Spencer v. Board of Pharmacy
Decision Date | 11 March 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 36,36 |
Citation | 380 Md. 515,846 A.2d 341 |
Parties | Linda Ann SPENCER v. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Joseph S. Kaufman (Schulman & Kaufman, LLC, on brief), Baltimore, for petitioner.
Paul J. Ballard, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., Linda M. Bethman, Staff Atty., on brief), for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, BATTAGLIA, LAWRENCE F. RODOWSKY, (retired, specially assigned), THEODORE G. BLOOM, (retired, specially assigned), JJ.
This case arises out of a decision by the Maryland State Board of Pharmacy, an administrative agency. The decision was reviewed first by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City and then by the Court of Special Appeals, 150 Md.App. 138, 819 A.2d 383 (2003). Petitioner sought review of the decision by the Court of Special Appeals because the remedy that court fashioned, she contends, exceeded its authority and violated the Maryland Constitution and Administrative Procedure Act, Md.Code (1984, 1999 Repl.Vol., 2003 Cum. Supp.) §§ 10-101 to 10-305 of the State Government Article [hereinafter APA].1
Whether a court has exceeded its statutory and judicial authority over an administrative agency is a question that involves the constitutional balance of power between the judiciary and executive administrative agencies. That balance of power is governed by an established area of administrative law dealing with the scope of judicial review over the various types of administrative agency decisions. In this case, we consider whether the Court of Special Appeals exercised the proper standard of judicial review over an administrative agency decision in a matter that is committed, ultimately, to the agency's discretion.
Linda Ann Spencer, a pharmacist, continued to practice pharmacy after her license expired on July 1, 1999. On August 16, 1999, Spencer's supervisor, having confirmed with the Maryland State Board of Pharmacy ("the Board") the expiration and non-renewal of Spencer's pharmacy license, instructed Spencer to cease practicing pharmacy, which she did. Spencer then contacted the Board to inquire why her license had not been renewed, asserting that she had timely submitted the required renewal application. An internal review of the Board's office records, however, indicated that no application or accompanying fee was received. Spencer surmised that her application had been lost in the mail and therefore submitted a renewal application to the Board on August 30, 1999. Although her application included certification that she had acquired the requisite number of continuing education credits, the majority of those credits were obtained after her license had expired in June. Nevertheless, the Board granted Spencer's renewal application on September 14, 1999, after which Spencer resumed her practice of pharmacy.
The Court of Special Appeals described the remaining events that led to this appeal as follows (referring to the Board as "appellant" and to Spencer as "appellee"):
150 Md.App. at 142-46, 819 A.2d at 385-87 (footnotes omitted).
Spencer then filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, alleging, inter alia, that she had been deprived of procedural due process because Mr. Ades and Ms. Schneider participated both as representatives of the Board in settlement negotiations and as members of the panel adjudicating her case. Agreeing with Spencer's arguments, the Circuit Court vacated and reversed the Board's Final Decision and Order. The Circuit Court ruled that there was not substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's decision; that the Board's renewal of Spencer's license pending the outcome of the investigation operated as a waiver of the violations subsequently found by the Board; and that Spencer had been deprived of due process as a result of the arguments that took place at the Board hearing between her attorney and two Board members.
The Board appealed the Circuit Court's ruling to the Court of Special Appeals. The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the Circuit Court that Spencer was denied her right to a fair and unbiased hearing, focusing on Ms. Hawkins' accusation that Spencer's counsel was a "bold-faced liar." The intermediate appellate court reversed the Circuit Court's ruling that the Board's renewal of Spencer's license had foreclosed the Board from taking disciplinary action against her. Consequently, it remanded the case to the Circuit Court "with instructions to remand the case to the Board, directing [the Board] to delegate the authority to conduct the contested case hearing and to issue the final administrative decision in this case to the OAH." 150 Md.App. at 155, 819 A.2d at 393.
Spencer then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this Court. 376 Md. 49, 827 A.2d 112 (2003). Although petitioner has phrased the first question for our review as whether the Court of Special Appeals, by its order to the administrative agency to refer the case to the OAH, violated Article 8 of the Declaration of Rights and § 10-205 of the APA, a more accurate way of formulating the question, as we explain infra, is whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. State
...of the motion to dismiss, that is not the end of the inquiry. We are not bound by a party's concession. See Spencer v. Md. State Bd. Pharm. , 380 Md. 515, 523, 846 A.2d 341 (2004) (an appellate court "is not bound by the concessions made by the parties on issues of law, which we may indepen......
-
Blackstone v. Sharma
...Hosp. of Baltimore, Inc. v. Dep't of Employment & Training , 309 Md. 28, 46, 522 A.2d 382 (1987) ; Spencer v. Maryland State Bd. of Pharmacy , 380 Md. 515, 529 n.3, 846 A.2d 341 (2004). Although this Court often accords deference to an agency's interpretation of its administering statute, w......
-
John A. v. Board of Education
...but whether the ALJ erred. Consumer Prot. Div. v. Morgan, 387 Md. 125, 160, 874 A.2d 919, 939 (2005); Spencer v. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 380 Md. 515, 524, 846 A.2d 341, 346 (2004). As explained recently for the Court by Judge Eldridge in Maryland Aviation Administration v. Noland, "[a] court......
-
Md. Dep't of the Env't v. Cnty. Commissioners of Carroll Cnty.
...is "extremely deferential" to the agency. Harvey v. Marshall , 389 Md. 243, 296-99, 884 A.2d 1171 (2005) ; Spencer v. Md. State Bd. of Pharmacy , 380 Md. 515, 529, 846 A.2d 341 (2004). This standard is highly contextual, but generally the question is whether the agency exercised its discret......