Calcaterra v. Iowa Bd. of Med.

• Decision Date: 22 October 2021
• Docket Number: No. 20-1429,20-1429
• Citation: 965 N.W.2d 899
• Parties: Domenico CALCATERRA, Appellee, v. IOWA BOARD OF MEDICINE, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

965 N.W.2d 899

Domenico CALCATERRA, Appellee,

v.IOWA BOARD OF MEDICINE, Appellant.

No. 20-1429

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Submitted September 15, 2021

Filed October 22, 2021

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit (argued), Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

Trent Nelson (argued) and Michael M. Sellers of Sellers Galenbeck & Nelson, Des Moines, for appellee.

Mansfield, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined.

MANSFIELD, Justice.

I. Introduction.

We are asked to review an Iowa Board of Medicine (Board) declaratory order interpreting Iowa Code section 272C.6(4)(a ) (2018). Section 272C.6(4)(a ) provides that "investigative information" gathered in relation to a licensed professional's disciplinary proceeding shall be "privileged and confidential, ... not subject to discovery, subpoena, or other means of legal compulsion for their release to a person other than the licensee and the boards, their employees and agents involved in licensee discipline, and ... not admissible in evidence in a judicial or administrative proceeding other than the proceeding involving licensee discipline." Id. It further provides that "investigative information in the possession of a licensing board or its employees or agents which relates to licensee discipline may be disclosed to appropriate licensing authorities within this state [or] the appropriate licensing authority in another state." Id. Additionally, it provides that "[i]f the investigative information in the possession of a licensing board or its employees or agents indicates a crime has been committed, the information shall be reported to the proper law enforcement agency." Id. Lastly, it states, "However, a final written decision and finding of fact of a licensing board in a disciplinary proceeding ... is a public record."

In its declaratory order, the Board concluded that Iowa Code section 272C.6(4)(a ) allows it to publish statements of charges and press releases containing investigative information. On judicial review, the district court disagreed. In the following opinion, we come to the same conclusion as the district court. We find that the above-quoted provisions mean what they say, and that they tightly circumscribe the Board's ability to disclose investigative information. Public disclosure is not allowed, other than in a "final written decision and finding of fact." Id. Therefore, we affirm the district court's order reversing the Board's declaratory order.

II. Background Facts and Proceedings.

The Iowa Board of Medicine is the state's administrative body responsible for licensing physicians and regulating medical professionals. See Iowa Code § 147.13(1) ; id. § 148.3. As part of this responsibility, the Board investigates alleged rule violations by licensed physicians and, if necessary, conducts disciplinary proceedings. See id. § 148.7. Domenico Calcaterra is a cardiothoracic surgeon who formerly practiced in Iowa City and, at that time, was licensed by the Board. Currently, Dr. Calcaterra practices out of state.

In March 2013, the Board filed a statement of charges against Dr. Calcaterra accusing him of "a pattern of disruptive behavior and/or unethical or unprofessional conduct." The Board's statement of charges included factual allegations relating to a specific incident in November 2010 as well as allegations of prior unprofessional conduct. Around the same time, the Board sent out a press release to its email subscribers that contained much of the same information as its statement of charges.

The Board published both the statement of charges against Dr. Calcaterra and the press release on its website. The Board has publicized its disciplinary actions in this way for several decades. Other licensing boards in Iowa follow a similar practice.

Approximately a year later, in April 2014, the Board's disciplinary action against Dr. Calcaterra terminated when the parties reached a settlement. Under the settlement, Dr. Calcaterra accepted a citation and warning and agreed to pay a $5,000 civil penalty. The Board posted the settlement to its website. It also issued another press release that not only disclosed the settlement but also reiterated the factual allegations against Dr. Calcaterra, although those allegations had not been admitted to or even recited in the settlement.

Several years later, information about the allegations against Dr. Calcaterra remained available on the Board's public website, and Dr. Calcaterra maintained that their presence was adversely impacting his medical career. On September 26, 2018, Dr. Calcaterra filed a petition for declaratory order with the Board. See id. § 17A.9. Therein, he asked the Board to answer the following question: "Does Iowa Code 272C.6(4)(a) prohibit the Board from publicly issuing/publishing statements of charges and issuing/publishing press releases which contain investigative information?" More particularly, he urged the Board to "issue a ruling declaring that all statements of charges and press releases issued and published by the Board are violative of state law and subsequently remove them from the public record and the Iowa Board of Medicine website."

The Board declined to enter any type of declaratory order. Therefore, on December 21, Dr. Calcaterra filed a petition for judicial review in the Polk County District Court. The Board moved to dismiss the petition. It argued that any challenge by Dr. Calcaterra to the Board's prior actions against him was untimely and that Dr. Calcaterra lacked standing to raise arguments on behalf of other licensees.

On July 7, 2019, the district court denied the Board's motion to dismiss. The court noted that Dr. Calcaterra was not challenging the 2014 settlement, but instead, was challenging the Board's ongoing dissemination of investigative information. The court directed the Board to issue a declaratory order answering Dr. Calcaterra's question.

On August 22, the Board issued a declaratory order answering "no" to Dr. Calcaterra's question. Regarding Iowa Code section 272C.6(4)(a ), the Board indicated that the confidentiality protection therein "extends to the patient , not the physician." In addition, the Board pointed out that its own administrative rules have long provided that statements of charges are public records. See Iowa Admin. Code r. 653—24.2(8) (2018). Next, the Board referenced an unpublished opinion of our court of appeals holding that a statement of charges is a public record under chapter 22. Lastly, the Board observed that "[e]very other Iowa professional licensing board mandates by rule that their statements of charges are public."

At this point, Dr. Calcaterra amended his petition for judicial review to challenge the substance of the Board's declaratory order. The parties submitted briefing. Following oral argument, on April 26, 2020, the district court entered a ruling that set aside the Board's order. The district court reasoned that Iowa Code section 272C.6(4)(a ) was "clear and unambiguous" and prohibited the disclosure of investigative information "unless and until such information is disclosed in the findings of fact section of a final written decision made at the conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding." In the district court's view, a statement of charges could be published on the Board's website that did not disclose the factual basis; however, "[t]he facts that brought about the charges are precisely the type of investigative information that the legislature intended to be privileged and confidential in Iowa Code Section 272C.6(4)(a)." The district court added that statutory language takes precedence over conflicting agency regulations.

The Board appealed this ruling, and we retained the appeal.

III. Standard of Review.

The sole question before us is whether the Board correctly interpreted Iowa Code section 272C.6(4)(a ). We review an agency's interpretation of a statute for errors at law unless the legislature has clearly vested interpretive authority in the agency. Id. § 17A.19(10)(c ), (l ); Iowa Ins. Inst. v. Core Grp. of the Iowa Ass'n for Just. , 867 N.W.2d 58, 64–65 (Iowa 2015) ; Renda v. Iowa C.R. Comm'n , 784 N.W.2d 8, 10 (Iowa 2010). If agency discretion has been granted by the legislature, we will reverse an agency's interpretation only if it is "irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable." Renda , 784 N.W.2d at 10 (quoting Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(l ) ).

As we explained in Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights Commission , "When a term has an independent legal definition that is not uniquely within the subject matter expertise of the agency, we generally conclude the agency has not been vested with interpretative authority." Id. at 14. In Renda , the fighting issue was the meaning of the words "dwelling" and "employee" as used in the Iowa Civil Rights Act. Id. at 10. We declined to defer to the Iowa Civil Rights Commission's interpretation of those words, in part because both terms were "widely used in areas of law other than the civil rights arena." Id. at 14.

Here, we are dealing with the phrase "privileged and confidential." In Doe v. Iowa Board of Medical Examiners , we decided the Board did not have interpretive discretion to determine what "information is, and is not, confidential" under Iowa Code section 272C.6(4). 733 N.W.2d 705, 708 (Iowa 2007). We see no reason to come to a different conclusion today. No statutory language indicates the legislature intended to vest interpretive authority in the Board. It is true that section 272C.5 grants the Board general rulemaking authority. See Iowa Code § 272C.5. But rulemaking authority on its own does not equate to interpretive discretion. Iowa Dental Ass'n v. Iowa Ins. Div. , 831 N.W.2d 138, 143 (Iowa 2013) ; Renda , 784 N.W.2d at 13.

The question of interpretation in this case—whether "privileged and confidential" as used in section 272C.6(4)(a ) means that the Board cannot publicize investigative information—is not informed by the Board's special expertise. Ind...