Boehm v. North Carolina Bd. of Podiatry Examiners
| Decision Date | 05 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 7810SC791,7810SC791 |
| Citation | 41 N.C.App. 567,255 S.E.2d 328 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Dr. Donald P. BOEHM, Petitioner, v. NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF PODIATRY EXAMINERS, Respondent. |
Farris, Thomas & Farris by Robert A. Farris and Robert A. Farris, Jr., Wilson, for petitioner-appellant.
Broughton, Wilkins, Ross & Crampton by J. Melville Broughton, Jr. and William G. Ross, Jr., Raleigh, for respondent-appellee.
Petitioner argues two assignments of error, first, the court erred in overruling his plea in bar, and second, the court erred in the entry of the judgment affirming the order of the Board.
In reviewing the Board's order, the proceedings were conducted by the judge without a jury, upon the record made before the Board, and the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. N.C.Gen.Stat. 150A-50. The legislature has adopted the "whole record" test for application by the court in reviewing the Board's order. N.C.Gen.Stat. 150A-51(5). This requires the Board's judgment to be affirmed if upon consideration of the whole record as submitted, the facts found by the Board are supported by competent, material and substantial evidence, taking into account any contradictory evidence, or evidence from which conflicting inferences could be drawn. Thompson v. Board of Education, 292 N.C. 406, 233 S.E.2d 538 (1977). This test is distinguishable from both De novo review and the "any competent evidence" standard of review. Under the "whole record" test the reviewing court cannot replace the Board's judgment between two reasonably conflicting views, even though the court could have reached a different conclusion had the matter been before it De novo. "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Comr. of Insurance v. Rating Bureau, 292 N.C. 70, 80, 231 S.E.2d 882, 888 (1977).
The record on appeal indicates that petitioner produced five witnesses, including himself, and respondent Board produced four witnesses. However, the record on appeal does not contain the substance of what the witnesses testified, except as stated in the findings of fact by the Board. The appellant has failed to bring forward into the record on appeal the evidence before the Board, therefore, all the findings of fact made by the Board are deemed supported by material, competent and substantial evidence. Utilities Comm. v. Electric Membership Corp., 276 N.C. 108, 171 S.E.2d 406 (1970); Davis v. Davis, 11 N.C.App. 115, 180 S.E.2d 374 (1971).
We hold the findings of fact by the Board are supported by competent, material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record, and they are conclusive upon appeal. In re Berman, 245 N.C. 612, 97 S.E.2d 232 (1957); In re Hawkins, 17 N.C.App. 378, 194 S.E.2d 540, Cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1001, 94 S.Ct. 355, 38 L.Ed.2d 237 (1973).
Petitioner contends his plea in bar should have been sustained because the Board applied N.C.G.S. 90-202.8 to the acts in question when it was not effective until 1 July 1975. This statute authorizes the Board to suspend a license to practice podiatry and invoke such probation terms as it deems fit and proper where the Board is satisfied the practitioner has "obtained or collected or attempted to obtain or collect any fee through fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit." N.C.Gen.Stat. 90-202.8(a)(11).
The statute in effect during 1974 to July 1975, N.C.G.S. 90-197, did not contain this specific provision. This statute sets out four grounds for revocation of a certificate to practice podiatry, and also authorizes the Board to Suspend such certificate for not more than six months on account of misconduct which would not, in the judgment of the Board, justify revocation of the certificate.
Petitioner contends that by the enactment of N.C.G.S. 90-202.8, the legislature repealed N.C.G.S. 90-197 and therefore, he cannot be held accountable for acts committed prior to the effective date of N.C.G.S. 90-202.8. We so not agree. Chapter 672 of the Session Laws of 1975 is entitled, "An Act to Rewrite Article 12 of Chapter 90 of the General Statutes Concerning Licensure of Podiatrists." The act proceeds to state, "Chapter 90, Article 12 of the General Statutes is hereby rewritten as follows." The new statute is thereafter set forth. The act does not contain any provision repealing N.C.G.S. 90-197...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Carolina State Bar v. DuMont
...a conclusion." Comr. of Insurance v. Rating Bureau, 292 N.C. 70, 80, 231 S.E.2d 882, 888 (1977). Boehm v. Board of Podiatry Examiners, 41 N.C.App. 567, 568-69, 255 S.E.2d 328, 330, cert. denied, 298 N.C. 294, 259 S.E.2d 298 (1979). As the findings of fact by the Commission are supported by ......
-
Watkins v. NORTH CAROLINA DENTAL BD.
...(citing Thompson v. Wake Cty. Bd. of Educ., 292 N.C. 406, 410, 233 S.E.2d 538, 541 (1977)); Boehm v. North Carolina Bd. of Podiatry Exam'rs, 41 N.C.App. 567, 569, 255 S.E.2d 328, 330 (1979), cert. denied, 298 N.C. 294, 259 S.E.2d 298 (1979). Rather, a court must examine all the record evide......
-
North Carolina Dept. of Justice v. Eaker
...material, and substantial evidence in support of the finding, the finding is deemed conclusive on appeal. Boehm v. Board of Podiatry Examiners, 41 N.C.App. 567, 255 S.E.2d 328, cert. denied, 298 N.C. 294, 259 S.E.2d 298 (1979). We find, from the whole record, that the trial court erred and ......
-
North Carolina State Bar v. Culbertson, COA05-1076.
...views of the evidence." N.C. State Bar v. Frazier, 62 N.C.App. 172, 178, 302 S.E.2d 648, 652 (1983) (citing Boehm v. Board of Podiatry Examiners, 41 N.C.App. 567, 255 S.E.2d 328, cert. denied, 298 N.C. 294, 259 S.E.2d 298 (1979)). We review questions of law de novo. Harris v. Ray Johnson Co......