Pet v. Department of Health Services, 14657
Decision Date | 08 March 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 14657,14657 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Donald PET v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES et al. |
Thomas J. Ring, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, Atty. Gen., and Richard J. Lynch, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants-appellees (defendants).
Donald Pet, pro se, appellee-appellant (plaintiff).
Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, BERDON, KATZ and PALMER, JJ.
The dispositive issue in this administrative appeal is whether the trial court properly refused to supplement the record with evidence of alleged procedural irregularities to establish a violation of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), and, specifically, General Statutes (Rev. to 1985) § 4-179. 1 The defendant Connecticut department of health services (department) brought charges against the plaintiff, Donald Pet, a psychiatrist, alleging certain violations of General Statutes (Rev. to 1985) § 20-13c 2 in relation to his psychiatric treatment of four female patients. The defendant Connecticut medical examining board (board), 3 after an evidentiary hearing by a panel of board members, concluded that the plaintiff had violated § 20-13c(4) and (5), and ordered that the plaintiff's license to practice be suspended for five years, after which his practice would be limited to supervised group therapy only within an institutional setting.
The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, 4 which sustained the plaintiff's appeal and remanded the case to the board for a new hearing, on the ground that the plaintiff's due process rights had been violated because the board had improperly curtailed the plaintiff's right to cross-examine an adverse expert witness. 5 The trial court, in response to the defendants' motion to articulate, stated that the prior administrative proceeding was effectively nullified by its order for a new hearing. The defendants appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199(c).
We disagree with the trial court's determination that, under the facts of this case, the limitation of the plaintiff's cross-examination of an adverse witness violated due process, and we reverse on that issue. We conclude, however, that the record is insufficient to determine whether the board complied with the mandates of the UAPA, and that the trial court improperly reached a conclusion that the board had so complied. Because of the trial court's improper failure to permit the plaintiff to supplement the record with tapes of relevant board meetings and additional testimony regarding alleged procedural errors, we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
The relevant procedural history of this action may be summarized as follows. The department charged the plaintiff with having failed to provide several patients with proper psychiatric care and treatment in violation of § 20-13c(2) and (4). 6 A hearing before a designated panel of the Connecticut medical examining board (panel) regarding these charges commenced on June 24, 1986, and continued on twenty different days, ending on August 29, 1989. 7 The panel consisted of four members of the board, but attendance throughout the days of the hearing ranged from one to four members. 8 The person chairing the hearing varied, with a different panel member acting as chairperson on days when the appointed chairperson was absent.
During the course of the hearing on December 29, 1988, the department issued a third amended statement of charges against the plaintiff. That statement of charges alleged in eighteen counts that, in violation of § 20-13c(2), (4) and (5), 9 the plaintiff had engaged in sexual conduct with four patients, had provided psychiatric care to employees, had mishandled the "transference phenomenon" with four patients, had improperly conducted a "sexological examination" of one patient, had improperly monitored the prescription of medication to one patient and had failed to respond properly to issues raised by one patient. The board eliminated several of these charges during the course of the hearing, including those relating to the plaintiff's psychiatric relationship with employees.
After the conclusion of the hearing, the department submitted to the panel a recommended "Proposal for Decision." Thereafter, on February 26, 1991, pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1985) § 4-179, the panel issued a formal "Proposal for Decision." In March, 1991, the plaintiff filed a brief responding to both the department's and the panel's proposal for decision.
The parties presented oral arguments to the board at its March 19, 1991 meeting. The minutes of that board meeting state that, The board then voted to table a decision until the next month and requested that the department file a response to the plaintiff's brief by April 2, 1991.
On April 16, 1991, the board voted to strike one additional paragraph from the statement of charges. It also amended the proposal for decision by increasing the period of suspension of the plaintiff's license from three years to five years, and by adding a restriction that the plaintiff's practice thereafter be confined to group therapy within an institutional setting while under the supervision of a senior clinician approved by the board. The board's final decision, on April 23, 1991, reflected these changes, and concluded that the plaintiff had violated § 20-13c(4) and (5) with respect to the charges of inappropriate sexual conduct, mishandling of transference, misprescribing of medication and failing to monitor a patient. After the board denied the plaintiff's subsequent request for reconsideration, he instituted an appeal to the Superior Court, which, as has been previously noted, was sustained.
On appeal to this court, the defendants claim that the trial court improperly: (1) concluded that the board had violated the plaintiff's due process rights by limiting his cross-examination of the department's expert witness; and (2) nullified the prior administrative proceeding and ordered a new hearing. The plaintiff has cross appealed, claiming that the trial court improperly rejected his remaining constitutional and statutory claims and, accordingly, improperly failed to order dismissal of the charges against him. While we agree with the defendants' first claim, we also agree with the plaintiff that the trial court improperly denied him his statutory right to supplement the administrative record to prove that procedural irregularities undermined the fairness of the proceedings against him. A further hearing in the trial court will therefore be required. Additional facts are set forth below as necessary.
The defendants first claim that the trial court incorrectly held that the board had violated the plaintiff's due process rights by limiting his cross-examination of the department's sole expert witness. We agree with the defendants that the limitations placed on the plaintiff's cross-examination of that witness did not violate due process.
With respect to this issue, the trial court found the following facts. "At the administrative hearing held on April 18, 1989, the Department presented as its expert witness, Dr. Kenneth Selig, a psychiatrist and a graduate of Yale Law School. During its direct examination, the Department elicited from Dr. Selig his professional opinion on most of the charges it had brought against the plaintiff.
Our examination of the record reveals that the panel chairperson repeatedly admonished the plaintiff to discontinue a line of questioning on the differences between schools of psychiatric theory, and in particular how each manages the "transference phenomenon," because the questioning had become repetitive and non-productive. At the same time, the chairperson noted on the record that the board fully understood that different schools of psychiatric theory existed and that Selig did not profess...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grayson v. Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin and Kuriansky
... ... See Pet v. Dept. of Health Services, 228 Conn. 651, 675-76, 638 A.2d 6 (1994). Accordingly, the ... ...
- Filippelli v. Saint Mary's Hosp.
-
Carroll v. Ragaglia
... ... , 1997 through March, 2003, Ragaglia was Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF). Plaintiff attended informational meetings ... Foster and Adoption Services Unit (FASU), a different DCF unit than Fritz's unit, was responsible for ... Connecticut Dep't. of Pub. Health & Addition Servs., 954 F.Supp. 484, 489 (D.Conn.1997). "Because qualified ... ...
-
State v. Chance
... ... evidence of certain lawsuits that Ventura had filed against department of correction officials. We disagree ... On direct ... Jones, 167 Conn. 228, 232-33, 355 A.2d 95 (1974); Pet v. Dept. of Health Services, 228 Conn. 651, 663, 638 A.2d 6 (1994). Because the trial court ... ...