Donaldson v. Mo. State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts
| Decision Date | 07 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | WD 83217 |
| Citation | 623 S.W.3d 152 |
| Parties | Blake H. DONALDSON, D.O., Appellant, v. MISSOURI STATE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR the HEALING ARTS, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Scott R. Pool, Cody R. Hold, Jefferson City for appellant.
Adam G. Grayson, Lisa J. Dawson, Jefferson City for respondent.
Before Division Two: Mark D. Pfeiffer, P.J., and Alok Ahuja and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., JJ.
Dr. Blake Donaldson filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Cole County, seeking judicial review of a decision rendered by the Administrative Hearing Commission (the "AHC" or "Commission") and by the State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts (the "Board") in a license-discipline proceeding. The administrative proceeding resulted in the emergency suspension, and ultimately the revocation, of Dr. Donaldson's medical license. The circuit court upheld the administrative agencies’ decision. On appeal, Dr. Donaldson challenges the agencies’ disciplinary decision on multiple procedural and substantive grounds. Among other things, he challenges the constitutionality of § 334.102,1 which provides for the emergency suspension of licensees without a hearing, and for expedited proceedings thereafter to determine if cause for discipline exists.
We conclude that Dr. Donaldson's challenges to the constitutional validity of § 334.102 invoke the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Missouri Supreme Court pursuant to Article V, § 3 of the Missouri Constitution. We accordingly lack jurisdiction over Dr. Donaldson's appeal, and order the case transferred to the Missouri Supreme Court pursuant to Article V, § 11 of the Missouri Constitution.
From 1995 to December 2017, Dr. Donaldson was licensed by the State as a physician and surgeon. During part of this time, he owned and operated Primary Care North Kansas City, LLC, in Parkville.
On November 27, 2017, the State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts filed with the Administrative Hearing Commission a complaint and motion for emergency suspension of Dr. Donaldson's medical license. The Board alleged that from May 2012 through February 2016, Dr. Donaldson engaged in various sexual acts with one of his patients, both in his medical office, and at his home. The Board alleged that the patient at issue was a minor when some of the sexual acts occurred. Dr. Donaldson was served with the Board's complaint and motion for emergency suspension on the same day it was filed.
On December 5, 2017, acting pursuant to § 334.102 and without conducting a hearing, the AHC issued an order finding probable cause that Dr. Donaldson engaged in sexual conduct with a patient and engaged in sexual misconduct with a minor, and that such conduct was harmful to the mental and physical health of the patient. As a result, the Commission immediately suspended Dr. Donaldson's medical license pending the final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.
Dr. Donaldson filed a Petition in the Circuit Court of Cole County on December 12, 2017, seeking injunctive and writ relief to prevent the Board and Commission from enforcing the emergency suspension of his license (No. 17AC-CC00617). The circuit court dismissed the action. It held that Dr. Donaldson had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and that his claims could be addressed in a judicial review proceeding brought under § 536.100 of the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act, after issuance of a final administrative decision.
The Administrative Hearing Commission held a hearing on February 22-23, 2018, in which Dr. Donaldson and his counsel participated. Dr. Donaldson had requested a stay of proceedings, and a continuance of the hearing date, to permit him to conduct further discovery, and had agreed to remain subject to the emergency suspension order in the interim. The AHC denied the requested continuance on the basis that it "d[id] not have the authority to extend the emergency suspension beyond the time frame under § 334.102." Dr. Donaldson asserts that a continuance would have permitted him to obtain records from third parties (including records concerning the activation and de-activation of his office's alarm system, and his work schedule at a local hospital) which would have disproven some of the sex abuse allegations. Dr. Donaldson later obtained some of the third-party records, but the Commission, the Board, and the circuit court refused to consider them.
On March 15, 2018, the AHC entered its decision finding cause for discipline of Dr. Donaldson's license under § 334.100.2. The Commission found that Dr. Donaldson engaged in sexual conduct with a patient, knowing that the individual was his patient and was sixteen years of age. The Commission also found that Dr. Donaldson engaged in additional sexual acts with the same patient when the patient was seventeen and eighteen years old.
The Board held a hearing to determine the appropriate discipline on August 3, 2018. Dr. Donaldson appeared with counsel. On September 25, 2018, the Board issued its decision and disciplinary order revoking Dr. Donaldson's medical license, with leave to apply for reinstatement after seven years.
On October 25, 2018, Dr. Donaldson filed a petition for judicial review in the Circuit Court of Cole County. (Pursuant to § 621.145, the AHC's finding of cause for discipline, and the Board's decision imposing discipline, are treated as a single decision for purposes of judicial review.) The circuit court rejected Dr. Donaldson's challenges and upheld the administrative decision. Dr. Donaldson appeals.
Before reaching the merits of Dr. Donaldson's claims, we must first determine whether we have jurisdiction over his appeal. Dieser v. St. Anthony's Med. Ctr. , 498 S.W.3d 419, 427 (Mo. 2016).
Dr. Donaldson asserts nine Points on appeal. In Points III and IV, he contends that § 334.102 "on its face violate due process." In Point III, he argues that § 334.102's emergency suspension provisions violate due process because the statute does not require a pre-suspension hearing, and does not authorize judicial review of an emergency suspension order until all proceedings before the AHC and the Board are concluded. In Point IV, Dr. Donaldson argues that the provisions of § 334.102.4(1), which require that a final hearing concerning cause for discipline be conducted on an expedited basis following entry of an emergency suspension, are unconstitutional because they afford a licensee an insufficient opportunity to investigate and conduct discovery to respond to the Board's allegations of misconduct. The parties agree that Dr. Donaldson properly preserved his constitutional claims in the circuit court.
Article V, § 3 of the Missouri Constitution provides that the Missouri Supreme Court has "exclusive appellate jurisdiction in all cases involving the validity of a ... statute ... of this state." The Supreme Court's "exclusive appellate jurisdiction is invoked when a party asserts that a state statute directly violates the constitution either facially or as applied." Dieser , 498 S.W.3d at 427. " ‘If any point on appeal involves such [a] question, the entire case must be transferred to the Supreme Court.’ " Accident Fund Ins. Co. v. Casey , 536 S.W.3d 360, 364 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (citation omitted).
The Supreme Court's "exclusive appellate jurisdiction is not invoked," however, "simply because a case involves a constitutional issue." McNeal v. McNeal-Sydnor , 472 S.W.3d 194, 195 (Mo. 2015). "To invoke the [Supreme] Court's exclusive jurisdiction, the constitutional issue must be real and substantial, not merely colorable." Matter of Care and Treatment of Bradley v. State , 554 S.W.3d 440, 448-49 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); accord , Boeving v. Kander , 496 S.W.3d 498, 503 (Mo. 2016) ; Mayes v. Saint Luke's Hosp. of Kansas City , 430 S.W.3d 260, 270 (Mo. 2014).
In determining whether a constitutional claim is real and substantial, we make a preliminary inquiry as to whether it presents a contested matter of right that involves fair doubt and reasonable room for disagreement. If the initial inquiry discloses the claim is so legally or factually insubstantial as to be plainly without merit, the claim may be deemed merely colorable.
McCormack v. Capital Elec. Constr. Co. , 159 S.W.3d 387, 404 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (citations omitted). " ‘In the context of the ‘not merely colorable’ test, the word ‘colorable’ means feigned, fictitious or counterfeit, rather than plausible.’ " Dieser , 498 S.W.3d at 429 (quoting Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp. , 996 S.W.2d 47, 52 (Mo. 1999) ); Snodgrass v. Martin & Bayley, Inc. , No. ED87304, 2006 WL 1735246, at *3 (Mo. App. E.D. June 27, 2006) (same).
" ‘One clear indication that a constitutional challenge is real and substantial and made in good faith is that the challenge is one of first impression with th[e] [Supreme] Court.’ " Dieser , 498 S.W.3d at 429 (quoting Rodriguez , 996 S.W.2d at 52 ); accord Mayes , 430 S.W.3d at 270 ().
Dr. Donaldson's constitutional claims are "real and substantial," and not "merely colorable." He argues that § 334.102's emergency suspension provision violates due process because it denies a licensee an opportunity to be heard in a meaningful time and manner concerning an emergency suspension ordered by the AHC. He also argues that the statute denies licensees due process because it requires that, following an emergency suspension order, a final Commission hearing on cause for discipline must be heard on an expedited schedule, thereby denying licensees an adequate opportunity for investigation and discovery.
Dr. Donaldson's arguments raise substantial challenges to the validity of § 334.102. Under the statute, the Board may apply...
To continue reading
Request your trial