Davidson v. State
| Decision Date | 28 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 5414-1-II,5414-1-II |
| Citation | 33 Wn.App. 783,657 P.2d 810 |
| Parties | R.E. DAVIDSON, D.C., Appellant, v. STATE of Washington; Department of Licensing of the State of Washington, and the Chiropractic Disciplinary Board of the State of Washington, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Don Taylor, Olympia, for appellant.
John Hennen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, for respondents.
R.E. Davidson, D.C. appeals from a superior court judgment affirming the Chiropractic Disciplinary Board's suspension of his chiropractic license. We affirm.
On June 6, 1977, the Washington State Department of Licensing initiated an action before the Chiropractic Disciplinary Board alleging that Dr. Davidson had engaged in unprofessional conduct in the course of providing chiropractic treatment to Teresa Trimble and Charlotte Shoemaker. On September 21, 1977, an administrative hearing was held before a three-member committee of the Board. At this hearing Trimble and Shoemaker both testified that Dr. Davidson's treatment of their lower back pain included a massage of their breasts and genital area with a hand-held vibrator. Trimble further testified that she never received a spinal adjustment and that, except for a rare back massage, she was always treated while lying on her back. Dr. Davidson testified that the vibrator massage was designed to release tension in various "trigger zone areas" and was complimentary or preparatory to a chiropractic adjustment. No evidence was presented by the Department disputing the propriety of the vibrator massage as treatment for the chiropractic problems suffered by the two female patients.
On the basis of the foregoing testimony, the hearing committee recommended a finding that Dr. Davidson's massage of the two patients was inappropriate treatment for their chiropractic problems and that his conduct was motivated, at least in part, by a desire for sexual stimulation. The hearing committee further recommended that Dr. Davidson be found to have engaged in unprofessional conduct under RCW 18.26.030(7) ().
On February 7, 1978, the full Board reviewed the record and adopted the findings and conclusions recommended by the hearing committee. It suspended Dr. Davidson's chiropractic license for 6 months and placed him on probation for an additional 18 months. The Board's order of suspension was subsequently affirmed by the Thurston County Superior Court.
In his first assignment of error Dr. Davidson maintains that he was denied due process because the Board's findings and conclusions were not based on evidence in the record. Specifically, he contends that the Board improperly relied on its own expertise in determining that the vibrator massage was inappropriate chiropractic treatment and that his conduct was partially motivated by a desire for sexual stimulation. He argues that this determination should have been based on expert testimony which could have been subjected to cross-examination.
It is well settled that when acting in a judicial capacity, an administrative board cannot base its findings and conclusions upon undisclosed documentary evidence or personal knowledge of the facts. Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n, 301 U.S. 292, 57 S.Ct. 724, 81 L.Ed. 1093 (1937). However, an administrative agency, or its authorized agents, may use their experience and specialized knowledge to evaluate and draw inferences from the evidence presented to them. See RCW 34.04.100(4); Market Street Ry. v. Railroad Comm'n of California, 324 U.S. 548, 560, 65 S.Ct. 770, 776, 89 L.Ed. 1171 (1945). Moreover, courts of numerous jurisdictions, including Washington, have held that in a medical disciplinary proceeding an administrative board comprised of medical practitioners is competent to determine the propriety of medical conduct without the aid of expert testimony. See, e.g., Washington Medical Disciplinary Bd. v. Johnston, 29 Wash.App. 613, 630 P.2d 1354, review granted 96 Wash.2d 1011 (1981); Jaffe v. State Department of Health, 135 Conn. 339, 64 A.2d 330 (1949). These courts have recognized that expert testimony regarding the propriety of medical conduct could be disregarded by a board of this type...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levinson v. Connecticut Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners
...332 S.E.2d 696 (1985); iArlen v. State, supra; Kundrat v. State Dental Council & Examining Board, supra; Davidson v. Department of Licensing, 33 Wash.App. 783, 657 P.2d 810 (1983). All of these cases follow the Jaffe rule and some of them specifically cite Jaffe as authority for the positio......
-
Martin v Sizemore
...Bd. of Nursing, 488 S.E.2d 245, 248 (N.C. 1997); Kundrat v. Commonwealth, 447 A.2d 355, 358 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1982); Davidson v. State, 657 P.2d 810, 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). 13 Contested case proceedings are not governed exclusively by the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. Tenn. R. Evid. 101 ad......
-
Martin v. Sizemore
...346 N.C. 775, 488 S.E.2d 245, 248 (1997); Kundrat v. Commonwealth, 67 Pa. Cmwlth. 341, 447 A.2d 355, 358 (1982); Davidson v. State, 33 Wash.App. 783, 657 P.2d 810, 812 (1983). 13. Contested case proceedings are not governed exclusively by the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. Tenn. R. Evid. 101 ......
-
Brown v. State, Dept. of Health, Dental Disciplinary Bd., 16725-9-III
...to evaluate and draw inferences from the evidence when finding unprofessional conduct. RCW 34.05.452(5); Davidson v. Department of Licensing, 33 Wash.App. 783, 785, 657 P.2d 810 (cited with approval in Croft v. Arizona State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, 157 Ariz. 203, 755 P.2d 1191, 1197 (Ariz.Ct......