Sovulewski v. Mo. State Bd. of Nursing
Decision Date | 29 March 2022 |
Docket Number | ED 109889 |
Citation | 642 S.W.3d 373 |
Parties | Katherine SOVULEWSKI, Appellant, v. MISSOURI STATE BOARD OF NURSING, Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
David F. Barrett, P.O. Box 104151, Jefferson City, MO 65110, for appellant.
Ryan M. Russell, 3605 Missouri Blvd., P.O. Box 656, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.
Katherine Sovulewski (Sovulewski) appeals from the trial court's judgment affirming an order of the Missouri State Board of Nursing (Board) setting terms of probation regarding drug and alcohol testing. We reverse and remand.
Sovulewski first received her license from the Board as a Registered Nurse (RN) in 2005. In early 2012, her employer discovered she was taking Hydromorphone home with her. She tested positive for the drug and resigned. The Board placed her nursing license on probation for a period of five years with specified terms and conditions. On June 9, 2016, the Board revoked Sovulewski's license for violating the terms of her probation multiple times by failing to check in with a third-party administrator and testing positive for metabolites of alcohol.
In late 2017, Sovulewski reapplied to the Board for an RN license, which was denied on May 2, 2018. Sovulewski appealed the Board's decision to the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC). After a hearing, the AHC issued its decision. Although it found cause to deny Sovulewski's license on multiple grounds, the AHC exercised its discretion to grant her application for a license subject to a three-year probationary period, concluding:
Sovulewski presented sufficient evidence to convince us to exercise our discretion and grant her application for a license. We believe that a three-year probationary period is appropriate for the protection of the public. The terms of probation should include a prohibition on the consumption of controlled substances for which Sovulewski does not have a legitimate prescription and a prohibition on working under the influence of alcohol. Monitoring shall include drug and alcohol testing at the discretion of the Board.
On January 31, 2020, the Board issued an order pursuant to the AHC's decision setting forth the terms of Sovulewski's probation (Probation Order). The Probation Order required daily check-ins with a third-party administrator and submitting to random drug and alcohol testing, and inter alia , stated:
I. During the disciplinary period, Licensee shall abstain completely from the use or consumption of alcohol in any form, including over the counter products. The presence of any alcohol whatsoever in any biological sample obtained from the Licensee, regardless of the source, shall constitute a violation of Licensee's discipline.
Sovulewski filed a petition in the circuit court of Jefferson County seeking judicial review of the Probation Order pursuant to Sections 536.100 through 536.140 RSMo (2016).1 The trial court considered the case on the basis of the record developed before the AHC and took no additional evidence. The trial court entered its judgment on July 20, 2021, finding:
The trial court affirmed the AHC's decision in all respects. Sovulewski appeals.
Sovulewski raises two points on appeal. First, she argues the Board erred in imposing probationary terms on her nursing license that exceeded those allowed by the AHC's decision. Second, she asserts the Board erred in imposing probationary terms on her nursing license that violated her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
However, Sovulewski made a fundamental error in characterizing this matter as a contested case, which was not challenged by the Board nor corrected by the trial court. This improper characterization renders us unable to review either of the points raised. Thus, we reverse and remand this case for further proceedings pursuant to non-contested case procedures.
A court's first step in exercising judicial review over a governmental agency's action pursuant to the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA) is to determine the scope of its review. See e.g. , Johnston v. Livingston Cnty. Comm'n , 462 S.W.3d 859, 864 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) ; 450 N. Lindbergh Legal Fund, LLC v. City of Creve Coeur, Missouri , 477 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). The court must first consider, as a matter of law, whether the agency action was a "contested" or "non-contested case." State ex rel. Robison v. Lindley-Myers , 551 S.W.3d 468, 471 (Mo. banc 2018) ; 450 N. Lindbergh Legal Fund, LLC , 477 S.W.3d at 52 ; City of Valley Park v. Armstrong , 273 S.W.3d 504, 506 (Mo. banc 2009). A contested case is "a proceeding before an agency in which legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after hearing." Section 536.010(4). A non-contested case is "a decision that is not required by law to be determined after a hearing." Lindley-Myers , 551 S.W.3d at 471 ( ).
The standard of review, record, and procedures under which a trial court conducts its review differ significantly depending on whether the case is "contested" or "non-contested." Holden v. Dep't of Com. & Ins. , 590 S.W.3d 878, 883 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019).
Armstrong , 273 S.W.3d at 506-07 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Furlong , 189 S.W.3d at 165 ).
Moreover, the characterization of a case as contested or non-contested does not merely affect the procedures required before the agency or in the trial court; it also affects the manner in which an appellate court conducts its review on appeal. Holden , 590 S.W.3d at 886. "The choice of what decision we review, on what record , and under what standard , are all dictated by the nature of the underlying administrative proceeding." Id. (emphasis in original). In order to properly perform our appellate function in a judicial review proceeding, we must first determine whether the underlying administrative case was contested or non-contested, even if the parties do not raise the issue. Id.
Sovulewski challenges the terms of probation set forth in the Board's Probation Order. She petitioned for judicial review in the trial court pursuant to the contested case procedures set forth in Sections 536.100 through 536.140. The Board did not dispute Sovulewski's characterization. The trial court considered the AHC's decision to grant a probationary license on the basis of the record developed before the AHC. The trial court did not hear any evidence or make its own factual determinations and found the action of the AHC was reasonable and appropriate under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial