Doe v. Minnesota State Bd. of Medical Examiners, C9-87-1882
| Decision Date | 16 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. C9-87-1882,C9-87-1882 |
| Citation | 419 N.W.2d 619 |
| Parties | John DOE, M.D., Respondent, v. MINNESOTA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Trial court had jurisdiction to enjoin the Board of Medical Examiners from violating the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act despite respondent's right to judicial review of the board's final decision.
2. Trial court erred in granting permanent injunction against disclosure of portions of the final decision, because information contained in a final decision is public data.
3. Neither party is entitled to attorney's fees on appeal.
Marcy S. Wallace, McNulty & Wallace, St. Paul, for respondent.
Paul G. Zerby, Rory H. Foley, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Heard, considered and decided by HUSPENI, P.J., and PARKER and LOMMEN, JJ. *
Respondent John Doe, M.D., commenced an action under Minn.Stat. § 13.08 (1986), seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief against the State Board of Medical Examiners. He contended that release of the board's decision following a contested-case proceeding against him would violate the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act to the extent that it would make public information dealing with dismissed charges. After this court issued a writ of prohibition ordering a trial on the merits, the trial court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the board from disclosing any information about the dismissed charges. The court held that this information was confidential under Minn.Stat. § 147.01, subd. 4 (Supp.1987). The board appeals; we reverse and remand.
The Board of Medical Examiners is a state agency responsible for issuing medical licenses and imposing discipline against physicians licensed in Minnesota. See Minn.Stat. §§ 147.03, .091 (1986). Pursuant to its authority, the board initiated disciplinary proceedings against Doe, who is licensed to practice medicine in Minnesota. A contested-case hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ) to determine whether Doe's conduct had violated certain provisions of the Medical Practices Act (Minn.Stat. § 147.021, subd. 1 (renumbered section 147.091 (1986)). After issuing its findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations, the ALJ referred the matter to the board.
The board then issued its proposed decision. The eight board members unanimously agreed that the discipline committee had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Doe had misprescribed benzodiazepines to one patient. For that charge, it reprimanded him and ordered payment of a $1,000 fine.
The board made findings on Doe's conduct with respect to other allegations against him. Nevertheless, the board members were evenly split on whether that conduct was unethical or unprofessional. The board therefore dismissed the remaining charges with prejudice.
A day after the board issued its proposed decision, Doe sought temporary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent the board from classifying as public data any information relating to the dismissed charges. The trial court denied the temporary restraining order. This court, however, issued a writ of prohibition staying the board's release of its final decision and directing the trial court to set an expedited trial schedule for a decision on the merits of the permanent injunction.
After the hearing on the merits, the trial court issued a permanent injunction, but permitted the board to make public portions of its final decision related to the charge for which Doe was disciplined (i.e., misprescription of benzodiazepines). The trial court determined that in the context of a physician disciplinary proceeding, Minn.Stat. § 147.01, subd. 4(b) (Supp.1987), restricts what the board may classify as public data to the information specified in subdivision 4(b).
The board appeals, contending that its entire 73-page decision, including its findings of fact, conclusions, order, memoranda and appendix, is public data as a matter of law.
1. Did the trial court have jurisdiction to enjoin the board from treating its decision as public data?
2. Is the board's final decision, including information related to dismissed charges of misconduct, public data?
3. Is either party entitled to attorney's fees?
The board contends the trial court was without jurisdiction to issue the permanent injunction, because the court of appeals has "exclusive jurisdiction over state administrative agency decisions, superseding and divesting the jurisdiction of the district court."
Minn.Stat. § 480A.06, subd. 4 (1986), gives the court of appeals jurisdiction to review "the decisions of administrative agencies in contested cases as provided in sections 14.63 to 14.69" of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The APA entitles a person aggrieved by a final agency decision in a contested case to judicial review by writ of certiorari to the court of appeals. L.K. v. Gregg, 380 N.W.2d 145, 149 (Minn.Ct.App.1986). It provides:
Any person aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review of the decision under the provisions of sections 14.63 to 14.68, but nothing in sections 14.63 to 14.68 shall be deemed to prevent resort to other means of review, redress, relief, or trial de novo provided by law.
Minn.Stat. § 14.63 (1986) (emphasis added).
Under a plain reading of section 14.63, Doe's right to judicial review of the board's decision did not prevent him from seeking alternative relief. Cf. County of Ramsey v. Minnesota Public Utilities, 345 N.W.2d 740, 743 (Minn.1984) (). Section 14.63 explicitly refuses to limit an aggrieved person's resort to other means of redress.
Section 13.08, subd. 2 (1986), of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act gives the district court jurisdiction to enjoin a state agency from violating the Act. Doe sought relief pursuant to that section, contending that release of the board's decision would violate the Act by releasing private data.
The board's argument that section 13.08 is inapplicable on its face is in error. The board is a state agency within the meaning of section 13.02, subd. 17 (1986). Therefore, the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin it for a threatened violation of the Act.
The board argues that "final decisions" of the board are public as a matter of law and that the court erred in enjoining release of those parts of the findings of fact, conclusions of law, order, memoranda and attachments involving dismissed charges.
This case presents an issue of statutory interpretation, which is a question of law. Can Manufacturers Institute, Inc. v. State, 289 N.W.2d 416, 425 (Minn. 1979).
The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.
Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (1986).
We believe that the relevant statutes in this case may be read harmoniously and require the conclusion that the board's final decision, including information concerning dismissed charges, is public data.
Minn.Stat. § 13.41, subd. 4 (1986), governs classification of certain data collected or disseminated by a licensing agency, such as the board. See Minn.Stat. § 13.41, subd. 1 (1986). Section 13.41, subd. 4, provides in pertinent part:
Licensing agency * * * findings of fact, conclusions of law and specification of the final disciplinary action contained in the record of the disciplinary action are classified as public, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 15. The entire record concerning the disciplinary proceeding is public data pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 15, in those instances where there is a public hearing concerning the disciplinary action.
Public data within the meaning of this section is defined as "data which is accessible to the public in accordance with the provisions of section 13.03." Minn.Stat. § 13.02, subd. 15 (1986).
Section 13.03 presumes that all government data collected by a state agency, such as the board, is public and available for inspection by the public. See Minn.Stat. § 13.03, subds. 1, 3 (1986). Data with respect to individuals is not public, however, if it is classified by statute as "private or confidential." Minn.Stat. § 13.03, subd. 1 (1986).
A plain reading of section 147.01, subd. 4 (Supp.1987), supplies a statutory exception to the public data presumption of section 13.03. It also qualifies section 13.41 by making records of any disciplinary action or proceeding, except a "final decision," "confidential and privileged" 1 data. Section 147.01, subd. 4 (Supp. 1987), provides in relevant part:
Subject to the exceptions listed in this subdivision, all communications or information received by or disclosed to the board relating to any person or matter subject to its regulatory jurisdiction, and all records of any action or proceedings thereon, except a final decision of the board, are confidential and privileged and any disciplinary hearing shall be closed to the public.
* * *
* * *
(b) If the board imposes disciplinary measures of any kind, the name and business address of the licensee, the nature of the misconduct, and the action taken by the board are public data.
Initially, we must consider what constitutes a "final decision," which is nowhere defined. "Final" in this context means not interlocutory. See Blacks Law Dictionary 567 (5th ed. 1979).
What constitutes a "decision" is determined by the board's own rules and by APA section 14.62, subd. 1 (1986). Minn.R. 5615.1100 (1987) provides:
5615.1100 FORM OF DECISION AND FINDINGS.
Every decision and order adverse to a party to the proceeding shall be in writing and, except when such decision or order is made pursuant to stipulation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Minnesota State Bd. of Medical Examiners
...notice of appeal on September 23, 1987. The court of appeals reversed the district court, John Doe, M.D. v. Minnesota State Board of Medical Examiners, 419 N.W.2d 619 (Minn.App.1988), holding that the Board's decision, including its discussion of dismissed complaints, was "public" data unde......