Davuluri v. Oklahoma Bd. Of Med. Licensure, 91,750.
| Decision Date | 13 June 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 91,750.,91,750. |
| Citation | 10 P.3d 198,2000 OK 45 |
| Parties | Chaudhury Dhana Koteswara DAVULURI, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel., OKLAHOMA BOARD OF MEDICAL LICENSURE AND SUPERVISION, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Daniel J. Gamino, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant.
Kent F. Frates, Linda G. Scoggins, Oklahoma City, Melissa Beeson Heindselman, Hartzog Conger & Cason, Oklahoma City, for Plaintiff-Appellee. WATT, Justice:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶ 1 Plaintiff, Chaudhury Dhana Koteswara Davuluri, M.D., complains of an opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, Division 3, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order of the Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision, which had denied Dr. Davuluri's application for a license to practice medicine. The Court of Civil Appeals held that an appeal from an order of the Board denying an application for a license to practice medicine may not be taken to the district court but "lies directly to the Supreme Court under 59 O.S. 513."1
¶ 2 Dr. Davuluri graduated from Spartan Health Sciences University, School of Medicine, located in Vieux Fort, St. Lucia, West Indies, in 1985. In 1986 he was certified by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates. ECFMG certification is a prerequisite for a graduate on a non-U.S. medical school to enter any residency or fellowship program accredited by the American Colleges of Medical Education. Dr. Davuluri was accepted to the medical graduate training program at the State University of New York at Syracuse, which, like the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, is accredited by the American Colleges of Graduate Medical Education. ¶ 3 Dr. Davuluri completed his one year internship at SUNY, Syracuse in 1988 and began a three year residency there in obstetrics and gynecology. During the final year of his residency at SUNY, Syracuse, Dr. Davuluri was chief resident of the OB/GYN residency program. Dr. Davuluri graduated from SUNY, Syracuse's OB/GYN program in 1991 and had passed Parts I and II of the Federal Licensing Examination. All physicians must pass Parts I and II of the FLEX examination as a prerequisite to practicing medicine in the United States. Dr. Davuluri has since been licensed to practice medicine in Michigan, Nebraska, South Dakota, and West Virginia.
¶ 4 In 1991 Dr. Davuluri was employed as staff obstetrician and gynecologist at Carl Albert Indian Health Facility in Ada, Oklahoma. He was not required to have an Oklahoma license to practice medicine at that time as his unrestricted licenses from other states satisfied the Indian Health Service's requirements.
¶ 5 Dr. Davuluri applied to the Board for a license to practice medicine in Oklahoma in 1997. The Board's secretary issued Dr. Davuluri a temporary license, following which Dr. Davuluri left the Indian Health Service to establish an obstetrical and gynecological practice in Ada, and was granted privileges at Valley View Hospital in Ada.
¶ 6 It is undisputed that during the more than six years Dr. Davuluri practiced at the Indian Health Facility and was in private practice in Ada, no complaints were lodged and no medical malpractice actions were instituted against him. Dr. Davuluri presented letters of recommendation to the Board from the supervising OB/GYN at the Indian Health Facility and from its administrator that vouched for Dr. Davuluri's good character and professional skill.
¶ 7 The Board conducted a hearing on Dr. Davuluri's application for a permanent and unrestricted license to practice medicine on November 20, 1997. At the conclusion of the hearing the Board denied Dr. Davuluri's application and terminated his temporary license to practice medicine by a vote of five to one.
¶ 8 On December 2, 1997 Dr. Davuluri filed suit in the District Court of Pontotoc County under the authority of 75 O.S. Supp.1992 318 of the Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act.2 Dr. Davuluri contended that the Board's decision was, among other things, clearly erroneous and arbitrary and capricious. Dr. Davuluri also sought a temporary restraining order staying enforcement of the Board's order pending a final decision on the merits of his appeal.
¶ 9 In its written order dated December 5, 1997 the Board gave as the reasons that Dr. Davuluri failed to satisfy the licensure requirements of the Oklahoma Statutes, 59 O.S. 481, et seq. the following:
"The evidence reflects that Applicant's medical school was not substantially equivalent to the education and training offered by the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine; that Applicant has multiple examination failures, failing Component 1 of the Federation Licensing Examination (FLEX) four times and failing Component 2 of the FLEX twice; and that Applicant reported only three of these licensing examination failures on the Application for licensure."
The Board's order is silent with respect to Dr. Davuluri's successful completion of four years of postgraduate medical study at SUNY, Syracuse, his possession of licenses to practice medicine in four other states, and his more than six years of practice at the Carl Albert Indian Health Facility.
¶ 10 The trial court held a hearing on Dr. Davuluri's application for a temporary restraining order on December 16, 1997. On December 30, 1997 the trial court entered a temporary restraining order reinstating Dr. Davuluri's temporary license to practice medicine pending a final determination of his appeal of the board's ruling.
¶ 11 The matter was tried on the merits on July 13, 1998; on July 20, 1998 the trial court entered an order holding for Dr. Davuluri and ordered the Board to issue to Dr. Davuluri a full and unrestricted license to practice medicine.
¶ 12 The trial court held that Dr. Davuluri had presented evidence to the Board that overcame all of the factors cited by the Board as reasons for denying Dr. Davuluri's application for a permanent and unrestricted license to practice medicine in Oklahoma. The trial court found that the requirement contained in Subsection B of 59 O.S. Supp. 1997 493.2 that a foreign applicant's training shall have been ". . . based on satisfactory completion of educational programs from a school with education and training substantially equivalent to that offered by the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine" was unconstitutionally vague. The trial court also found, however, that Dr. Davuluri had proved that his training had been substantially similar to that offered by the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine.
¶ 13 Finally, the trial court held that the Board's failure to consider Dr. Davuluri's successful completion of medial training in the United States, his possession of licenses to practice medicine in four other states, and his years of practice at the Carl Albert Indian Health Facility was "clear error." The trial court held that Dr. Davuluri had presented relevant, reliable, material, probative, and substantial evidence showing that he satisfied all statutory requirements for a license to practice medicine.
¶ 14 The Board appealed the trial court's decision claiming that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the Board's ruling; (2) the trial court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the Board; (3) the trial court erred in holding that 59 O.S. Supp 1997 493.2.B was unconstitutional; and (4) the Board's decision was supported by evidence in the record.
¶ 15 ISSUES
We answer no to both questions.
DISCUSSION
I.
THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER DR. DAVULURI'S APPEAL OF THE BOARD'S DECISION
¶ 16 This is an issue of first impression. We have not previously addressed whether an appeal from a decision of the Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision that has rejected an application for a medical license should be taken to the district court under the Administrative Procedures Act, 75 O.S. Supp.1992 318, or directly to this Court under the Oklahoma Allopathic Medical and Surgical Licensure and Supervision Act, 59 O.S. Supp.1998 513. We hold that such appeals are governed by the Administrative Procedures Act and must be taken to the district court.
¶ 17 The Board contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Dr. Davuluri's appeal of the board's decision because 59 O.S. Supp.1998 513 provides that appeals from "disciplinary actions upon the license of physicians" of the Board "shall be taken to the Supreme Court of this state." Although § 513 refers only to "disciplinary actions," the Board claims that our opinion in State ex rel. State Board of Medical Examiners v. Naifeh, 1979 OK 105, 598 P.2d 225 stands for the proposition that even appeals from a decision of the Board refusing to grant a license must be made directly to this Court. We disagree. In Naifeh we considered an appeal from an order of the Board, which placed a physician on probation. The action of the Board in Naifeh clearly was a "disciplinary action" of the Board. Thus, in Naifeh, we did not consider whether an appeal from a refusal by the Board to grant a license should be taken to the district court. Naifeh, therefore does not support the proposition that all Board appeals must be taken to this Court.
¶ 18 The Board also cites DiMauro v. Oklahoma State Board of Medical Examiners, 1989 OK 31, 769 P.2d 759 in support of its contention that appeals from the refusal to grant a medical license must be to this Court. Again, we disagree. Although the DiMauro appeal did arise from the Board's refusal to grant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
STATE BD. OF MEDICAL LICENSURE v. Pinaroc
...decision was a "disciplinary action" against Pinaroc, and § 513 applies to this controversy. See Davuluri v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Bd. of Medical Licensure and Supervision, 2000 OK 45, ¶ 20, 10 P.3d 198, 202, (explaining the distinction between disciplinary actions and a denial of applicat......