over this guide- Board was not to establish imposition lines for the discipline, proper disciplinary pro- standard of ceedings against holding person profes- a a sional license is clear and evi- dence, and the district court was within its it discretion when ordered the members disqualified Board hearing from proceeding against appellee. Because we proper find the is clear and convincing, proce- we need not address the dures under which promulgated the Board establishing a rule proof. evidence as the

II. Facts The Board’s statement of the facts is un- Beginning January contested. complaints against Board received some Dr. 11,1992, August presi- Johnson, the Board’s new plaintiff in this ease. com- On hearing dent before the Board on ordered Dr. allowed dental alleged plaints 1, 1992, Sеptember September On procedures perform which assistants request for an Dr. Johnson filed another only by li- performed have been should injunction Board. After hear- initially complaints were dentist. The censed if ing, the court found district Board’s investigated by investigator, the Board’s hearing September held on were investiga- finishing On David Murdock. prepare adequate Dr. Johnson could not tion, summary Mr. of his Murdock drafted defense. The district court found the Board findings. practice of Based on an unwritten complied parts with of Dr. Johnson’s had Board, summary was submitted discovery requests. On October dis- the Board member for district which enjoining the trict court filed an order complaints in this arose. member disciplinary hearing holding Farley. Farley case was Dr. James Dr. 7,1992. December they competitor prac- Dr. Johnson since geographical area. held January ticed the same the Board On meeting disqualify voted not to Farley own Dr. then conducted his investi- Farley investigating as the officer Farley the gation.1 Dr. determined evidence disqualify not tо the other of the members hearing requested the warranted a hearing allegations against from Board the investigatory him the appoint Board as offi- meeting, At Dr. Johnson. the same the granted request at its cer. The Board adopt to rules Board voted not certain but May meeting. At the meet- March proceed- in proof defined the standard of the Farley hearing Dr. ing, recommended a be ings against preponderance Dr. as a Johnson Thus, the set as soon as statutes allowed. of the evidence. hearing May to the on the Board voted hold As a result of the action taken at this Following May meeting the January meeting, again Dr. Johnson filed a Board, vote of the the Board’s without a petition asking in it the district court to prosecutor special complaint issued a formal against enjoin proceeding the from Board Farley Dr. it against Dr. Johnson.2 admits properly had him because the Board not complaint to the was his decision issue formal setting proof adopted a the standard of rule aсting was on of the but insists he behalf as and con- disciplinary proceedings clear Board. vincing. requested also Dr. Johnson Board, Farley, including of the Dr. members complaint After formal issued and was disqualified proceedings against be set, requested hearing Dr. a was Johnson temporary court a him. district entered ninety days grant- which was continuance of stay until raised Johnson could the issues part hearing for with the rescheduled ed resolved. be 24,1992. 15,1992, July July Dr. Johnson On July petition a district court. On filed were consoli- The district court cases then granted hearing a the district court Johnson At March dated. a on temporary restraining prohibiting prohibition order of district court issued a writ April holding Board from an administrative hear- from the bench. Then on hearing prohibiting setting matter for a entered written order against Dr. permanent proceeding relief. Board from the district court for hearing is provide rules the President of In each instance where formal 1. The Board's conducted, be the Board shall cause be designate one of the members to Board Complaint or Pur- prepared a "Statement investigate complaint and whether a determine Investigation” pose which shall include the hearing is warranted. Board Gover- formal allegations charges concerning which 1—2(b). Registered Rule nors Dentists 195:3— hearing to be conducted. Such statement is require investigato- rules The Board's do not person complained against ... shall advise the approved by ry member be Board. Purpose Investiga- charges made of may prepare the tion in order that he or she 195:3-l-4(a) speci- rules 2. Rule Board’s appropriate defenses and have benefit full fies: complete hearing thereon. properly agency until it had enacted in compli- rules orders. Section title 328.43 of ance with provides the Administrative Procedures Act. appeal disciplinary that an from a identify particu- district court refused proceeding the district court. The lar deficiencies but found that the Board had argues Dr. Johnson appealing an adopt establishing faded a rule the stan- and, interlocutory order under these statuto proof proceedings. dard of in disciplinary ry provisions, the district court does have jurisdiction until final order issues. interim, April

In the on the Board adopted emergency proce- a rule under Generally, litigant seek setting

dures must re the standard agency pre of the evidence. The rule view of decisions in a manner 8,1993, was filed April with the on Governor scribed statute and cannot invoke signed by 21,1993, May Governor jurisdiction separate pro the court in forty-three days it was after filed with the Conoco, ceeding. Dep’t Inc. v. State forty-five days Governor but more than after Oklahoma, Health the State 651 P.2d adopted. it was (Okla.1982); Martin In v. Harrah District, dependent School 543 P.2d signed Governor, After the rule was (Okla.1976). independent An action is summary Dr. Johnson motion for filed a permitted judicial judgment where review an supplements arguing thereto agency provide adequate rule “fails to properly adopted. was not decision He also Martin, proper remedy.” reasserted the at 1375. Statu clear and evidence and the mem- tory procedures can be circumvented when disqualified bers the Board should question, inadequate there is a constitutional proceeding him. relief, and or im administrative threatened pending irreparable injury. Id. “A district- 17, 1993, September On the district court court action if is abatable the uninvoked subject issued an order is the of this unavailable, remedy administrative was inef (1) appeal. The court district found the rule fective or would have been pursue.” futile to adopting a of the evidence as Tinker & Mortgage Corp. City Investment proof in disciplinary proceed- standard of (Okla. 1029, City, Midwest 873 P.2d ings before properly adopted the Board was 1994) omitted). (emphasis complied process requirements, and with due (2) complaint against found the Board’s Dr. alleged it Dr. Johnson has

Johnson was void because had not a constitu been issued, question properly prohibited right tional in that pro Board taking any disciplinary protection from cess is action a afforded both the adopted Dr. Johnson until it rules United and the establish- States Oklahoma Constitu objective guidelines categorizing process tions. person offenses Due “entitles a to an specifying punishment impartial seriousness and a and disinterested both tribunal proportionate to the seriousness of the adjudicative of- civil and criminal” proceedings. fense, disqualified present Jerrico, Inc., and 238, 242, mem- Marshall v. 446 U.S. Board, including bers 1610, 1613, (1980); member 100 S.Ct. 64 L.Ed.2d 182 investigating charges, participating 578-79, Berryhill, 564, Gibson v. 411 ‍​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍U.S. any disciplinary proceedings against Dr. 1689, 1697-98, (1973). S.Ct. 36 L.Ed.2d 488 appealed, Johnson. The Board and The lack resulting of due from a counter-appeal. Johnson filed a biased ap tribunal cannot be corrected Monroeville, peal. Ohio, Village Ward v. III. Jurisdiction 57, 61, 80, 83-84, 409 U.S. (1972). Likewise, subject The professional Dental Board is to the Administrative whose license Procedures Act. is stake is to be Okla.Stat. “entitled (1991). §§ according tit. previously 301-323 Section treated to a 306 au established declaratory thorizes an judgment system published action for uniform regu rules and test validity аgency anof rule. lations.” Sec Adams Practices Professional provides judicial Commission, tion 318 932, 934 (1974). review of final P.2d money than loss of inade substantial mere alleged also has

Dr. Johnson jurisdictions risk to the irreparable some reduce the relief quate administrative having reputation alleged the members defendant of tarnished injury. Dr. Johnson proceeding erroneously by increasing plaintiff’s with Board biased bur were or the having properly proof.” enacted rules Id. at 99 S.Ct. at 1808. den out acting Board was were under which the rules consistently has This Court rec appearance is little doubt void. There necessary procure ognized “where is tribunal will be ineffective biased carry profes license in order on chosen inadequate and is not authorized law business, power to revoke a li sion argues. appellate An review is the Board as cense, destroy granted, and thus in a once inadequate injury profession to a to correct livelihood, penal measure the means of reputation pronounced after a has al’s board strictly should therefore be construed.” negative decision. Because Dr. Johnson Board Em State ex rel. Oklahoma State alleged justify circum facts sufficient Directors v. balmers and Funeral Guardian statutory procedures, venting the district (Okla. Home, P.2d Funeral correctly jurisdiction invoked. court’s 1967); Veterinary Examiners jurisdic- only did the trial court have Not (Okla. Mohr, P.2d Medicine Martin, under the rule set out tion 1971). loss jurisdiction arti- it also had under P.2d loss; monetary it is a loss of a more than 7, section 7 of the Constitution. cle Oklahoma reputation. person’s and loss of a livelihood court Article section 7 “vests district Further, a dental license Oklahoma is ‘unlimited, jurisdiction justici- original of all constitutionally protected property interest powers ... review matters and such able process. which must be afforded due provided administrative action (1991); Barry § 328.32 ” Okla.Stat.Tit. Bank Trust v. by statute.’ Lincoln Barchi, 443 U.S. S.Ct. Commission, Tax Oklahoma (1979); Perry v. Sinder 61 L.Ed.2d mann, 593, 601, 92 2699-700, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 IV. at stake the loss Because interest is a matter

The standard damage potential and the to a process “to and allocate the of due serves reputation resulting professional from disci and to litigants risk of error between the recog plinary this has proceedings, Court importance attached to indicate the relative Texas, proof in nized that the standard revocation Addington the ultimate decision.” holding a 418, 423, 1804, 1808, proceedings against person pro 60 441 U.S. 99 S.Ct. (1979). clear-and-convincing-evi fessional license L.Ed.2d The three standards of (1) ex evidence, dence rel. State Bd. standard. State preponderance are Isbell, (3) Reporters v. evidence, Shorthand elear-and-convincing and be Official (Okla.1990); rel. 424, P.2d 1143 State ex Okla at yond a Id. 99 S.Ct. reasonable doubt. McMillian, homa Bar Association A evidence is at 1808. (Okla.1989). 892, 895, n. 6 P.2d private in generally the measurement used beyond disputes, while a reasonable doubt is 424, Addington, In at at 441 U.S. S.Ct. in criminal generally the measurement used 1808, Supreme Court artic- the United States pre application proceedings. Id. The part ulated three test determine what requires ponderance of evidence standard еmployed a civil should be burden parties equally share risk of error. proceeding. The Court commitment bal- 423, at Id. at 99 S.Ct. 1807-1808. interest” anced “the extent of the individual’s being “mind- interest” while clear-and-convincing standard is “the state’s legal allegations ful that the function employed involving “in civil cases minimize the risk erroneous deci- quasi-criminal wrong [was] to of fraud or some other test, deter- Applying sions.” this the Court doing interest at the defendant. The preponderanee-of-the-evidence mined the is deemed to be more stake those cases sufficiently protect the de- are standard failed there times that we look to other Burrows, beyond guidance, fendant’s interest and the a reason- Burrows v. states see (Okla.1994); protect P.2d Busby able doubt standard failed to 988-89 Club, Quail Country state’s The Court found that the Creek interest. & Golf (Okla.1994), clear-and-convincing 1326, 1330-31 ap- struck where federal con Thus, propriate generally the Court held that stitutional issues involved we balance. are courts, elear-and-convincing-evidence-standard to the specifi look federal and more constitutionally required cally Supreme civil commit- the United States Court. C.J.S., proceedings. ment Id. at 99 S.Ct. at In re P.2d See 307-308 (1995); Election, Sharp County 1813. v. Tulsa (1994); Wrig P.2d 841-845 McDonald v. bar, Addington, In the case (1994). ley, 870 P.2d 780-781 interest of the defendant are substantial. SEC, possible The defendant suffers the lost of a The Board relies on Steadman v. constitutionally protected property right, S.Ct. 67 L.Ed.2d 69 livelihood, However, profes- loss of a and the misplaced. loss Board’s reliance is Steadman, reputation. greater sional are These losses In the Court addressed whether 556(d) monetary 7(c), Addington, § than losses. the section 5 U.S.C. 1808; Santosky U.S. at S.Ct. at in disciplinary clear evidence Kramer, 1388, proceedings 455 U.S. 102 S.Ct. before the Securities and Ex Steadman, The state change L.Ed.2d Commission. 450 U.S. at health, safety an interest and welfare 101 S.Ct. at spe 1005-1006. The Court cifically of its The third is the citizens. concern risk noted that the “Petitioner [made] no high agency error. risk There when claim that the Federal Constitution re seeks to quire[d] application revoke license. As in convincing- of a clear-and case, this proceedings 15, 101 revocation have the evidence standard.” 97 n. Id. at agency acting prosecutor, as investigator, Thus, n. at 1006 the Court did not maker. decision The risk is increased address whether the Federal Constitution re where, case, as in this competitor quired clear-and-convincing standard in investigator defendant serves as the disciplinary proceedings before an adminis prosecutorial makes agency. noted, recommendations to the trative It should the dis Balancing Board. citing the interest of the individ- Addington evaluating senters against ual the interest of state factors Eldridge, three cited Mathews v. taking into 893, 909-10, consideration the risk of an erro- decision, process requires neous the L.Ed.2d 18 would have addressed the prove its case requirements federal constitutional and held clear-and-convincing agency evidence. clear-and-convincing stan dard.

The Board has rule enacted a estab lishing a preponderance of the evidence as The State of Oklahoma can af proof the disciplinary proceed greater in process safeguards ford due than ings provided before on it. dissent relies the fact those the Federal Constitution. thirty-nine require Michigan medical Long, 1037-42, boards v. 463 U.S. preponderance 3474-77, the evidence standard and 77 S.Ct.

only eighteen require (1983); clear Messenger Messenger, (Okla.1992). requirements evidence. “[M]inimum [due penal Because of the process] being a matter of federal law of disciplinary proceedings [can nature involving a not license, be] diminished the fact that the State the Oklahoma Constitu may specified procedures requires have its own that it tion clear-and-convincing the adequate determining deem pre applied the disciplinary standard be in pro such conditions adverse ceedings. official action.” Vitek In applying state standards to the Jones, S.Ct. issue of burden of in administrative (1980); Santosky, L.Ed.2d 455 disciplinary proceedings, this pre Court has U.S. at S.Ct. Although viously at 1395-96. appropriate determined the standard Isbell, against order the cease and desist Glover clear-and-convincing evidence. to be Company. Livestock The Com McMillian, Commission 1144; P.2d at 803 P.2d at argued Company the sanction was mission 898-99. the was more se improper because sanction stated, due As constitutional at imposed vere than other cases. Id. disciplinary requires the standard recognized at 1458-59. The Court 93 S.Ct. holding pro person proceedings Secretary Agricul the Congress given had convincing. clear and license to be fessional determining ap the ture wide discretion comply not feder rule with The Board’s does the propriate sanction and found sanction pro al minimum constitutional or state statutory Secretary’s within the authori is Because requirements and invalid. cess 187-88, ty. Id. at at 1458-59. The S.Ct. of the evidence the we find sanction to deter Court then reviewed the constitutionally inadequate, we justified if in fact. mine the sanction was procedure under which not address the need justification Finding authority in law and it was enacted. sanction, in fact for the the Court held the Secretary not his discretion. Id. had abused Duty V. to enact rules at 1459. argues Dr. Board is Johnson Butz, In this case like in the law establishing guide rules required to enact making given dis body has the Board wide disciplinary imposition ac lines for determining appropriate sanc cretion Dr. on section Johnson relies tions. 59, § tit. If tion. Okla.Stat. 328.32 302(A)(2) each requires 75 which title statutory is within the Board’s the sanction “adopt practice setting agency to rules authority justified in fact so not to and is as requirements of all for nature and forth the arbitrary capricious, or then sanction procedures informal available.” mal and Further, process. not violate due does interprets statute incorrectly this predetermine Board guidelines requiring the Board establish particular range applicable to a of sanctions imposing discipline on a licensed den Light & American Power offense. See tist. Commission, Exchange Securities & 145-46, L.Ed. gives 328.32 title 59 Section power suspend to revoke or Board dentist, place on a dentist including Board Disqualification of the VI. public private probation, or to or issue Investigatory Officer title reprimand. 302 of Unlike section A. The Board rules requires Board to enact re gives lating procedure, section 328.32 The decision as to whether appro determining investigatory discretion officer Board members discipline discipline. priate disqualified To the extent the will not be reversed should be law, arbitrary capricious, a clear abuse of discretion. appeal is not within absent Bottrell, facts, Osage Implement as to supported by the the decision Co. case, (Okla.1961). trial In this discipline proper is within the discre P.2d what judge v. United did not abuse his discretion. tion the Board. See Robinson Cir.1983). (10th States, 718 F.2d 336 consistently held This Court has argues process due re requires every litigant Dr. Johnson also re establishing quires the to enact rules cold Board a that is the result “the ceive decision guidelines impartial judge.” Sadberry that uniform. The disciplinary neutrality are anof (Okla.1968); rejected Wilson, 381, 382, has Supreme Court 441 P.2d United States (Okla. Walker, uni argument Craig that sanctions must be 824 P.2d the 1992). Likewise, Statutes re In Butz Commis the Oklahoma form. v. Glover Livestock Inc., from agency an member to “withdraw Company, quire sion U.S. (1973), mem any proceeding [the in which petitioner, the individual 36 L.Ed.2d 142 impartial hear- accord a fair and Secretary Agriculture, ber] issued a cannot had the mg or litigant consideration.” Okla.Stat. tit. an decision could file action against judge judge § the “When circumstances con and the would be disqualified. agree surrounding litigation ditions are of such While we cannot such a a they might ques disqualification, situation results in automatic nature cast doubt and might factor which on impartiality any judgment as to the is a reflect the tion appearance by Taking of bias judge may judge trial the Board. pronounce, the said evidentiary into all certify consideration of the mate- disqualification.” his Sadber should judge, say rial the trial we cannot he ry, (quoting P.2d at 384 Callaham v. Childers, his discretion in disqualifying abused the P.2d Okla. (1940)). hearing proceedings against from Board the objective This is an standard and is Dr. Johnson. dependent judge’s not belief. the Merritt Hunter, (Okla.1978). Investigatory B. The Officer Merritt, respondent judge In the Although Farley by Dr. prohibited testify in hearing traveled Kansas to adju sitting the Board’s own rule from as an involving parties at least one of who was during hearing, dicator Board Gover appearing in a In matter before him. hold Registered nors of Dentists Rule 195:3 - 1- judge by had his discretion abused 2(b) (1992), investigated allegations, he himself, disqualifying this Court stated: Board, made recommendations to Although Respondent’s we do not doubt fact made decisions that within were good making ap- intentions in such an providence, prehearing Board’s ruled on Court, pearance we Kansas have Officer, Investigatory As motions. Dr. Far consistently though held that even ley required was all issues of “determine judge personally believes himself to be procedure and prior motions actual unprejudiced, impartial, unbiased and hearing commencement of the before the judge] disqualifica- [that should [enter Board_” 195:3-1-2(e). Being Id. at Rule tion] where there are circumstances of geographical region, in the same Farley Dr. such a nature to as to cause doubt his competitor, competitor, is a albeit not a close partiality, prejudice. bias or Johnson pecuniary Dr. and thus applies equally Id. This rule to administra proceedings. interest the outcome of the acting adjudicatory capacity tive boards in an presumed It is someone who has a judges. Berryhill, as it does to Gibson financial interest the outcome deci S.Ct. 36 L.Ed.2d sion, pretrial decision, even render cannot neutrality decision with “the cold of an im evidentiary presented material in the partial judge.” In Village Ward v. Mon court trial shows the Board abdicated its roeville, Ohio, decision-making responsibilities to Dr. Far- (1972), States United Su ley rather examining allegations than held, preme Court pecuniary because of coming to a its conclusion of own. The decision, mayor interest Farley Board allowed Dr. make decisions town, responsible who was town’s beyond authority. Among things other which pаrt finances were derived from Farley the Board allowed Dr. to issue the fines, impartial not an judge complaint formal without action the Board Due Process Clause of the United Later, determine hearing dates. adjudicate States Constitution to matters Board disciplinary hearing set a in viola- result in would a fine. The nexus in injunction tion the district court. this case is even less than attenuated actions These were in violation stat- likely nexus in Ward. The Board most rec utes, rules, and a order. court ognized exempted the conflict when it argues the Board investigatory officer who was from the same automatically disqualified should have itself subject as the investigation district hearing the case him when it sitting adjudicator. from as an Because of named as a defendant in the outcome, actions he pecuniary interest in the Dr. against argument, filed it. any Under this Farley adjudicator should not act as an even litigant unhappy judge’s time with a pretrial on motions. prove by must requirements [Board] the State of Oklahoma strict the same Whilе apply any disciplin- do to adjudicators not and evidence applicable to clear pro prosecutors, serious due brings ary complaints profes- administrative it investigator implications arise when the subject cognizance. I cess are to its sionals who in personal financial prosecutor have separately and join opinion write the court’s but proceedings. of the in the outcome terest explain my maintaining the to commitment to Marshall, at 1617. U.S. clear-and-convincing persuasion noted, judge constitutional As trial these disciplinary proceedings against in dentists. by se easily ramifications could avoided prosecutorial and of lecting investigatory an I subject region from a than the ficer different Therefore, investigation. the trial of the THE ANATOMY OF LITIGATION disquali its discretion in court did abuse proceed- disciplinary The Board instituted Farley proceedings fying Dr. Johnson, ings against Ray D.M.D. Charles prosecutor, hearing and officer investigator, upon an dentist] based investi- [Johnson motions. pretrial board-appointed “in- gation conducted receipt vestigatory officer.”1 After VII. Conclusion enjoin complaint, sought to the dis- Johnson (1) jurisdic- trial court had hold: We court de- ciplinary proceedings a district (2) matter, this the Board was not tion over Among things, he cree. other asserted es- statutorily required promulgate to rules designate the Board had failed to the stan- tablishing guidelines, disciplinary persuasion prove dard of disciplinary pro- proper standard of charges brought against After him. Johnson person pro- ceedings involving a who holds (but began his district court action convincing, license is clear fessional had), any disciplinary hearings formal were acting its dis- trial court was within adopted emergency ba- the Board an—on the members cretion when ordered stan- preponderance-of-the-evidence sis—the Farley, Board, disqualified. including persuasion2 its govern disciplinary dard trial affirmed in judgment of the court is that the proceedings. urged proper Johnson part. part and The cause is reversed clear-and-convincing evi- standard is that of with for the trial court remanded instructions September judgment By dence. its judgment opin- consistent with this enter process re- court ruled that due the district ion. clear-and-convincing proof any pro- quires AF- TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT ceedings affect a dentist’s license IN PART AND IN FIRMED REVERSED practice. appealed The Board Johnson PART; IN- CAUSE REMANDED WITH brought counter-appeal. STRUCTIONS. II WILSON, C.J., KAUGER, ALMA V.C.J. SIMMS, OPALA, JJ., HARGRAVE SEVERAL IMPORTANT PROFESSION- concur. AL IN- AND PERSONAL-STATUS LAVENDER, WATT, SUMMERS ARE PRO- PRESENTLY TERESTS JJ., part, part. concur dissent BY THE CLEAR-AND- TECTED OF PER- STANDARD CONVINCING KAUGER, ALA, Justice, with whom OP SUASION Justice, concurring. joins,

Vice Chief here is not whether Our concern Today’s pronouncement holds that initially practice for the Registered should be licensed of Governors of Dentists of Berryhill, membership, investigatory see Gibson v. appointed is a dentist ‍​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍board 1. The officer practices district in which the com who competi plaints arose one of Johnson's and is proof, neutrality-and-de see For a 2. For discussion this tors. discussion requirements apply note 14. tachment infra 1350 dentistry

of but rather to define the standard Both juris- federal and Oklahoma’s extant prudence proteсt profes- holders of various persuasion3 of govern proceed is to sional personal-status licenses and interests ings which In license.4 affect conferred whenever the individual’s interest at stake the latter Johnson’s stake is different represents something more substantial than from that in the shape former. It takes the money.6 mere loss of convincing Clear and constitutionally protected property inter evidence is to affect a shorthand may est which not be procedur revoked sans reporter’s license.7 The Bar Association process. person’s al due A li prove lawyer’s must profes- violation of longer may cense no be treated as a mere responsibility sional clear and privilege something King [government] precondition evidence as a imposition — of may both away create and take discipline.8 at will.5 Parental status not be ter- 3.For Bank & Trust burden of Commissioner v. Bain Peanut the U.S. Courts of -, forward with the and burden dence decades after speech.” ceptеd, although already produced term burden tions distinction glish "the ery, 355-384 persuasion must lose. The term was also used to tion—a Greenwich refer what is now sion—the balanced, S.Ct. (citing Thayer, evidence to 1994), two refer to what proof, explicitly distinguished n. 2 S.Ct. at necessity distinct ambiguous, between these two and American 114 S.Ct. at Oklahoma 2251, U.S. burden of consistently distinguished for an many years J. party’s obligation which it defined as burden (5th Cir.1943). production. Hill v. notion that if the evidence is Supreme between “the Collieries, support 2255-2256, concepts. Hill, additional discussion of the distinc of production Co., is now called the burden of 67 L.Ed. 419 party Evidence proof among producing because evidence). Greenwich, (detailing 2256. Smith, Appeals Evidence at the Common Law 38 F.2d ... n. often courts). its claim. Court noted in called the burden of that bears the burden of is now — * * Greenwich, to burden of It was term Supreme "burden of concepts. 129 L.Ed.2d 221 During (or 260 U.S. it was used to burden of §§ also limited the mean to come forward with blurred * this U.S. evidence various the burden of (citing (1923). 8.01-8.06 Co., very frequently Director, 19th-century concept the same between -, also 2 L. Whin Court (2d Cir.1930); 134 F.2d supra generally 1923 that the Lee v. State to meet that uses of the persuasion, persuasion, proof” In the two - jurispru from the OWCPv. supra at (2d careless at -, describe produc persua used period burden proof” evenly going En 114 ac ed. 8. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. 6. See Ross v. part: P.2d Governing Disciplinary Ch. Right-Privilege 803 P.2d 425, 431-432, (1993); Alstyne, The The Price tinction in 1813, process er, Colleges 2701, longer rejected by both common-law ests over which the divestitive, powers. indulgence bom i.e., S.Ct. 612, Bd. Common-law (1982). 408 U.S. Character out 892, 615 60 L.Ed.2d 323 of Official 1175, 1180, 2706, ex (1968); Smolla, investitive and determinative of whether App. Addington is to be of a debt of v. 1143, 1144 (1990). gratia regis, (1952). Roth, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 modem Constitutional Protesting Peters, 471, 481, Demise 1-A, (1972); right/privilege Distinction in Constitutional Law: available. See rights Shorthand 10 L.Ed.2d 224 sovereign. Rights 408 U.S. Fitness, See also Willner v. Committee Okl., justice, King federal Over (1979). Texas, i.e., See also Rule Too divestitive control. The Proceedings, arose ex debito 92 S.Ct. 1804, 1808-1809, 846 P.2d held provides privilege McMillian, Okl., as a ^[81] 373 U.S. Much, Law, while (1972). jurisprudence Rep. Reemergence dichotomy Right-Privilege 564, 571, of investitive, Morrissey Regents grace, 2593, 2600, procedural (1963). privileges 1107, See also Van Isbell, 96, 6.12, Harv.L.Rev. were inter Stan.L.Rev. 418, O.S.1991, pertinent King has been 92 S.Ct. justitiae, favor or 111 8-19 v. Brew 102, but not 1812- Rules as no State 424- Okl., were Dis held 33 83 (c) finding "... To warrant a the re- general 4. For a burden-of-proof discussion of the spondent case, in a charge contested concept probability and its compo- associated charges nents, must be McBaine, established clear and con- see Degrees Burden of Proof: evidence, vincing Belief, at least two of the mem- 32 Cal.L.Rev. 242-268 See also 2 bers of the Trial Whineiy, Panel must (2d L. concur in §§ 8.20-8.23 Oklahoma Evidence findings." 1994). ed. [Emphasis mine.] Hennessee, Wolfenbarger Okl., 5. See 520 P.2d See also State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar Ass'n v. (1974); Farrant, Okl., Whittle v. (1994); State Bd. Examin 867 P.2d State Okl., Psychologists, ers 483 P.2d Okl., ex rel. Gasaway, Oklahoma Bar Ass’n v. (1971); Wood, State (1991); Okla. P.2d State ex rel. Oklahoma Bar

1351 clear-and-convincing stan- convincing fordable except by clear and minated sym- unsolemnized, destroy the persuasion14 would dard of an The existence proof.9 law) regime. (common metry present procedural Its marriage must of our non-ceremonial 5, 46, § uniformity Art. convincing is commanded by clear be established Apart the strictures of Const.15 from Okl. proof.10 federal, 46, process, § both state and due Ill vigorous anti-discrimination com- which has a academically cre- ponent, also demands 5, § AND THE DUE PRO- 4611 ARTICLE professionals— dentialed and state licensed DIS- INTERDICT CESS CLAUSE12 single accorded the comprise a class —be who PROCEDURAL REGIMES PARATE proceeded probative standards when same REVOCATION AF- FOR LICENSE acting against by in the exercise of the State SITUATED FECTING SIMILARLY policing powers.16 its PROFESSIONALS adoption preponder- governmen- The Board’s Academically credentialed standard,17 constitute, if allowed to for re- ance-of-the-evidence tally professionals licensed scrutiny, impermis- court’s would single class.13 John- survive this purposes, but medial asymmetry sibly interject procedural into the of this class. a dentist —is a member son—as process governs protection af- revocation. withhold from dentists To 9. 10. Matter Estate 11. The terms Ass’n v. Matter er, P.2d pertinent 26, 71 L.Ed.2d (1983). (1988); Okl., Matter of judicial proceedings provided Regulating See plied.] special law “The ... or other 455 U.S. 29 287, 714 P.2d Reynolds (1983). Legislature Maule ^[*] Braswell, Okl., part: Adoption 288 599 in this C.G., Okl., 745, authorizing: of Art. 5 (1980). 198, ^[*] (1982). tribunals_” practice Independent Porter, Okl., 748, Constitution, pass any shall 203-204 Stinchcomb, Okl., 674 P.2d ^[*] Darren Todd or See also § 102 S.Ct. 637 not, inquiry 46, or 663 P.2d jurisdiction ^[*] P.2d Okl. except as otherwise School Dist. No. 760 P.2d Santosky v. Kram [Emphasis 1388, 1391-92, Const., 66, ^[*] H., Okl., 1228, 69 the courts 816, ^[*] local or state (1981); ... 1232 sup- 615 9., Association, 170 Conn. portant the risk of burden of Id. higher, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard dence. The intermediate standard tate to act in ton observes there are doubt that would make reasonable 34 affairs evidence share the risk of error in a true than not." Midland also T. Anderson or affirmative 363-66 Evidence 162 Okl. [preponderance (1976). convincing (b) at but would not exclude all individual — 1808; standard, 44, i.e., beyond a reasonable persuasion. evidence, error It is 18 P.2d see graver defense (1991). interests in civil also and W. which distinguishable lower, calls for which three standards increasing and more 1089, Dacey 520, Id., appear Valley R. Co. v. requires the preponderance-of-the- roughly equal Twining, serves to 368 A.2d making 1092 v. Connecticut Bar possible "more important cases, (a) (1933).] of clear and doubt, person one's protect Analysis of the evi at litigants (or levels) 125, plaintiff's from the probably fashion. 424, reduces Barnes, doubt), claim clear hesi 133- im See life 99 (a Const., Ford, Okl., 223, (1995); § of Art. Okl. state: 12. ‍​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍The terms 15. Brown v. 905 P.2d Dixon, Okl., life, Simpson 853 P.2d deprived liberty, person shall be "No Inc., Okl., (1993); Browning-Ferris, Tate v. process property, of law.” without (1992); supra Reynolds, note 11 P.2d Okl., Bd., Naifeh, etc v. 13. State ex rel. State 822; District Court Oklahoma Johnson v. J., dissenting), (Opala, J., Okl., (1987) (Opala, County, P.2d that de- of constitutional norms for a discussion concurring). disciplinary pro- equality for all mand remedial professionally ceedings affect credentialed Passman, 442 U.S. 16. Davis v. certified licensees. and state (1979); Naifeh, supra note 60 L.Ed.2d 21; Drilling Egbert, Co. v. 13 at McKeever clear-and-convincing 14. For a discussion P.2d Okl. Addington, supra proof, note see 424-425, 431-432, S.Ct. at 1808- U.S. at preponderance-of-the- 1812-1813, (in 17. For a discussion of proceed civil cоmmitment supra persuasion, note see clear-and-convincing evidence standard ings demands). Adding- to meet due similarly involving judicial professionals Other situated licen- licensed already given protection have been than the executive State sees rather branch. Bd. Isbell, Reporters the Shorthand clear-and-convincing of standard. Both v. 803 of Official (Okla.1990); uniformity by § remedial P.2d 1143 State ex rel. Okla- the commanded 46 McMillian, Bar compel today’s the due homa Association v. 770 and clause (Okla.1989). Board, holding clear-and-convincing that P.2d 892 The on the the stan- hand, Supreme cites the persuasion of other United States dard stand as the dentists’ SEC, 91, case of Steadman v. 450 Court U.S. constitutional due. 999, (1981), 101 S.Ct. 67 L.Ed.2d 69 appropriate proof held the of that standard IV in disciplinary a federal administrative action SUMMARY preponderance is In this evidence. type Supreme situation the has of Court held academically gov- anAs credentialed and process requires pri- of weighing due the emmentally practitioner, certified dental public vate and interests affected. Green- that Johnson holds state license is to be Inmates, 1, holtz Nebraska 442 v. Penal U.S. constitutionally protectible prop- treated as a 2100, (1979). 99 S.Ct. 60 L.Ed.2d The 668 erty suspended interest. It not be urges Legislature that the has flexibil- procedural process. revoked sans due The ity regulating professions protec- in for the degree persuasion govern of is to that public safety. the tion of health In proceeding license-revocation constitutes a regulating professions other leg- medical component process. critical that of proof islature set of standard at expect entitled is from the State no less preponderance of the 59 evidence. See O.S. persuasion probative than that accorded § 1370. 1991 similarly law situated licensees. The Board’s endorsement of a standard— lesser The intermediate proof —clear preponderance of that of evidence— convincing generally evidence —is used plainly constitutiоnally offends the mandated allegations when there are of fraud or some symmetry procedure. § of Art. 46 and quasi-criminal type wrongdoing. of “The in 2, 7,§ Art. Okl. Const. terests stake in those cases are deemed to money be more substantial than mere loss SUMMERS, Justice, dissenting part in jurisdictions accordingly and some reduce rehearing (concurring part denial of having reputation risk to the defendant dissenting part opinion) to the with erroneously by increasing tarnished WATT, Justices, whom LAVENDER and plaintiffs proof.” Addington burden of v. join. Texas, 441 U.S. 99 S.Ct. My only disagreement 60 L.Ed.2d 323 opinion This standard has with is requirement sparingly by Court, Supreme in its been used that the burden generally deportation dental cases involving license revocation must be evi- INS, convincing Woodby dence that and denaturalization. clear and rather v. 385 483, 17 evidence, (1966); than U.S. S.Ct. as L.Ed.2d States, v. provided by been Chaunt United had the Dental Board U.S. I Governors. believe the Court errs hold- convincing clear and evidence is Supreme Court, relying on Mathews constitutionally required Eldridge, 96 S.Ct. my can In be revoked. (1976), L.Ed.2d in- enunciated the three opinion higher is not standard weighed terests be considered and by either the Due Clause Process or the deciding which standard consti- Equal Protection Clause. (1) tutionally required: assessment majority opinion (2) stake, holds failure to individual interests at assessment the clear convincing

use standard is a state’s interest and the risk of process. support violation It cites as greater erroneous decisions. The the indi- interest, “clear and greater standard” cases vidual’s the state’s majority upheld A other states have justify lower standard must be to preponderance of evidence standard proof. constitutional. Swiller Commissioner of & Exch. In Securities Steadman Serv., 1995 Health & Addiction W.L. Public Comm’n, 1995) (Conn. (chiroprac October (1981), up- Supreme Court L.Ed.2d tor); Pharmacy, Or.App. Sobel Bd. of “preponderance evidence” held (pharmacist); P.2d Pick by the when used securities Commerce, Dept. 858 P.2d 187 ett v. Utah discipline exchange a securi- commission (Utah Ct.App.1993) (pharmacist); Petition of challenged use broker broker. The ties (1993) Grimm, 42, 138 N.H. 635 A.2d 456 “preponderancе of the stan- evidence” of v. (psychologist); Gandhi Medical Examin in- of the severe sanctions dard because 299, Bd., 168 483 N.W.2d 295 Wis.2d began’ its Importantly, the Court volved. (1992) (physician); Eaves Bd. Ex v. Med. of analysis noting that absent a constitution- 1991) (Iowa aminers, (physi 467 234 N.W.2d restraint, judiciary to the al should defer cian); Bd. Johnson v. Arkansas Examin of prescribe Congress of powers “traditional 451, Ark. 808 Psychology, ers 305 S.W.2d of proof....” of. of evidence and standards rules (1991) Lyness v. (psychologist); 766 Com that Supreme Court held the Feder- Id. monwealth, Medicine, Bd. Pa. State 127 of required Procedure Act (1989) al Administrative (physician); 362 Cmwlth. 561 A.2d evidence, only preponderance of Dentistry, v. Bd. 103 N.M. 714 Foster of acceptable. (1986) (dentist); such Thangavelu that standard v. P.2d 580 Regulation, Dept Licensing & 149 Mich. of directly Supreme Court While (1986) (physician); 386 584 App. N.W.2d pro for a addressed the standard Disciplinary Proposed Action Matter of revocation, many of sis our fessional Schultz, Against Roger License W. Dentist of jurisdictions Thirty-nine have. state ter (dentist); (Minn.Ct.App.1985) 375 N.W.2d 509 preponder profess boards to use medical Medicine, Miсhigan Bd. 138 v. Rucker of offenses, for all of the standard ance evidence (physi Mieh.App. 360 N.W.2d 154 eighteen convincing the clear and stan use Polk, cian); In re 90 N.J. 449 A.2d 7 offenses, for and four use some dard all (1982) (physician); Sherman v. Commission 42 of Review variation of standards. Table Art, Healing Practice the on Licensure to Function, Disciplinary Exchange Feder (D.C.Ct.App.1979) (physician).2 595 407 A.2d (1995)1; A of State Medical Boards ation stayed have noted and other states Several Attempts Responding To Resource Guide preponderance of the evidence stan with Licensing Boards State Medical Weaken chal dard the absence constitutional Higher Evi by Legislating a Standard Sobol, A.D.2d lenge. v. 599 of Golan dence, Center, Advocacy Citizen Swank (doctor); (3d Dept.1993) Matter N.Y.S.2d is the The obvious favorite Cohen Against Disciplinary Action the Den of preponderance (Minn. evidence standard. Wang, N.W.2d 488 tist License of by the Federa 1989) Hamrick, The standard recommended (dentist); Ferguson v. Boards, organization (Ala.1980) (doctor); Medical tion State re In Kinche So.2d support goal loe, to aid and doctors whose 272 N.C. 157 S.E.2d 833 boards, (doctor); preponderance is the Ex their review Texas State Board Medical (Tex.Civ. Haynes, State Medical 388 S.W.2d the evidence. Federation aminers (doctor). Handbook, p. App.1965) 4. Boards Mississippi greater State Bd. up evidence" standard. These numbers add number 1. Wilson, (Miss.1993); fifty. explanation for this number Nursing than that 624 So.2d many Examiners, have than one medical states more Wyoming State Bd. Med. Devous instance, many separate For have review board. review boards for medical 1993); Wright, (Wyoming p.2d 408 Davis doctors and osteo- (1993); Ettinger N.W.2d 814 243 Neb. pathic doctors. Assurance, Quality Cal. v. Board Med. Cal.Rptr. (Ct.App.1982). App.3d only My research located four states “preponderance have struck down particularly enlightening. permits Three to do what the constitution it to do— cases are Gandhi, supra, well-being In the Wisconsin Medical enact laws for the of its citizens. preponderance ‍​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍adopted they of the evi- are Unless the laws unconstitutional Gandhi, physician, argued upheld. Although dence standard. should ar- be there is an that the standard was violative of his consti- gument profession that medical would be guarantees equal tutional to due higher proof, better served burden of protection. urged that He the nature of only requiring preponderance the statute interest —his license—warranted upheld, the evidence was as was not consti- greater protection than the tutionally Id. at 12. infirm. provided. the evidence standard He also Grimm, In Petition N.H. argued standard, using a lesser when (1993), Hampshire A.2d 456 the New Su- attorneys may only disciplined be upon preme Court addressed the issue of which evidence, showing by clear should used a license equal rights protection. violated his involving psychologist. revocation a licensed disagreed. Relying The Wisconsin court The court held “the state is to treat free three-part by on test the used the United professions differently according to the needs Court, Supreme weighed States the court the each, public particulаrly to in relation of interests of and the individual the state. The where, here, regulations being com- individual’s was substantial interest and the pared by separate have been created branch- potential deprivation professional mine) government_” es (emphasis Al- of great consequence. deprivation is This though attorney license revocation in New tempered by

was fact that once revoked Hampshire required clear evi- granted may again upon a license be a show- dence, public interest that a revoca- competent that is to the individual and fit tion a psychologist of a license of a be held to practice medicine. proof. attorney lower standard of Unlike an The state’s interest was also substantial. professional generally whose behavior is strong The state has a interest as courtroom, well as an display in a opposing front of obligation health, protect safety counsel, trail, by paper or well-documented welfare of wrongdоing its citizens. The aof professional medical/psychological general- physician can threaten life itself. The court ly practice private conducts his or her with obligation believed that “the of the is state Thus, no patient. other but the witnesses superior privilege any to the individual quantity be less available practice profession.” her Id. at 299. dealing when with medical private physician “The prac- interest attorney. than with an right: tice medicine is not a it privilege.” is a case, present In adopted Id. at 300. preponderance the evidence standard. factor, As for the third the court looked reasoning Supreme Under the Court reviewing panel in a medical licensure Eldridge in Mathews v. and majority panel, being revocation. The also the fact jurisdictions, our sister this standard is con- finders, mostly physicians. consisted Thus stitutionally permissible. Johnson’s interest they experienced are par- trained and dentistry substantial, in practicing is but so profession. ticular This minimized the risk is safeguarding the interest the statе in Furthermore, of error. the Wisconsin stat- the health of its citizens. The review board provided utes safeguards for a doctor faced dentists, up practicing is made disciplinary with proceedings. The Wiscon- govern by requiring seen fit to its own only a sin court that due concluded was not preponderance By adopting the evidence. offended use standard, this implicit the Board made an the evidence standard. determination the risk of error should arguments,

In re Polk similar equally addressed both borne the dentist and the through reasoning, public. similar Disciplinary Involving New Jer- Matter sey Walton, (Alaska 1983) Court the same reached results. Polk pointed legislature (attorney disciplined out that the must by preponder- be left could be relationship a rational between ble if there is since there were sub- of the evidence anee and the risk disparity legiti on both sides of treatment and some interests stantial borne). equally Id.; should be governmental purpose. Nordling mate Hahn, 1, 8-10, er v. result, different majority reaches a The 2331, 120 L.Ed.2d factor —risk оf mainly relying on this third majority that risk of asserts error. relationship There is a rational between here, investiga- great, where as error is treatment of dentists the difference But the competitor of Johnson. tor was a First, foremost, gov attorneys. that it error to opinion goes on to hold erning bodies of each have chosen different investigate. competitor to Thus the permit a The Board of Governors chose standards. away any concern majority opinion does with stan “preponderance of the evidence” investigator. because of the Court, Supreme dard. The Oklahoma my opinion of error should be In the risk governing body for the Bar Asso Oklahoma reviews equally allotted. The Board which ciation, chose to utilize the “clear and con up is made of den- the licenses of dentists states, vincing” standard. As noted other integri- seeking to maintain the tists. While requirement there is no constitutional also in ty profession, its members are of their attorney higher utilized for this standard be dentist who position empathize with the See, discipline. e.g., Disciplinary Matter In protection public disciplined. (Alaska 1983) Walton, volving 676 P.2d 1078 important. The proceedings equally these (using part balancing test of Math the three in- recognized public’s both the Board itself ews, only “preponderance of the evidence” adopting and the dentist’s interest terest discipline attorney); of the evidence standard. McIn majority opinion downplays the interest State, The (Tx.Ct.Civ.App nis v. 618 S.W.2d 389 seeking dental treatment. .981) of the individual (attorney by “preponder disciplined standard). As the ance the evidence” requirement that There is no constitutional out, pointed Superior Court Connecticut professions governed all be licensees of many jurisdictions adopted the “clear and norms, and as stated Heller identical attorneys convincing” because it Doe, 312, -, (1993), suggested by American Bar Associa “states are not re was 125 L.Ed.2d above, However, of the correct quired to convince the courts the Federa tion. as noted judgments.”3 I fear legislativе of their ness Boards recommended tion for State Medical today impermissibly substitut the Court be “preponderance of the evidence” Board. judgment its for that of the ed used. majority opinion seems concerned that for the distinction A second rational basis attorney standard is used for a different generally acknowledged differences is the discipline. implies It that this run afoul profes type of interest affected First, I Equal Protection Clause. note of the professionals have sions. Licensed medical protection analysis begins with a equal on the health impact and immediate direct of whether a fundamental determination well-being patients. Whereas attor suspect is involved. Here we right or a class neys frequently opportunity have the Practicing profes a licensed have neither. having writings pleadings amend or other right. privilege, not an sion is a absolute many proce legal import, great medical Gandhi, Sherman, 601; 407 A.2d at accomplished. are irreversible once dures at classification neither “[A] N.W.2d 300. Swiller, supra. A different standard involving rights proceeding nor fundamental clearly supported under the rational basis strong pre along suspect accorded a lines is Equal test, contrary to the and does not run Heller, at -, sumption validity.” permissi Protection Clause. The classification is

S.Ct. at 2642. Co., Creamery Quoting Minnesota v. Clover Leaf 449 U.S. 456. 464. 101 S.Ct. 715. 724.

Finally, point far-reaching I out the ramifi

cations of this decision. this in While case dentist, holding

volves a presumably its will beyond profession

extend the dental to other professions in cursory

licensed Oklahoma. A

examination of Oklahoma law shows that at thirty-seven professions, ranging

least foresters,

plumbers, electricians and barbers embalmers, physical therapists could implicated. eight At least of these have

adopted the Oklahoma Administrative Proce interpreted similarly Act. If

dures to the Act,

Federal Administrative Procedures our requires only “preponderance

OAPA

evidence” for a license revocation. See

Steadman, 102, 101 S.Ct. at 1008. OAPA, validity § 75 O.S.1991 likely

will question.4 thus be called into contemplation

While far-reaching of these

consequences holding will not ‍​​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‍deter us from unconstitutional,

a statute I find no constitu necessity

tional to override the Dental

Board’s choice of standards. PENNINGTON, Appellant,

Michael L. Oklahoma, Appellee.

STATE of

No. F-93-968. Appeals

Court of Criminal of Oklahoma.

Dec. 1995.

Rehearing 26, 1996. April Denied presently legislation pending There is which legislation, the holders of licenses. This expressly require only OAPA, would presumably clarifies our would disciplinary proceedings evidence for involv- majority opinion. unconstitutional under the

Case Details

Case Name: Johnson v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: May 2, 1996

Citation: 913 P.2d 1339

Docket Number: 82371

Court Abbreviation: Okla.