Aurelio v. Rhode Island Dept. of Admin., D.M.V., C.A. No. 96-534L.

• Decision Date: 13 November 1997
• Docket Number: C.A. No. 96-534L.
• Citation: 985 F.Supp. 48
• Parties: Robert AURELIO, Plaintiff, v. RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, and Thomas Harrington, in his official capacity as Administrator for the Division of Motor Vehicles, Defendants.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

985 F.Supp. 48

Robert AURELIO, Plaintiff, v. RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, and Thomas Harrington, in his official capacity as Administrator for the Division of Motor Vehicles, Defendants.

C.A. No. 96-534L.

United States District Court, D. Rhode Island.

November 13, 1997.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Karen B. Rosenberg, Anne M. Mulready, RI Protection and Advocacy System, Inc., Providence, RI, for Plaintiff.

Thomas A. Palombo, Attorney General's Office, Providence, RI, Priscila A. Pappadia, RI Administrative Adjudication Court Division of Motor Vehicles, Providence, RI, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LAGUEUX, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At issue is whether or not the Division of Motor Vehicles in the Department of Administration of the State of Rhode Island (hereafter referred to as the "DMV") and its Administrator, Thomas Harrington¹ (together referred to as "defendants") violated the rights of plaintiff, Robert Aurelio (hereafter referred to as "plaintiff" or "Aurelio") in connection with the suspension of his commercial and automobile driver's licenses.

In his multi-count complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants discriminated against him because of his prior history of substance addiction and current psychiatric condition in deciding to suspend his licenses. Specifically, he alleges in Count I that defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereafter "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (1990). In Count II, plaintiff claims a violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (" § 504"), 29 U.S.C. § 794. In Counts III and IV he alleges that the actions of defendants deprived him of his procedural due process rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, made actionable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (" § 1983"). The complaint contains additional counts making claims for relief under Rhode Island statutes and Constitution, but those are not at issue at the present time. Plaintiff has moved for partial summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 only on Counts I, II, III and IV.

I. Background

In considering this motion, the Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, here defendants. Viewed in that manner, the facts in this case are as follows:

Plaintiff received a commercial driver's license from the DMV in April 1995. At that time, he also held an automobile driver's license which had been originally issued to him by the DMV some 30 years before. In July of 1995, he applied for a School Bus Operator's Certificate, but in the application he failed to disclose information regarding the following questions:

— Have you ever been hospitalized or treated for any reason or are you on any medication?

— Have you ever been treated for any drug or alcohol-related problem?

— Have you ever been arrested for any drug or alcohol-related offense?

— Have you ever been convicted before any court for any offense?

Plaintiff, in fact, had been convicted of at least two felonies and a number of misdemeanors in the 1960's and 70's and had had a substance abuse problem back then.

In reviewing the application, Michael Vispo of the DMV School Bus Safety section, secured a copy of plaintiff's Bureau of Criminal Identification record and noted his prior convictions, and also learned that he had formerly been a substance abuser. Vispo thus determined that "he had inaccurately and incompletely answered the application questions." Vispo then met with Aurelio who "appeared shifty, incredible and psychologically unstable." In addition, Aurelio related to Vispo an "outlandish story that he was a Presidential bodyguard and his BCI record was due to his covert operations while he was in active military duty and now as a Presidential bodyguard."

On August 7, 1995, Aurelio's application for a School Bus Operator's Certificate was denied for the following reasons:

1. Conviction of a felony;

2. The application [he] submitted contain[ed] inaccurate and incomplete information;

3. Information obtained during the course of the application process brings into question [his] fitness and competency to transport school children; and

4. The certificate would be inimical to the public health, safety and welfare of children.

Plaintiff chose not to appeal the denial of his application for a School Bus Operator's Certificate, but the circumstances surrounding the application triggered a referral to the DMV Operator Control section. On August 15, 1995, the DMV sent Aurelio an Official Notice requiring that he appear for a hearing that would consist of a reexamination road test.

On August 18, 1995, plaintiff appeared and met with Court Review Officer Cheryl DiOrio² who observed Aurelio to be "irrational ... unstable psychologically ... [and] distracted." Further, he told DiOrio "that he was and had been a high level spy for the government since his military services in Vietnam and that the government had destroyed all records of this and therefore, on paper he was a mere soldier." Based upon the documents before her, as well as the interview and her observations, DiOrio did not administer a reexamination road test but rather issued medical forms to Aurelio to be completed by a psychiatrist and returned to the DMV. He was also told that at a later, unspecified date, the Medical Advisory Board³ within the DMV would meet to review the information he provided. Aurelio then submitted to a psychiatric evaluation with Gregg M. Etter, M.D., Staff Psychiatrist, East Bay Mental Health Center, Inc. Dr. Etter conducted a psychiatric examination of Aurelio and reported his findings to the DMV's Medical Advisory Board in a writing dated August 31, 1995. Although Dr. Etter's evaluation stated that plaintiff's condition would not

inhibit or preclude him from driving a motor vehicle, . . . he would need to be evaluated more fully to determine the extent of his psychiatric symptomology. Additionally, collateral information sources would be helpful in clarifying his past history as he is not especially forthcoming. If an underlying psychosis were confirmed, antipsychotic medication would be indicated. (emphasis added).

When the Board met on October 11, 1995, plaintiff was not permitted to attend. The Board reviewed DiOrio's comments and Dr. Etter's psychiatric evaluation and then recommended to the DMV, without giving reasons, that Aurelio's commercial and automobile driver's licenses be suspended, subject to further review on or after October, 1996. On October 13, 1995, DiOrio wrote to plaintiff that it had been decided that his driving "privilege be disapproved" with a recommended review on or after October, 1996, if he provided an up-to-date psychiatric evaluation. Aurelio's driver's licenses were then officially suspended by the DMV for reasons of "physical fitness" by a Notice of Action dated October 18, 1995.

Aurelio's request for a post-suspension hearing was granted but that hearing consisted only of a meeting with a second Court Review Officer, Phil Lagoy, on December 27, 1995. Lagoy recommended that since no new medical evidence was submitted, the Board's decision should be upheld. On January 24, 1996, the Board adopted that view and restated its recommendation for suspension of both licenses with a review of eligibility to be conducted on or after October 1996. By letter dated January 25, 1996, the DMV issued a decision that plaintiff's driving "privileges" were "disapproved," with review on or after October 1996, and he was informed of the right to judicial review.

Aurelio appealed the DMV's decision to the Administrative Adjudication Court (AAC). His appeal was denied on March 19, 1996 without explanation by a single judge of that body. He then appealed to the Appeals Panel of the ACC (consisting of three judges). His appeal to the AAC Appeals panel was denied on May 6, 1996 without elaboration. However, in an undated opinion written later, the AAC Appeals Panel reversed itself by stating

The appellant did receive notice that the DMV's Medical Board would review appellant's record to ascertain whether appellant was eligible for his license under § 31-10-3 (letter of August 18, 1995). However, appellant never received specific reasons once the DMV's Medical Board finished its review and recommended suspension of appellant's licenses. This panel need not address appellant's other arguments.

Therefore, upon review of the whole record, including the defendant's basis for appeal and the aforementioned standard of review, the Panel finds that the decision of the administrative judge prejudiced the substantial due process rights of the appellant.

Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the DMV and its Medical Board for further proceedings. The Medical Board shall receive evidence from the appellant and issue written reasons for its recommendation. The Medical Board shall cite to specific evidence which forms the basis for their recommendations, after which the DMV can review and consider.

In the meantime, Aurelio had filed an action in this Court on March 28, 1996 alleging that the suspension of his licenses was discriminatory and unconstitutional. That action was dismissed by stipulation of the parties when it was agreed that a rehearing by the Medical Review Board on the suspension be held.

Accordingly, Aurelio was informed on August 5, 1996 of his right to attend the Board meeting to be held August 21, 1996. He attended that meeting with counsel, presented his views, and had interaction with Board members. The Board then voted to recommend to the DMV that there be reinstatement of Aurelio's operator's license but a continuance of the suspension of his commercial driver's license.

By letter dated August 26, 1996, Aurelio's operator's license was reinstated but his commercial driver's license remained...