Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; September 16, 1988; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Dr. William D. Allen, a dentist, was found guilty by the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry of multiple violations related to unauthorized dental practices and deceptive advertising, resulting in a ten-year suspension of his dental license, ten years of probation, and financial penalties totaling $25,500 in fines and $61,478.19 in hearing costs. The Board's investigation began in summer 1985 after receiving complaints about his practice, leading to formal charges against him on November 4, 1985. An administrative hearing was scheduled for December 7, 1985, but was postponed to February 21, 1986, after Dr. Allen requested a continuance. Extensive discovery occurred prior to the hearing, including depositions of witnesses, but not patients. Dr. Allen attempted to depose the Board's counsel, Wootan, but was denied on grounds of attorney work product. Additionally, he filed a federal lawsuit against the Board members and Wootan, seeking to recuse the Board from the case, which was denied. The case underscores procedural challenges and significant allegations against Dr. Allen in the context of dental practice regulations.
The administrative hearing regarding Dr. Allen spanned four days, concluding on February 24, 1986, with Dr. Allen present and represented by counsel. The Board heard testimony from 30 witnesses, including five of Dr. Allen's patients, and reviewed 62 exhibits. Following the hearing, the disciplinary committee convened on March 1, 1986, to deliberate without Wootan or other Board members. Dr. Lionel de la Houssaye, the committee chairman, notified Wootan of the outcome, which resulted in Dr. Allen being found guilty of 27 out of 45 charges. The committee suspended his dental license for ten years, placed him on probation for an additional ten years, and imposed fines totaling $25,500 along with hearing costs of $61,478.19.
On February 26, 1986, Dr. Allen filed a Petition for Rehearing, alleging Wootan's involvement in an illegal office entry. He subsequently filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the Civil District Court on March 27, 1986, and later amended this petition to include claims for reimbursement and constitutional violations. The Board denied his rehearing petitions on April 14, 1986. Following a court-ordered limited rehearing on May 2, 1986, focusing on the alleged illegal entry, the committee reaffirmed its earlier decision on June 21, 1986. Dr. Allen continued to contest various aspects of the proceedings, including filing a First Supplemental Petition in August 1986 and seeking further depositions, which the Court denied on October 21, 1986.
Dr. Allen filed a Petition for Evidentiary Hearing on October 6, 1986, seeking to investigate Wootan's involvement in the Board's decision-making process, which the district court denied. Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted writs directing the district court to gather evidence regarding Wootan's alleged involvement. On May 29, 1987, Dr. Allen submitted another petition citing new evidence against Wootan related to an alleged break-in. A hearing on June 22, 1987, found no evidence supporting the allegations against Wootan. On September 29, 1987, the district court reversed six findings of professional misconduct against Dr. Allen, reducing his fine to $19,500 but affirming 21 counts of misconduct. Dr. Allen appealed, raising six assignments of error, including claims of improper evidence admission, due process violations, and errors in the Board's procedures regarding patient testimony. Notably, Dr. Allen contended that Wootan incited illegal entry into his office, violating his constitutional rights. However, the record indicated insufficient evidence of Wootan’s involvement or knowledge of the illegal entry by Gremillion and Marino, both of whom denied any prior communication about the illegal act. The court found that Gremillion and Marino acted independently.
Dr. Allen's claim that Wootan aided in the break-in of his office lacks evidential support. The Fourth Amendment protections apply exclusively to governmental actions, not private individuals, meaning private searches and seizures do not violate constitutional rights (United States v. Jacobsen; State v. Gentry). Additionally, even if a public official participates in a search, evidence cannot be excluded in civil proceedings based on the exclusionary rule, which is designed to protect Fourth Amendment rights rather than serving as a personal right for the affected party (United States v. Janis; United States v. Calandra). The exclusionary rule should only be applied where its deterrent effects justify the costs involved. The Louisiana Supreme Court, in Pullin v. Louisiana State Racing Commission, declined to apply this rule in an administrative context, prioritizing the state's regulatory interests over potential deterrent benefits. In this case, the public health interest in regulating dental care outweighs the reasoning for excluding evidence, as suppression would undermine the Board's accountability to citizens.
Regarding Assignment of Error 2, Dr. Allen contends that the district court erred by not reversing the Board's decision due to Wootan's role in the decision-making process. A supplementary hearing confirmed that Wootan's draft was created after the committee's deliberations and decisions were finalized. The record shows no pre-deliberation communication between Wootan and the committee. The committee, after reviewing all evidence and notes, deliberated for two to three hours before reaching specific verdicts and penalties. Dr. de la Houssaye subsequently informed Wootan of the committee's decisions, and Wootan drafted the formal decision based on that information. The committee members reviewed and signed off on the draft. Dr. Allen's assertion that Rosa Jones' testimony highlights issues in the Board's decision lacks merit.
Dr. de la Houssaye testified regarding whether he informed Mr. Wootan about Rosa Jones' testimony, indicating uncertainty about the specifics but affirming that they discussed the rationale behind their decisions in detail. He acknowledged the possibility of mentioning Jones' inconsistent testimony but could not recall the exact phrasing. Consequently, Dr. Allen's claim of prosecutorial overreach related to Jones' testimony was dismissed.
Dr. Allen claimed his due process rights were violated because the Board did not contact patients before filing charges against him, referencing La. R.S. 37:779. However, the trial court concluded that the statute does not require such contact before charges are substantiated. The statute mandates charges to be made under oath by authorized individuals and does not impose an obligation on the Board to contact patients prior to filing. The formal charges against Dr. Allen were indeed made under oath, with evidence showing that complaints came from informed citizens, thus satisfying the statute's requirements.
In another assertion, Dr. Allen argued that former La. R.S. 37:775(18) (now 37:775(11)) does not apply to in-house laboratory technicians working under direct supervision, claiming the statute is intended to regulate external laboratories. He pointed to related statutes that exempt dental labs from certain prohibitions when operating under a dentist's written work order. However, the statute explicitly requires a written work order signed by the dentist for any dental appliance work, indicating no exemption for in-house labs. This requirement ensures that the dentist retains responsibility for the design and certification of dental appliances, preventing unlicensed individuals from practicing dentistry, regardless of their employment status. The absence of specified exemptions in the statute supports this interpretation.
Dr. Allen claims he did not receive a fair hearing, citing several instances of impropriety. He alleges an antagonistic attitude from the Board, bias from committee chairman Dr. de la Houssaye favoring the prosecution, and inappropriate behavior by panel member Wootan, who he claims influenced Dr. de la Houssaye’s rulings. Dr. Allen also contends that the committee’s aggressive questioning of witnesses violated his due process rights. The record indicates that the hearing was highly contentious, with defense counsel accusing Wootan of targeting Dr. Allen, leading to a reprimand from Dr. de la Houssaye aimed at restoring order. Dr. Allen describes several heated moments, including a remark from Wootan calling the defense's motion to dismiss "scandalous" and Dr. de la Houssaye expressing anger during the proceedings.
Despite recognizing that the attorneys displayed overzealousness, the review finds no merit in Dr. Allen's claims. Wootan’s comments were deemed reasonable in context, and Dr. de la Houssaye’s expressions of anger were related to maintaining order. The refusal to allow the defense to recall a witness, Brenda Gremillion, was justified as she had already been excused after the defense indicated no questions. Even if this refusal constituted an error, it was rectified by her testimony at a later rehearing. Regarding the alleged bias, the record shows that when Wootan raised objections, Dr. de la Houssaye allowed defense counsel to explain their rationale afterward, contradicting claims of bias. Dr. Allen's assertion that Wootan improperly influenced the panel's decisions is unsupported by the record, particularly in instances where Wootan’s objections were addressed appropriately.
Dr. de la Houssaye, during a hearing, emphasized the need for accurate representation of prior testimony, prompting Wootan to request the hearing to continue, which Dr. de la Houssaye agreed to after extensive dialogue. Co-defense counsel Parker claimed Dr. de la Houssaye was obstructing his request to recall witness Brenda Gremillion. Wootan countered that the refusal stemmed from the defense’s failure to question her as previously agreed. The record indicates Dr. de la Houssaye's refusal was consistent and not misrepresented by Wootan. These instances do not substantiate Dr. Allen's claims of impermissible commingling as seen in Mack v. Florida State Board of Dentistry. Dr. Allen also argued that his right to a fair hearing was compromised because committee members questioned witnesses; however, this questioning aimed to clarify conflicting testimonies, not to undermine witness credibility. Consequently, the record does not support Dr. Allen's claims of due process violations.
In Assignment of Error 6, Dr. Allen contends that the district court erred in affirming certain findings of professional misconduct while reversing others. He disputes the evidentiary basis for these findings and questions the court's selective acceptance of Gremillion's testimony. The trial court correctly identified the burden of proof as clear and convincing evidence, which is a standard higher than mere preponderance but less than beyond a reasonable doubt. The credibility of witnesses is typically reserved for the trier of fact in administrative hearings, and a reviewing court should respect these evaluations unless deemed unreasonable or arbitrary. The professional judgment of licensing boards, composed of peers, warrants a limited scope of review, emphasizing the presumption of validity in their actions regarding professional conduct.
Findings of fact by the Board are upheld under a strong presumption of validity. Three specifications of charge 2 against Dr. Allen are reversed, while the remaining charges are affirmed.
In **Charge 2 Specification 4**, Dr. Allen contends that Brenda Gremillion did not place a wax try-in in Jeff Chamberlain's mouth. However, it is established that a wax try-in must be placed in the mouth for proper occlusion, which only a dentist can determine. Although Dr. Allen speculates that Chamberlain could have placed it himself, the record does not support this claim. Chamberlain confirmed that Dr. Allen placed the partial denture in his mouth and subsequently left Gremillion to assist him when the denture was too tight. Dr. Allen failed to return to check on the patient, leading to the affirmation of this charge.
In **Charge 2 Specification 6**, Gremillion testified to delivering dentures to Charlie Mae Sims, which was corroborated by Sims, who identified Gremillion as the assistant. Gremillion also performed a wax try-in on Sims, supported by a lab slip signed by Dr. Allen. This charge is affirmed.
In **Charge 2 Specification 9**, Gremillion's testimony regarding the delivery of dentures to Mary Veazy on July 9, 1985, is corroborated by Veazy's own account and a note in her patient record. This charge is also affirmed.
In **Charges 2 Specifications 10 and 11**, Gremillion stated she delivered dentures to Frank Wells and repaired a flange for Gloria Jones without Dr. Allen present. Veazy corroborated that only Gremillion and another assistant were present that day. Dr. Allen's claim that Gremillion denied performing a repair in Jones' mouth is contradicted by the record. Gremillion's testimony about her actions is affirmed.
**Charges 2 Specifications 12, 13, 20, 22, 23, 25, and 26** involve Gremillion's work with multiple patients (Ida Phillips, Annice Booth, Willie Vaughn, Mildred Harris, John Gates, Meita Gustefferson, and Lori Ishman), where she inserted, repaired, delivered, and seated various dentures, all of which are affirmed based on her testimony.
Three of the seven specifications lack corroborative evidence aside from Gremillion's testimony, leading to their reversal by the Board. Specifically, there are no patient charts for Annice Booth or any testimony from others regarding Gremillion's work on her. Willie Vaughn could only recall Gremillion's presence when he received dentures, without confirmation of Dr. Allen's involvement. Gremillion's assertion of delivering dentures to Lori Ishman on July 24, 1985, is also unsubstantiated by clear evidence. In contrast, the remaining four specifications are supported by patient charts for Phillips, Harris, Gates, and Gustefferson, which align with Gremillion's statements.
In Charge 1, Specification 3, Patricia Gill testified that Dee Chapman performed dental work on her daughter, Tuesday Barrileaux, including a bite rim and equilibration, with no involvement from Dr. Allen during these procedures. Gill sought a second opinion due to concerns about the dentures’ fit and returned to demand new dentures.
Charges 3, Specifications 3 and 4 involve dental work by Barbara Reaux on Darlene Davis, which was corroborated by Davis's testimony, confirming the procedures were conducted per Dr. Allen's directives.
Charge 4, Specification 3, includes Sharon Forbes's testimony regarding her performance of various dental procedures under Dr. Allen’s supervision, which the Board affirms.
Lastly, Charge 6, Specification 1, reveals Edith McClendon placing a gold lateral on Gladys Myers without a signed script from Dr. Allen, relying instead on informal instructions from an assistant's handwritten notes.
The Board correctly dismissed the signed work order presented by McClendon, as it was dated two days after her employment ended with Dr. Allen. Charge 7 Specification 1 addresses misrepresentation in advertising, where Sharon Forbes testified that Dr. Allen's advertisements misled consumers into believing that a full set of dentures cost $125.00, when in reality, that price applied to each denture (upper and lower). The economy set priced at $250.00 lacked features, while a natural-looking denture could cost up to $450.00. Forbes noted numerous patient complaints about the misleading ads, which she reported to Dr. Allen, who refused to amend them. Employees were directed to sell the higher-priced dentures, as their cost was comparable to the cheaper ones, creating pressure to achieve a daily production target of $3,000. Failure to meet this target resulted in threats of job loss. The Board affirmed this charge and reversed the trial court's judgment on Specifications 13, 20, and 26 of Charge 2, reducing the fine to $16,500. The remainder of the trial court's judgment was affirmed. Various notes provide additional context on related cases, procedural history, and the distinction of evidence regarding alleged bias in the proceedings.
