Patel v. Kansas State Bd. of Healing Arts, 73869
| Decision Date | 02 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 73869,73869 |
| Citation | 22 Kan.App.2d 712,920 P.2d 477 |
| Parties | Vinod PATEL, M.D., Appellant, v. KANSAS STATE BOARD OF HEALING ARTS, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Whether the Board of Healing Arts has jurisdiction to revoke a physician's license is a question of law involving interpretation of the Kansas Healing Arts Act, K.S.A. 65-2801 et seq. and this court's scope of review is unlimited.
2. The general rule is that jurisdiction is acquired at the beginning of a case. A court's acquisition of jurisdiction over a case depends on the facts existing at the time its jurisdiction is invoked. When, in view of the facts existing at the beginning of the proceedings, the court has acquired jurisdiction over a case, that jurisdiction is ordinarily not ousted by subsequent events.
3. Under the rule of continuing jurisdiction, the Board of Healing Arts retains jurisdiction in disciplinary proceedings against a licensed physician regardless of whether the physician remains a licensee. A license merely represents the privilege to practice medicine in Kansas, and the legislature granted the Board of Healing Arts jurisdiction to revoke, suspend, or limit that privilege regardless of whether the license representing that privilege is valid.
4. Under the facts of this case, the action of the Board of Healing Arts was not moot because the Board's action affected the appellant physician's privilege to practice medicine in Kansas.
Derenda J. Mitchell, of Sloan, Listrom, Eisenbarth, Sloan & Glassman, L.L.C., Topeka, for appellant.
Mark W. Stafford, Topeka, for appellee.
Before KNUDSON, P.J., LEWIS, J., and JACK L. BURR, District Judge, Assigned.
Dr. Vinod Patel appeals from the district court's refusal to enjoin the Kansas Board of Healing Arts (Board) from revoking his license to practice medicine. Because the Board had previously cancelled his license, Patel contends that it could not later revoke his license through a disciplinary action.
On February 14, 1992, the Board filed a petition to revoke, suspend, or limit Dr. Patel's license to practice medicine in Kansas. On July 10, 1992, the Board filed an amended petition which contained 19 counts of alleged sexual misconduct. The same day, Dr. Patel tendered a letter to the Board voluntarily surrendering his license.
On July 20, 1992, Dr. Patel filed a motion to dismiss the disciplinary action on the grounds that the Board lacked jurisdiction to proceed because he had surrendered his license. On August 24, 1992, the Board denied the motion to dismiss. The Board also rejected Dr. Patel's argument that the case was moot. Subsequently, Dr. Patel filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied.
Kansas law provides that medical licenses must be renewed annually. K.S.A.1995 Supp. 65-2809. On June 30, 1993, the Board notified Dr. Patel that he had until July 31, 1993, to renew his license. Dr. Patel did not renew; consequently, on August 9, 1993, the Board cancelled his license.
On February 14, 1994, Dr. Patel filed a motion to dismiss the disciplinary action. Dr. Patel argued that the Board had divested itself of jurisdiction by canceling his license. The presiding officer concluded that Dr. Patel had committed a unilateral act by allowing his license to expire and be canceled and that Dr. Patel's unilateral action could not destroy the Board's jurisdiction.
Subsequently, Dr. Patel sought injunctive relief against the Board by filing a petition for judicial review in district court. Dr. Patel also filed a motion for a temporary injunction to prohibit the Board from proceeding with the disciplinary action.
The district court denied Dr. Patel's motion for temporary injunctive relief. Because jurisdiction was proper at the time the disciplinary proceeding was commenced, the court found that the subsequent cancellation of Dr. Patel's license did not affect the Board's jurisdiction. The district court reached the same conclusion in denying Dr. Patel's petition for judicial review. The Board continued the disciplinary action and revoked Dr. Patel's license. Dr. Patel filed a timely notice of appeal.
Dr. Patel argues that the Board lost jurisdiction when it canceled his license. The Board's jurisdiction is provided by the Kansas Healing Arts Act, K.S.A. 65-2801 et seq. (KHAA), K.S.A. 65-2838(a), which states:
The KHAA defines "licensee" as a person licensed under the act. K.S.A. 65-2802(d).
Whether the Board had jurisdiction to revoke Dr. Patel's license is a question of law involving interpretation of the KHAA, and this court's scope of review is unlimited. See University of Kansas v. Department of Human Resources, 20 Kan.App.2d 354, 355-56, 887 P.2d 1147 (1995).
The Board only has jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against a licensee. K.S.A. 65-2838(a). "An agency has no authority or jurisdiction beyond that conferred by authorizing statutes." Kansans for Fair Taxation, Inc. v. Miller, 20 Kan.App.2d 470, 479, 889 P.2d 154 (1995). Dr. Patel contends that the Board lost jurisdiction when the Board canceled his license and he, therefore, ceased to be a licensee.
Dr. Patel's argument assumes that jurisdiction is measured at every stage of a proceeding. However, the general rule is that jurisdiction is acquired at the beginning of a case.
20 Am.Jur.2d, Courts § 102, p. 406.
Kansas also follows the rule of continuing jurisdiction. In State ex rel. Owens v. Hodge, 230 Kan. 804, 813, 641 P.2d 399 (1982), our Supreme Court sta...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nims v. WA. BD. OF REGISTRATION
...board may complete a proceeding that it commenced while the licensee held his or her license. Patel v. Kan. State Bd. of Healing Arts, 22 Kan.App.2d 712, 920 P.2d 477 (1996); Wang v. Bd. of Registration in Medicine, 405 Mass. 15, 537 N.E.2d 1216 (1989); Cross v. Colo. State Bd. of Dental Ex......
-
Trappers Lake Lodge & Res. v. Dept. of Rev., 06CA0491.
...her license." Nims v. Wash. Bd. of Registration, 113 Wash.App. 499, 53 P.3d 52, 55 n. 17 (2002); see Patel v. Kan. State Bd. of Healing Arts, 22 Kan. App.2d 712, 920 P.2d 477, 479-80 (1996)(relying on doctrine of "continuing jurisdiction," once jurisdiction properly acquired, to sustain rev......
-
Welsh-Alexis v. State
...Registration, 53 P.3d 52, 55-56 & n.17 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002) (as amended) (collecting cases); see also Patel v. Kan. State Bd. of Healing Arts, 920 P.2d 477, 479-80 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996) (holding that regulatory board retained continuing jurisdiction over a disciplinary proceeding commenced ......
-
A Species Unto Themselves: Professional Disciplinary Actions
...v. Bruns, 19 Kan. App. 2d 83, 86, 864 P.2d 1212, 1215 (1994) (citation omitted), aff'd, 255 Kan. 728, 877 P.2d 391 (1994). 56. 22 Kan. App. 2d 712, 920 P.2d 477 (1996). 57. Id. at 715-16, 920 P.2d at 480. 58. Johnson v. Kan. Dep't of Revenue, ___ Kan. App. 2d ___, 27 P.3d 943 (2001). 59. Go......