Kevin A. Imhof appealed the Delaware Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline's order following a remand from the Superior Court, which had directed the Board to reconsider a specific legal issue regarding whether Imhof had wilfully failed to report certain conduct. In the Board's original order from June 1, 2021, Imhof's medical license was suspended for misconduct related to violations of Delaware law. The remand from the Court, dated January 27, 2022, focused on clarifying whether Imhof's actions constituted a violation of 24 Del. C. 1731(b)(14) concerning timely reporting.
On April 8, 2022, the Board issued an Order on Remand, concluding that Imhof’s actions did not amount to "abuse," thus not violating the statute in question, but it did not alter the original disciplinary measures. Imhof contended that the Board’s decision was flawed due to its lack of an additional hearing, evidence, or argument regarding the implications of not finding "abuse" on the overall case. Conversely, the Board maintained that it had the discretion to decide whether further hearings were necessary, arguing that no additional factual development was required.
The Court's role in reviewing the Board's decision involves assessing whether the findings are backed by substantial evidence and ensuring there are no legal errors, with substantial evidence defined as that which a reasonable mind could accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Legal questions are evaluated de novo.
Imhof's arguments exceed the remand's scope and will not be addressed, as they concern matters settled in Imhof I. The core issue is whether Imhof should have been allowed to present evidence and arguments regarding the third charge and its influence on the imposed discipline. The Court references Potter v. State Department of Corrections, which established that when a board has sufficient uncontroverted factual evidence to make a decision, it is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing or notify parties of deliberations if due process has been satisfied in earlier hearings. Imhof's claims regarding a lack of notice or opportunity to be heard were deemed unmeritorious, as he had previously presented his case. The Court finds that no additional hearing was necessary since the legal issues did not require further factual development.
Imhof had previously made substantive arguments on legal and disciplinary matters before the Hearing Officer and the Board. The Board determined that the evidence, primarily based on Imhof’s admissions, did not constitute abuse under the relevant statute. Consequently, Imhof was not prejudiced by the absence of an additional opportunity for legal argument, as the Board's decision was a legal determination in his favor. Any potential due process violation would pertain solely to Imhof's discipline, but he had already extensively argued relevant factors.
The Court aligns with Potter's reasoning that no further argument was required under due process. Regarding the discipline, the agency has discretion in penalty determination as long as it is supported by substantial evidence and within statutory authority. The Court previously established that the violations were indeed supported by substantial evidence, leading to a review of whether the punishment was excessively disproportionate in a manner that would shock fairness.
The hearing officer's recommendation indicates that, according to the Board's disciplinary guidelines, the least severe penalty for the failure to report charge (1731(b)(14)) is a fine and probation, while more serious violations (1731(b)(2) and 1731(b)(3)) could result in suspension. The discipline imposed on Imhof is consistent with the guidelines for the upheld violations. Therefore, the punishment cannot be deemed “shocking to one’s sense of fairness.” The Board's Order on Remand, supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error, falls within its discretionary authority and does not require further hearings or arguments. Consequently, the Board’s Order on Remand is affirmed.
