Schlachter v. Georgia State Bd. of Examiners of Psychologists, A94A1350

• Decision Date: 20 October 1994
• Docket Number: No. A94A1350,A94A1350
• Parties: SCHLACHTER v. GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 242

450 S.E.2d 242

215 Ga.App. 171

SCHLACHTER v. GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF PSYCHOLOGISTS.

No. A94A1350.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Oct. 20, 1994.

Reconsideration Denied Nov. 10, 1994.

Certiorari Denied Feb. 20, 1995.

Wilson, Strickland & Benson, Frank B. Strickland, Anne W. Lewis, Gambrell & Stolz, Irwin W. Stolz, Jr., Seaton D. Purdom, Atlanta, for appellant.

Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Stephanie B. Manis, Deputy Atty. Gen., Beverly B. Martin, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Kevin H. Hudson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Wayne B. Mangum, Decatur, for appellee.

Arnall, Golden & Gregory, Karen Bragman, Atlanta, amicus curiae.

McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.

The Georgia State Board of Examiners of Psychologists ("appellee") served Paul Schlachter ("appellant") with notice of a hearing of charges that he had failed to maintain appropriate treatment boundaries with a former patient in that he had engaged in a sexual relationship with the patient. Appellant submitted a number of pre-hearing motions for ruling by the hearing officer. The hearing officer entered orders denying appellant's motion to dismiss (based on appellee's delay in bringing and prosecuting the charges stated in the notice of hearing), request for the investigative file, and objection to application to take testimony of Scott Morton. Appellant petitioned the superior court for review of the orders denying these motions pursuant to OCGA § 50-13-19(a). The superior court denied appellant's petition for judicial review "because review is not appropriate at this juncture in the proceedings." This court then granted appellant's petition for interlocutory appeal. Held:

Appellant enumerates as error the superior court's refusal to review and reverse the hearing officer's decisions on his above noted motions. In support of his contention that judicial review of the hearing officer's decisions is appropriate, appellant cites Wills v. Composite State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 259 Ga. 549, 550(1), 384 S.E.2d 636. In that case the Supreme Court applied the last sentence of OCGA § 50-13-19(a) which states that: "A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action or ruling is immediately reviewable if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy." Based on this statutory language and the possibility that irreparable harm could result in the absence of a resolution of whether the licensee was entitled to receive certain information from the board to aid in the preparation of a defense prior to a hearing, the Supreme Court determined that judicial review was appropriate.

Appellant maintains that each of the decisions of the hearing officer contested in the case sub judice is of the nature described in the above quoted portion of OCGA § 50-13-19(a) and thus ripe for judicial review. Appellee argues that appellant seeks an overly broad construction of the statute which will permit judicial review any time an administrative ruling risks duplication of effort or expense by the licensee and suggests a more restrictive standard from Thomas v. Ga. Bd. of Dentistry, 197 Ga.App. 589, 398 S.E.2d 730 and predicated upon Moss v. Central State Hosp., 255 Ga. 403, 404, 339 S.E.2d 226.

In our view, neither of the parties is entirely correct. The Thomas and Moss cases deal with the propriety of...