Board of Dental Examiners v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 29 January 1976
• Citation: 55 Cal.App.3d 811,127 Cal.Rptr. 865
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS of the State of California, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Respondent; David Howard KORB, D.D.S., Real Party in Interest. Civ. 15452.

Page 865

127 Cal.Rptr. 865

55 Cal.App.3d 811

BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS of the State of California, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Respondent David Howard KORB, D.D.S., Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 15452.

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Jan. 29, 1976.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen. by Charlene Grogan-Beal, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for petitioner.

Joe S. Gray, Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt & Gray, Sacramento, Friedman & Cone, Beverly Hills, for real party in interest.

FRIEDMAN, Associate Justice.

The Sacramento Superior Court acted in excess of jurisdiction in granting to Dr. David Korb (real party in interest) the right to take the depositions of two members of the Board of Dental Examiners; in ordering a third board member to answer questions previously put to him at his deposition; in imposing sanctions upon the board in the amount of $500 in addition to costs totalling $548.70. A writ of prohibition will issue.

Following an administrative hearing the Board of Dental Examiners found Dr. Korb guilty of unprofessional conduct, gross ignorance, and inefficiency in his profession, and ordered revocation of his dental license. After the board's denial of his petition for reconsideration, Dr. Korb filed a petition for writ of mandate under section 1094.5, Code of Civil Procedure.

Counsel for Dr. Korb then gave notice of taking depositions by oral examination of the administrative hearing officer and of two members of the Board of Dental Examiners. Upon the board's motion, the trial court quashed these notices. Dr. Korb then filed an amended petition for mandate, adding a new allegation on information and belief that the board 'took and considered evidence outside the administrative record and after the administrative hearing in reachings (sic) its findings of fact and its decision.' The amended petition did not reveal the source or basis of this information and belief.

The board filed an answer denying this and other allegations. Dr. Korb then served subpoenas calling for the attendance of the board members at the hearing of his petition for mandate. Although several board members filed affidavits denying that they had considered evidence outside the administrative record, the trial court denied the board's motion to quash. Eventually the court issued the discovery-enforcement orders assailed in the board's petition for prohibition.

In reviewing revocation of a license by a state agency the court renders its independent judgment on the basis of the administrative record plus such additional evidence as may be admitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (d). (State of California v. Superior Court (Robins), 16 Cal.App.3d 87, 94, 93 Cal.Rptr. 663.)

The evidence demanded by the superior court was inadmissible. It was not the function of the superior court to inquire into the evidence examined and relied upon by the board members or to inquire into the reasoning processes underlying their decision. (City of Fairfield v. Superior Court, 14 Cal.3d 768, 777, 122 Cal.Rptr. 543, 537 P.2d 375.) The trial court exceeded...