Francois v. State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts
| Decision Date | 05 July 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 64706,64706 |
| Parties | Rodrique FRANCOIS, Respondent, v. STATE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR THE HEALING ARTS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Donna Ann Coleman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.
Dennis Buchheit, Julius H. Berg, P.C., St. Louis, for respondent.
State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts (Board), appeals from the decision of the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis reversing the decision of the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) denying Dr. Francois his request for reinstatement of his license to practice as a physician and surgeon in the state of Missouri.
On March 24, 1988, Dr. Francois pleaded guilty to one of fourteen counts of willfully and knowingly causing to be made a false statement in an application for benefits and payment from Medicare in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1395nn(a)(1). 1 On April 13, 1988, Dr. Francois voluntarily surrendered his license to practice as a physician in the state of Missouri. On August 1, 1988, the Board issued an order revoking his license pursuant to § 334.103 RSMo 1986. The Board determined Dr. Francois would be ineligible for reinstatement for at least two years.
On August 14, 1990, Dr. Francois filed an application for reinstatement of his license. The Board denied his request for reinstatement. Dr. Francois filed a complaint seeking review of his application by the AHC. The AHC convened a hearing on the complaint.
Subsequently, the AHC issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The AHC independently determined Dr. Francois failed to meet all licensure requirements. Specifically, the AHC concluded the applicant had not presented satisfactory evidence of "good moral character" as required by § 334.031 RSMo 1986, that applicant had failed to satisfy the examination requirements of 4 CSR 150-2.150(1)(B), and that applicant should be disqualified from licensure pursuant to §§ 334.100.2(2), 334.100.2(4)(a), and 334.100.2(14) RSMo Supp.1993.
Dr. Francois appealed the decision of the AHC to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. The Circuit Court issued a Memorandum Order reversing the decision of the AHC and remanding the case back to the Board for further proceedings in accordance with the Order. The Board then filed the present appeal. The Board claims the Circuit Court erred in failing to sustain the decision of the AHC. The Board argues the AHC correctly determined applicant had failed to meet all the prerequisites for reinstatement and the Board was within its discretion to deny the application. Dr. Francois contends the Circuit Court correctly reversed the AHC because its determination of his character was not supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, and an abuse of discretion. Finding sufficient basis in fact and law to support the AHC's determination of the case, we reverse.
Initially, we note our review is of the decision of the AHC, not the Circuit Court. Americare Systems, Inc. v. Missouri Dept. of Social Services, 808 S.W.2d 417 (Mo.App.1991) . Our scope of review of the AHC's findings of fact is circumscribed by § 536.140 RSMo 1986. Dr. Francois challenges the AHC decision on the basis that it was not supported by competent and substantial evidence, it was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, and was an abuse of discretion. §§ 536.140.2(3), 536.140.2(6), and 536.140.2(7) RSMo 1986. Dr. Francois bore the burden of proof that he was entitled to licensure. § 621.120 RSMo 1986.
"Substantial evidence is evidence which, if believed, would have a probative force upon the issues." Tadrus v. Missouri Bd. of Pharmacy, 849 S.W.2d 222 (Mo.App.1993) [6-8]. We must review the record in the light most favorable to the AHC's decision and disregard evidence that might support different findings of fact. Clark v. Reeves, 854 S.W.2d 28 (Mo.App.1993) [6-9].
The AHC found Dr. Francois did not establish that he was of "good moral character". It based that decision on the fact that Dr. Francois...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larocca v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts
...evidence. We affirm. Our review is of the AHC's decision rather than that of the circuit court. Francois v. State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts, 880 S.W.2d 601, 602 (Mo.App.E.D.1994). We treat the decision of the AHC and the disciplinary order of the Board as one decision and as ......
-
State Bd. of Account. v. Integrated Fin.
...licensure bears the burden of proving that it meets the statutory requirements for a firm permit. Francois v. State Bd. of Reg. for Healing Arts, 880 S.W.2d 601, 603 (Mo. App.1994) (holding that reinstatement of revoked license was not proper where licensee failed to demonstrate rehabilitat......
-
Contrell v. State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts
...1999. 4. The dissent questions whether the majority would take exception to the board's actions in Francois v. State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts, 880 S.W.2d 601 (Mo. App. 1994), where the board revoked a doctor's license and determined that the license would be ineligible for r......