Board of Medical Practice v. Perry-Hooker, PERRY-HOOKE

Docket NºNo. 366-79
Citation139 Vt. 264, 427 A.2d 1334
Case DateFebruary 03, 1981
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Vermont

Page 1334

427 A.2d 1334
139 Vt. 264
BOARD OF MEDICAL PRACTICE of the State of Vermont
v.
John H. PERRY-HOOKER, M. D.
No. 366-79.
Supreme Court of Vermont.
Feb. 3, 1981.

Page 1335

[139 Vt. 266] Miller, Norton & Cleary, Rutland (John Paul Faignant, Rutland, on the brief), for plaintiff.

John A. Burgess, Montpelier, for defendant.

Before [139 Vt. 264] BARNEY, C. J., LARROW, BILLINGS and HILL, JJ., and SHANGRAW, C. J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.

[139 Vt. 266] BILLINGS, Justice.

In 1974 the appellant, a psychiatrist, was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts of several violations of federal drug laws. This conviction was affirmed on appeal. The Vermont Board of Medical Practice (Board) then conducted an unprofessional conduct hearing in accordance with 26 V.S.A. chapter 23. Certified copies of the appellant's conviction and the affirmance on appeal were introduced. The appellant sought to introduce evidence that his conviction resulted from entrapment by government agents, that the government's principal witness against him had later been convicted of perjury, and that there was a conflict of interest involving that witness and the defense counsel. The Board did not permit the introduction of this evidence. The Board found the appellant guilty of unprofessional conduct and ordered that his license to practice medicine in the state of Vermont be revoked.

The appellant then sought a de novo hearing in the Orange Superior Court in accordance with 26 V.S.A. § 1363, and demanded a jury trial under 26 V.S.A. § 1363(c). The appellant again sought to introduce evidence of entrapment, perjury and conflict of interest. The court refused to allow the introduction of this evidence. The only evidence admitted at this trial was the certified copies of the appellant's conviction in federal court, the affirmance of that conviction on appeal, and an order of the New Hampshire Board of Registration in Medicine suspending the appellant's license to practice in that state. On a motion by the Board, the court directed a verdict against the appellant and affirmed the Board's order revoking the appellant's license to practice medicine in Vermont. The appellant now seeks review of that decision.

[139 Vt. 267] The appellant first argues that the court erred in directing a verdict against him. On the Board's motion for a directed verdict the trial court was required to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellant, resolving all conflicts against the Board. South Burlington School District v. Calcagni-Frazier-Zajchowski Architects, Inc., 138 Vt. 33, 40, 410 A.2d 1359, 1362 (1980); Johnson v. Hoisington, 134 Vt. 544, 546, 367 A.2d 680, 682 (1976). If there was any evidence reasonably tending to support a verdict against the Board, the matter should have gone to the jury and the directed verdict was improper. Condosta v. Condosta, 137 Vt. 35, 38, 401 A.2d 897, 899 (1979).

In this case the trial court was correct in directing a verdict on the issue of unprofessional conduct. Under 26 V.S.A. § 1354(3), conviction of a crime arising out of the practice of medicine is unprofessional conduct, and under 26 V.S.A. § 1354(23) the revocation of a physician's license in another state on any of the grounds specified in § 1354 is unprofessional conduct. The court admitted into evidence without objection certified copies of the appellant's conviction for violations of federal drug laws, the order affirming the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • State v. Gardner, No. 376-79
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 7 avril 1981
    ...court to exercise its discretion when properly called upon to do so is an abuse of discretion. Board of Medical Practice v. Perry-Hooker, 139 Vt. 264, 427 A.2d 1334 (1981); State v. Ahearn, 137 Vt. 253, 267, 403 A.2d 696, 705 (1979). This case must be remanded for a new hearing on the defen......
  • Richelson v. Richelson, No. 86-525
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • 7 décembre 1987
    ...discretion with respect to admissibility of evidence of defendant's prior convictions); Board of Medical Practice v. Perry-Hooker, M.D., 139 Vt. 264, 268, 427 A.2d 1334, 1336 (1981) (failure of superior court to exercise discretion with respect to appropriate sanction upon finding of unprof......
  • Maple Tree Place, In re, No. 90-354
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 17 mai 1991
    ...state board of medical practice in physician license revocation or suspension cases); see also Board of Medical Practice v. Perry-Hooker, 139 Vt. 264, 268, 427 A.2d 1334, 1336 (1981). Thus, the Legislature did not see the fatal inconsistency the Town relies upon. Second, although we have he......
  • Devers-Scott v. Office of Professional Regulation, No. 05-481.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 12 janvier 2007
    ..."has discretion to impose an appropriate sanction if there is a showing of unprofessional conduct." Bd. of Med. Practice v. Perry-Hooker, 139 Vt. 264, 269, 427 A.2d 1334, 1336 (1981). We have also stated that we "will not interfere with the decision of an administrative board made in the pe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • State v. Gardner, No. 376-79
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 7 avril 1981
    ...court to exercise its discretion when properly called upon to do so is an abuse of discretion. Board of Medical Practice v. Perry-Hooker, 139 Vt. 264, 427 A.2d 1334 (1981); State v. Ahearn, 137 Vt. 253, 267, 403 A.2d 696, 705 (1979). This case must be remanded for a new hearing on the defen......
  • Richelson v. Richelson, No. 86-525
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Hampshire
    • 7 décembre 1987
    ...discretion with respect to admissibility of evidence of defendant's prior convictions); Board of Medical Practice v. Perry-Hooker, M.D., 139 Vt. 264, 268, 427 A.2d 1334, 1336 (1981) (failure of superior court to exercise discretion with respect to appropriate sanction upon finding of unprof......
  • Maple Tree Place, In re, No. 90-354
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 17 mai 1991
    ...state board of medical practice in physician license revocation or suspension cases); see also Board of Medical Practice v. Perry-Hooker, 139 Vt. 264, 268, 427 A.2d 1334, 1336 (1981). Thus, the Legislature did not see the fatal inconsistency the Town relies upon. Second, although we have he......
  • Devers-Scott v. Office of Professional Regulation, No. 05-481.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 12 janvier 2007
    ..."has discretion to impose an appropriate sanction if there is a showing of unprofessional conduct." Bd. of Med. Practice v. Perry-Hooker, 139 Vt. 264, 269, 427 A.2d 1334, 1336 (1981). We have also stated that we "will not interfere with the decision of an administrative board made in the pe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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