Ala. Bd. of Examiners in Psychology v. Hamilton

Citation150 So.3d 1085
Decision Date27 September 2013
Docket Number2120032.
PartiesALABAMA BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN PSYCHOLOGY v. C. Fletcher HAMILTON, PhD.
CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals

Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Matthew Y. Beam of Beam Law Firm, LLC, Birmingham, for appellant.

Glen David King, Auburn, for appellee.

Alice M. Henley, deputy atty. gen. and gen. counsel, and Patrick Samuelson, asst. atty. gen. and asst. gen. counsel, Alabama Board of Nursing; Ellen Leonard, asst. atty. gen., Alabama Board of Social Work Examiners; and Susan Franklin Wilhelm, deputy atty. gen., Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama; for amici curiae Alabama Board of Nursing, Alabama Board of Social Work Examiners, and Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama, in support of the appellant.

Opinion

DONALDSON, Judge.

The Alabama Board of Examiners in Psychology (“the Board”) appeals a judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court (“the circuit court) dated September 6, 2012, in which the circuit court reversed a decision of the Board to sanction Dr. C. Fletcher Hamilton, a licensed psychologist in Jefferson County, for entering into a sexual relationship with a patient in 1982, in violation of §§ 34–26–3 and 34–26–46, Ala.Code 1975. The circuit court “reversed and set aside” the Board's decision, citing the rule of repose and the doctrine of laches as grounds, and remanded the action to the Board. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the circuit court's judgment, and we render judgment in favor of the Board.

Factual Background and Procedural History

In October 2010, L.M.1 filed a complaint with the Board alleging that between 1982 and 1994 Hamilton had engaged in an inappropriate romantic relationship with her while simultaneously providing her therapeutic psychological treatment. On January 26, 2011, the Board filed a formal administrative complaint against Hamilton alleging that he had violated §§ 34–26–3 and 34–26–46, Ala.Code 1975, by engaging in sexual contact with L.M., a patient. As a part of his defense in the administrative proceeding conducted before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) pursuant to the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act (“AAPA”), § 41–22–1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, Hamilton asserted the doctrine of laches in his answer to the Board's complaint and the rule of repose in a motion for a summary judgment. Both defenses were rejected by the ALJ prior to the commencement of the administrative hearing.

At the administrative hearing held on May 25 and 26, 2011, the ALJ received testimony from various witnesses, including L.M. and Hamilton. The record reveals that L.M. sought psychological treatment from Hamilton in April 1982 for myriad issues and that physical contact between Hamilton and L.M. commenced during the first few sessions. L.M. and Hamilton exchanged cards, letters, and pictures at various times between 1982 and 1994. L.M. also kept a calendar in 1982 of all of her activities, in which she detailed her professional and personal interactions with Hamilton. The correspondence and the calendar were admitted into evidence at the hearing.

Testimony indicates that most of Hamilton's professional records concerning his treatment of L.M. between April and June 1982 had been destroyed in the regular course of business in February 2010. However, the record reveals that Hamilton's office retained the “face sheets,” or patient-intake forms, completed during that period. On the bottom of the intake form L.M. completed in April 1982, which was admitted into evidence at the administrative hearing, a handwritten notation had been made to indicate that Hamilton last saw L.M. as a patient on or around June 18, 1982.

On September 2, 2011, the ALJ rendered detailed written findings and recommendations. The ALJ found that the relationship between L.M. and Hamilton had become romantic after June 18, 1982, the date Hamilton last billed L.M. as a patient. The ALJ also found that Hamilton, despite the discontinuation of billing for his services, continued to provide L.M. with therapeutic advice through September 1982 on matters for which she had initially sought psychological treatment. The ALJ ultimately concluded that “the greater weight of the evidence establishe[d] that some sexual physical contact occurred during the course of the therapeutic relationship in 1982 and that the coexisting therapeutic and romantic relationships ended sometime in September 1982. The ALJ determined that “the preponderance of the evidence demonstrate[d] that Hamilton crossed the ethical professional boundaries regarding sexual intimacies with a client during the summer and early fall of 1982.” The ALJ found, however, that the evidence was insufficient to establish that either a romantic or a therapeutic relationship existed beyond 1982, stating that L.M.'s “account of those events is not corroborated by any other credible source. In fact, her accounts were contradicted by the evidence, particularly her own letters to Hamilton. Therefore, ... the evidence failed to demonstrate that Hamilton violated the Professional Ethical Standards of Care from October 1982 through June 1994.”

The ALJ ultimately determined that Hamilton had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with L.M. in violation of §§ 34–26–3 and 34–26–46, Ala.Code 1975, during the period beginning in June 1982 and ending in September 1982, and recommended that the Board impose sanctions against Hamilton, including placing him on probationary status for a six-month period and temporarily suspending his license, conditioned on his reimbursement to the Board of one-half the Board's expenses associated with prosecuting the administrative action. On September 22, 2011, the Board issued a final order accepting the ALJ's findings and implementing, in part, the ALJ's recommendations of sanctions. The Board imposed additional sanctions beyond those recommended by the ALJ, including placing Hamilton on probationary status for a one-year period; temporarily suspending his license, conditioned not only on his reimbursement to the Board of one-half the expenses associated with prosecuting the administrative action, but also on his seeking treatment with a therapist approved by the Board; placing restrictions on his accepting any new female clients until he had completed therapy and received the Board's approval; and requiring him to notify all of his existing clients of the administrative action.

On September 26, 2011, Hamilton filed a notice of appeal with the Board pursuant to § 41–22–20, Ala.Code 1975, in order to appeal the Board's decision to the circuit court. Hamilton filed a petition for judicial review in the circuit court on September 27, 2011. He also filed in the circuit court a petition for a temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction or to stay imposition of the Board's sanctions.

On October 19, 2011, the circuit court granted the motion to stay and enjoined enforcement of the Board's order. On November 8, 2011, Hamilton filed a motion in the circuit court requesting that the order of the Board be reversed and vacated. Hamilton based his motion, in part, on the assertion that the Board's action was barred by the rule of repose. The circuit court subsequently held a hearing on the appeal, but no additional testimony was taken. On September 6, 2012, the circuit court entered a judgment reversing the Board's final order, holding in pertinent part:

“To impose sanctions based on alleged acts that occurred more than 28 years ago is barred by the rule of repose and/or the doctrine of [laches]....
“Based upon the foregoing, the decision of the Board is reversed and set aside. This case is REMANDED to the Alabama Board of Examiners in Psychology.”

The circuit court cited the following cases in support of its judgment: Ex parte Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 825 So.2d 758 (Ala.2002) ; Ex parte Grubbs, 542 So.2d 927 (Ala.1989) ; Christ Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Human Rights Comm'n, 271 Ill.App.3d 133, 648 N.E.2d 201, 207 Ill.Dec. 745 (1995) ; Mank v. Board of Fire & Police Comm'rs, Granite City, 7 Ill.App.3d 478, 288 N.E.2d 49 (1972) ; and Appeal of Plantier, 126 N.H. 500, 494 A.2d 270 (1985).

The Board filed an appeal to this court on October 4, 2012. On appeal, the Board asserts (1) that Hamilton did not properly raise the defense of laches before the circuit court; (2) that, although the doctrine of laches applies to proceedings under the AAPA, it is not applicable in the present case; and (3) that the rule of repose is not applicable to administrative actions commenced by the State of Alabama. This court granted the motion of the Alabama Board of Nursing, the Alabama Board of Social Work Examiners, and the Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama to file briefs as amici curiae. Oral arguments of the parties and of the amici curiae were heard on August 15, 2013.

Standard of Review
“Our standard of review mirrors that of the circuit court:
“Judicial review of an agency's administrative decision is limited to determining whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence, whether the agency's actions were reasonable, and whether its actions were within its statutory and constitutional powers. Judicial review is also limited by the presumption of correctness which attaches to a decision by an administrative agency.”
Ex parte Alabama Bd. of Nursing, 835 So.2d 1010, 1012 (Ala.2001) (quoting Alabama Medicaid Agency v. Peoples, 549 So.2d 504, 506 (Ala.Civ.App.1989) ).”

Alabama Bd. of Nursing v. Williams, 941 So.2d 990, 995 (Ala.Civ.App.2005). Section 34–26–48, Ala.Code 1975, provides, in part:

“Any action of, or ruling or order made or entered by the [B]oard ... recommending suspension or revocation of a certificate or license shall be subject to review by the courts of this state in the same manner and subject to the same powers and conditions as now provided by law in regard to rulings, orders, and findings of other quasi-judicial bodies in Alabama, where not otherwise specifically provided.”

Judicial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Hines v. Regions Bank
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • February 15, 2018
    ...and other circumstances causing disadvantage or prejudice to the adverse party, operates as a bar." Ala. Bd. of Exam'rs in Psychology v. Hamilton, 150 So. 3d 1085, 1092 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) (quoting Ex Parte Grubbs, 542 So. 2d 927, 928-29 (Ala. 1989)). "[T]he person asserting the defense o......
  • Huntsville City Bd. of Educ. v. Jacobs
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • December 19, 2014
    ...and demeanor of live witnesses” and to make a determination regarding their credibility. See Alabama Bd. of Exam'rs in Psychology v. Hamilton, 150 So.3d 1085, 1088 (Ala.Civ.App.2013) (stating that, in an appeal of an agency decision under the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act, codified a......
  • Ala. State Pers. Bd. v. Palmore
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • August 3, 2018
    ......2d 407, 416–17 (Ala. 2004) ))."277 So.3d 985 Alabama Bd. of Exam'rs in Psychology v. Hamilton, 150 So. 3d 1085, 1094 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). The ALJ implicitly found that Palmore's ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT