Judge: James C. Chalfant, Case: 22STCP00647, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCP00647 Hearing Date: August 2, 2022 Dept: 85
Jeff Blea, D.V.M. v.
Veterinary Medical Board, 22STCP00647
Tentative decision on petition
for writ of mandate: denied
Petitioner Jeff Blea, D.V.M. (“Blea”) seeks a writ of
mandate compelling Respondent Veterinary Medical Board (“Board”) to vacate the Interim
Suspension Order (“Order”) it issued on January 28, 2022.
The
court has read and considered the moving papers, opposition, and reply,[1] and
renders the following tentative decision.
A. Statement of the Case
1.
Petition
Petitioner
Blea commenced this proceeding on February 24, 2022, alleging causes of action
for (1) administrative mandamus pursuant to CCP section 1094.5 and (2)
declaratory relief with an injunction.
The Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows.
Since
September 1993, Blea has been licensed by the Board, with his practice almost
entirely in equine medicine serving racetracks until June 2021. Veterinarians who practice at racetracks must
be licensed by the California Horse Racing Board (“CHRB”) and provide it with
reports of the medicine the veterinarian is administering to equine
patients. Throughout his tenure, Blea’s
practices have conformed to accepted standards of veterinary practice.
On
June 30, 2021, Blea retired from his private practice. On July 1, 2021, he accepted a position as
the state’s Equine Medical Director (“EMD”) through the School of Veterinary
Medicine at the University of California, Davis (“UC Davis”). The EMD advises CHRB on all matters relating
to medication and drug testing, the practice of veterinary medicine within the
areas regulated by the Board, and the health and safety of horses within CHRB
jurisdiction. The position does not
entail practicing veterinary medicine.
There is no requirement that the director be licensed to practice
veterinary medicine by the Board, and several past directors have not been
licensed.
In
February 2021, the Board began investigating several racetrack veterinarians,
leading it to make at least three formal accusations. On December 21, 2021, the Board filed an Accusation
against Blea seeking to revoke his license pursuant to Business and Professions
Code (“B&P Code”) section 4800 et seq. The Board informed Blea’s counsel that it
would apply for an interim suspension order pursuant to B&P Code section
494.
The
Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) held a hearing on the Board’s application
for an interim suspension on December 24, 2021 and granted it on January 3,
2022. The Office of the Attorney General
(“Attorney General”) informed Blea that the functions of EMD constitute the
“practice of veterinary medicine” as defined in B&P Code section 4826 and
his continuing service in that role after the Order was issued would result in
further disciplinary action. As a
result, UC Davis placed Blea on administrative leave from his EMD position.
Also
on January 3, 2022, OAH issued a corrected Order that scheduled a further
hearing on January 21, 2022. After this
hearing, OAH rendered a January 28, 2022 decision continuing to impose the Order.
On February 11, 2022, the Board filed and served a First
Amended Accusation (“FAA”).
Petitioner
Blea seeks (1) a writ of mandate compelling the Board to set aside the Order,
(2) a declaratory judgment that service as EMD does not constitute employment
or engagement as a veterinarian, does not constitute the practice of veterinary
medicine, and does not require the holder of that position to be licensed by
the Board, (3) a permanent injunction preventing the Board from interfering or
threatening to interfere with Blea’s performance of his duties as EMD, and (4)
attorney’s fees and costs.
2.
Course of Proceedings
On
February 28, 2022, Petitioner Blea served Respondent Board with the Petition
and Summons by substitute service, effective March 10, 2022.
On
March 7, 2022, Blea filed an ex parte application for a stay of the Board’s
Order, or alternatively for an order that, notwithstanding the Order, Blea may
resume his position as EMD and on the Anti-Doping and Medication Committee of
the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (“HISA”) of the FTC pending the
completion of these proceedings. The
court denied the application after a hearing on March 9, 2022.
On
April 13, 2022, the Board filed a demurrer to the Petition with motion to
strike. On April 14, 2022, the demurrer
was taken off calendar.
On
April 29, 2022, the Board filed an Answer.
B. Standard of Review
CCP
section 1094.5 is the administrative mandamus provision which structures the
procedure for judicial review of adjudicatory decisions rendered by
administrative agencies. Topanga
Ass’n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, (“Topanga”)
(1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-15. The issue
for mandamus is whether the agency proceeded without jurisdiction, did not
provide a fair trial, or committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is established if the
agency did not proceed in the manner required by law, the decision is not
supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the
evidence. CCP §1094.5(b).
CCP
section 1094.5 does not on its face specify which cases are subject to
independent review, leaving that issue to the courts. Fukuda v. City of Angels, (1999)20
Cal.4th 805, 811. In cases reviewing
decisions which affect a vested, fundamental right the trial court exercises
independent judgment on the evidence. Bixby v. Pierno, (1971) 4 Cal.3d
130, 143. See CCP §1094.5(c). In all other cases, the substantial evidence
standard applies.
“[W]hether the underlying right is considered fundamental
must be considered ‘from the standpoint of its economic aspect or its effect…
in human terms and the importance… to the individual in the life situation.’” San Benito Foods v. Veneman (1996) 50
Cal.App.4th 1889, 1896 (quoting Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees
Retirement Assn., (“Strumsky”) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 28, 34). “[T]he crucial question [in determining
whether a right is fundamental] is not the actual amount of harm or damage in
the particular case but the essential character of the right in human terms.” Dickey
v. Retirement Board, (1976) 16 Cal.3d 745, 751.
An administrative decision imposing final discipline on a
professional licensee is decided under the independent judgment standard. Drummey v. State Board of Funeral Directors
& Embalmers, (1939) 13 Cal.2d 75, 84-86; Griffiths v. Superior Court,
(2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 757, 767. An interim suspension of a license, however, is
statutorily governed by a substantial evidence standard of review. B&P Code §494(g). The court need not decide whether B&P
Code section 494(g) is constitutional because Petitioner Blea does not
challenge the standard for judicial review.
In addition, with the exception of the quantum of evidence for public
harm, Blea raises mostly issues of law which the court decides de novo. See Tafti v. County of Tulare,
(2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 891, 896.
See Opp. at 5.
An agency is presumed to have regularly performed its
official duties (Ev. Code §664), and the petitioner therefore has the burden of
proof. Steele v. Los Angeles County
Civil Service Commission, (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 129, 137. “[T]he burden of proof falls upon the party
attacking the administrative decision to demonstrate wherein the proceedings
were unfair, in excess of jurisdiction or showed prejudicial abuse of
discretion. Afford v. Pierno,
(1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 682, 691.
C. Governing Law
1. California
Constitution
An
administrative agency does not have the power to (1) declare a statute unenforceable,
or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional
unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is
unconstitutional; (2) declare a statute unconstitutional; or (3) declare a statute
unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law
or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an
appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute
is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations. Cal. Const., Art. III, §3.5.
2.
Business and Professions Code
A
board or an administrative law judge sitting alone may, upon petition, issue an
interim order suspending any licentiate or imposing restrictions. Business & Professions Code[2]
§494(a). The petition shall include
affidavits that demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the board, that (1) the
licentiate has engaged in acts or omissions constituting a violation of this
code or has been convicted of a crime substantially related to the licensed
activity; and (2) permitting the licentiate to continue to engage in the
licensed activity, or permitting the licentiate to continue in the licensed
activity without restrictions, would endanger the public health, safety, or
welfare. §494(a).
The
board or administrative law judge shall issue a decision on the petition for
interim order within five business days following submission of the matter. The standard of proof required to obtain an
interim order pursuant to this section shall be a preponderance of the evidence
standard. §494(e). If the interim order was previously issued
without notice, the Board shall determine whether the order shall remain in
effect, be dissolved, or modified.
§494(e).
Interim
orders shall be subject to judicial review under CCP section 1094.5, but such
review is limited to a determination of whether the board abused its discretion
in the issuance of the interim order. §494(g).
Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent board has not
proceeded in the manner required by law, or if the court determines that the
interim order is not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole
record. §494(g).
3.
Veterinary Medical Practice Act (“VMPA”)
Protection
of the public shall be the highest priority of the Board in exercising its
licensing, regulatory, and disciplinary functions. §4800.1.
The Board’s enforcement priorities include cases involving repeated acts
of excessive prescribing, furnishing, or administering controlled substances as
defined in section 4021, without a veterinarian-client-patient relationship
pursuant to 16 CCR section 2032.1.
§4875.1.
The
Board may deny, revoke, or suspend a license or registration or assess a fine
for unprofessional conduct including but not limited to violations of any
federal statute, rule, or regulation or any of the statutes, rules, or
regulations of this state regulating dangerous drugs or controlled substances. §4883(g)(3).
This includes the state’s statute that no prescriber shall dispense
drugs or dangerous devices to patients in his or her office or place of
practice unless all conditions are met, including that the dangerous drugs or
dangerous devices are necessary in the treatment of the condition for which the
prescriber is attending the patient.
§4170(a)(2).
The
Board may also deny, revoke, or suspend a license or registration for (1) fraud,
deception, negligence, or incompetence in the practice of veterinary medicine;
and (2) violation, or the assisting or abetting violation, of any regulations
adopted by the board pursuant to this chapter.
§§ 4883(i), 4883(o).
4.
University Involvement in Equine Drug Testing
CHRB
shall contract with the Regents of the University of California to provide
equine drug testing. §19578(a). It shall contract to provide compensation for
an equine medical director who shall be appointed by the Dean of the School of
Veterinary Medicine under applicable university hiring rules with the advice of
the Board. §19578(e). The equine medical director shall be a member
of the scientific advisory committee to the Kenneth L. Maddy Equine Analytical
Chemistry Laboratory, and act as the primary advisor to the Board on all
matters relating to medication and drug testing, the practice of veterinary
medicine within the areas regulated by the Board, and the health and safety of
horses within the enclosure. §19578(e).
D. Statement of Facts
1. Background
Blea
has been a veterinarian with license number 11982 since 1993. Until June 2021, he had a private practice
almost exclusively concerning equine medicine for racetrack horses. On June 30, 2021, Blea retired from his
private practice. AR 490.
On July 1, 2021, Blea accepted a position as the state’s EMD
through the School of Veterinary Medicine at UC Davis. The EMD helps oversee the CHRB 's drug
testing program, works with investigators on medication violations, liaises
with peer directing programs at UC Davis, and works with Official Veterinarians
in their oversight of practicing veterinarians.
AR 490.
2.
The Board’s Investigation
On
February 9, 2021, the Board received a complaint alleging that multiple
veterinarians prescribed or dispensed thyroxine and other drugs to horses under
the jurisdiction of CHRB without appropriate diagnostics. AR 434.
Thyro-L Thyroxine, sold under the trade name Thyro-L, is a prescription
medicine used to treat hypothyroidism and used for treatment of obesity and
insulin resistance in horses. AR
438. The drug is not approved by the FDA,
and various groups discourage its use on a herd health basis unless the
specific animal has abnormal thyroid function.
AR 424, 437-38.
The
Board reviewed the anonymous complaint, the medical records of six of Blea’s
equine patients, and Veterinarian Confidential Reports (“VCRs”) for racehorses
that Blea treated from January to March 2021.
AR 434. These mandatory
confidential reports listed all treatment provided to these horses during that
period, although the review was limited by CHRB’s practice of destroying
handwritten reports more than six months old.
AR 441.
Based
on these documents, Board investigator James Howard (“Howard”) concluded that
Blea had violated the Veterinary Medical Practice Act (“VMPA”). AR 434.
The reports showed that Blea prescribed medication such as acepromazine
and thyroxine during drug consultations, but the reports did not contain
required documentation that Blea conducted the necessary physical examination
or diagnosis of the underlying condition justifying treatment in violation of section
4483(i). AR 435-36; see AR 703,
706, 709, 717. Some of the drugs, such
as Thyro-L, were prescribed despite the absence of any medical need based on test
results. AR 437; see AR 706, 729. Providing medicine that is unnecessary for
treatment of a condition is unprofessional conduct under section 4483(g)(3). AR 437.
Because of Blea’s failure to examine, diagnose, and document
the course of treatment for the horses, Howard also found that he failed to
establish veterinarian-client-patient-relationships (“VCPR”) before administering
these treatments in violation of section 4483(g) and 4483(o). AR 439-40.
Finally, because Thyro-L and other drugs were not approved by the FDA
for use in veterinary patients, their use was further unprofessional conduct
under section 4483(g)(3). AR 440.
Howard
further noted that the drugs in question are known to give horses an unfair
advantage by increasing metabolism, lightening the horses through dehydration,
and masking conditions that would render a horse unsound for racing. AR 441.
The
VCRs for horses treated by Blea from January to March 2021 revealed that he treated
3,225 horses over 67 working days in that three-month span, averaging 48 per
day. AR 441. Howard saw no substantial difference between
these VCRs and those for the six horses he cited to show Blea’s violations of
the VMPA. AR 441. Comparisons of the VCRs revealed that Blea
would give the same drug to large numbers of horses owned by the same trainer –
e.g., aspirin powder given to 11 horses trained by “M.P.” on January 23,
2021. AR 442, 858. This suggested that Blea treated the racehorses
without any medical necessity. AR 441-42.
Aside
from violating the VMPA, Blea’s decision to treat racehorses without
documenting the specific diagnosis in a medical record and without establishing
a VCPR violated the American Association of Equine Practitioners’ (“AAEP”) Clinical
Guidelines for Veterinarians Practicing in a Pari-Mutuel Environment. AR 447, 458, 460-61.
Howard
opined that as EMD, Blea wielded influence over CHRB investigations of
medication violations and racehorse deaths.
AR 445. Blea’s violations matched
the allegations against many racetrack veterinarians and there is a significant
concern that Blea may not be transparent and cooperative in the oversight and
release of information for medication violations in the death of a racehorse. AR 447.
Blea’s effectiveness as a regulator of a culture he has been a part of
for 28 years is a concern. AR 447.
3.
The ALJ’s Decision on Interim Suspension
a.
The December 24 Ex Parte Hearing
On
December 21, 2021, the Board filed an Accusation against Blea and an ex
parte petition for a temporary suspension order under section 494 that
relied on Howard’s declaration. AR
417. The petition asserted that, as EMD,
Blea had “immeasurable influence over the drug testing program, necropsies of
racehorses, death investigations, and medication violation
investigations.” AR 491. An interim suspension order was therefore
necessary to prevent him from endangering racehorse health and avoid possible
undue influence in UC Davis drug testing programs and any death
investigations. AR 491.
The
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) held a December 24, 2021 hearing, at which
Blea chose not to address the merits of the Accusation. AR 1806.
He instead asserted that the question for purposes of an interim
suspension was whether he poses a threat or danger to the public welfare or
animal patients, which he contended was unlikely because he was no longer
seeing patients. AR 1806.
On
January 3, 2022, the ALJ granted the petition and issued the Order. AR 148.
The ALJ acknowledged that an individual appointed as EMD need not hold a
veterinarian license. AR 140. Additionally, the Board did not provide any
evidence suggesting that it had the authority to invalidate Blea’s appointment
to, or interfere with his duties for, the EMD position. AR 142.
The Board’s stated goal in pursuing an Order was to prevent Blea from
using that position to interfere with investigations into the sudden deaths of
racehorses at CHRB facilities. AR 143.
The
ALJ found that the burden of proof for an Order is preponderance of
evidence. AR 145. The preponderance of evidence established
that Blea treated over 3,000 horses in a three-month period, administering
dangerous drugs to them without documented examinations or diagnoses in what is
unprofessional and negligent conduct that violated the VMPA. AR 143, 147.
While Blea was not practicing at the moment, the threat of him returning
to private practice and causing further harm to the public welfare is real as
long as his license is valid. AR 144,
147.
The
ALJ granted the ex parte petition for issuance of the Order and set a
noticed hearing on the petition for January 21, 2022. AR 148.
UC Davis subsequently placed Blea on administrative leave. AR 676.
b. The January 21 Hearing
During the January 21, 2022 hearing, Blea again chose to not
to defend against the underlying violations.
AR 1865. He argued that an
interim suspension order is the equivalent of a temporary restraining order
(“TRO”), and that the standard is “pretty extraordinary” and requires clear and
convincing evidence. AR 682, 1865.
On January 28, 2022, the ALJ upheld the Order. AR 688.
The ALJ concluded that the burden of proof for an interim suspension
order is preponderance of evidence under section 494(e). AR 683.
Even if such a standard unconstitutionally denies Blea due process as he
claims, administrative agencies do not have the authority to assess the
constitutionality of a statute or choose not to enforce because it believes the
statute is unconstitutional. AR
685. No appellate court had ruled that
section 494(e) or its standard of proof was unconstitutional. AR 685.
The ALJ summarized Howard’s findings that (1) Blea’s records
indicate that he did not conduct a proper examination or diagnose the six
equine patients with any medical condition that required treatment before he
administered dangerous drugs, (2) he did so without documenting any examination
or diagnosis that such treatment was necessary, and (3) he provided drugs to
large numbers of horses in a short period of time based on what the trainers
wanted and not on documented examination, diagnosis, or medical necessity. AR 678-80.
The
ALJ observed that Blea argued that Howard’s opinion was based on facts without
evidentiary support and factors that were speculative or conjectural. AR 682.
Blea also argued the drugs he used were either approved by the FDA for
use in the United States or could be used without FDA approval, and none were
prohibited by CHRB. AR 682.
The
ALJ rejected Blea’s contentions that Howard lacked the experience to offer his
expert opinion or failed to provide the factual basis for it. AR 685-86.
Blea failed to provide any evidence that veterinary medical services
provided to equine patients in racetracks differ from the veterinary medical
services provided to equine patients in other environments. AR 686.
Based
on the evidence and Howard’s analysis, the ALJ concluded that the Board
established by a preponderance of the evidence that Blea had violated the
VMPA. AR 687. While Blea was not practicing at the moment,
the threat of him returning to private practice and causing further harm to
public welfare was real as long as his license was valid. AR 687.
E. Analysis
Petitioner Blea
raises two issues: (a) whether the ALJ applied the correct burden of proof and
(b) whether the Board met its burden of showing that, if Blea’s license
is not immediately suspended, he would endanger the public welfare.
1.
Mootness
The
Board argues that the case is moot – Blea even concedes that the practical
benefit from this Petition is “small” and “fleeting” – because the final
decision on the Accusation against him may be issued prior to the court’s
decision on this Petition. The
administrative hearing on the Accusation is scheduled to start on August 8,
2022. As the outcome of this Petition will have little to no practical impact
on Blea, it is moot and should be dismissed. Opp. at 14-15.
“A case is moot when the decision of the reviewing court
‘can have no practical impact or provide the parties effectual relief.’” MHC Operating Ltd. P'ship v. City of San Jose,
(2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 214. “Although
a case may originally present an existing controversy, if before decision it
has, through the acts of the parties or other cause, occurring after
commencement of the action, lost that essential character, it becomes a moot
case or question which will not be considered by the court.” Wilson v. Los Angeles County Civil Service
Com., (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 450, 453.
Blea responds that the court should reach a decision as to
the two core questions of law presented in the opening brief to provide future
guidance to the parties and to others similarly situated based on a mootness
exception for matters likely to reoccur.
“‘If an action involves a matter of continuing public interest and the
issue is likely to recur, a court may exercise an inherent discretion to
resolve that issue, even though an event occurring during its pendency would
normally render the matter moot.’ Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fales, (1973)
8 Cal.3d 712, 715-16. Reply at 4-5.
There is no need to consider the “capable of repetition”
exception to mootness because the case is not moot. The FAA against Blea is set to be heard beginning
August 8, 2022, a matter of days from the instant hearing, but that does not
mean it soon will be completed. Blea
states that the administrative hearing is scheduled for 16 days and should end on
August 29, 2022 (Pet. Op. Br. at 8), and there is no guarantee that will be the
case. Additionally, administrative
hearings are often continued, are subject to post-hearing briefing, and the
final decision comes after such briefing.
The court cannot assume that the Board will render a final decision on
the FAA anytime soon and therefore this case is not moot.
2. The Burden of
Proof at the Administrative Hearing
As Petitioner argues (Pet. Op. Br. at 8-9), the Board is
authorized in an appropriate disciplinary case to apply for an interim suspension
order that suspends the licensee’s right to practice during the time that the accusation
is being heard and decided. §494(a). As pertinent, the petition for interim
suspension shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board through affidavit
that (1) the licentiate has engaged in acts or omissions constituting a
violation of the Business and Professions Code and (2) permitting the
licentiate to continue to engage in the licensed activity would endanger the
public health, safety, or welfare.
§494(a). The petitioner must prove
that an interim suspension is warranted by a preponderance of the evidence
standard. §494(e).
Blea contends that the ALJ abused her discretion by refusing
to apply the constitutionally mandated standard of clear and convincing
evidence to a reasonable certainty and instead applied the statutory preponderance
of the evidence standard in section 494(e).
He argues that it was an abuse of her discretion not to hold the Board’s
Executive Officer to the same higher standard as applies in every case in which
a professional license is suspended or revoked.
Pet. Op. Br. at 10.
a. The ALJ Could Not Decide the Constitutionality of Section
494(e)
The ALJ applied a preponderance of the evidence standard
over the objection of Blea’s counsel. AR 683.
The ALJ ruled that she could not act on the constitutionality of the burden
of proof in section 494(e). “Even
assuming that Respondent’s argument has merit, administrative agencies do not
have the authority to assess the constitutionality of a statute or to refuse to
enforce a statute on that ground unless an appellate court has held that the
statute is unconstitutional. (Cal. Const., Art. III, §3.5.)” AR 685.
Art. III, section 3.5 of the California Constitution
provides in relevant part:
“An administrative agency, including an administrative
agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to
enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an
appellate court has made a determination that such statute is
unconstitutional….
Blea argues that a choice between two standards of proof --
one statutory and the other constitutionally required -- is not a “refusal to
enforce” the statute under Art. III, section 3.5. The word “enforcement” typically refers to
substantive requirements or prohibitions, not to procedural rules or rules of
evidence. Blea contends that Art. III, section
3.5 “merely ‘places restraints on administrative agencies relative to their
refusal to enforce statutes on constitutional grounds; it does not affect their
enforcement of their own rules or their competence to examine evidence before
them in light of constitutional standards.’” Dash, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control
Appeals Bd. (9th Cir. 1982) 683 F.2d 1229, 1234 (citations omitted). Pet.
Op. Br. at 14-15.
Blea is
incorrect. The ALJ must follow the
statutes governing the Board and was constitutionally proscribed from refusing
to enforce section 494(e)’s preponderance of the evidence burden of proof. Pursuant to
Art. III, section 3.5, state agencies must apply statutes despite
constitutional doubts unless and until an appellate court decides it is
unconstitutional. See Lockyer v. City & County of San
Francisco, (2004) 33
Cal.4th 1055, 1083-84 (court need not decide whether Art. III,
section 3.5 applies to local officials because they do not possess the
authority to determine that a statute is unconstitutional under common law). The ALJ correctly
noted that no appellate court has determined B&P section 494(e) to be unconstitutional. AR 685. Had the ALJ ignored the unambiguous language
of section 494(e) and refused to enforce it,
she would have violated the California
Constitution.
The ALJ
applied the standard of proof required by section 494(e) as she was required by
law to do.
b. The Court Cannot Decide the Correct Burden of Proof
Blea correctly notes that, if the ALJ was barred from
applying the constitutionally mandated standard of proof, that is no bar to him
raising the objection before this court.
Chevrolet Motor Division v. New Motor Vehicle Bd., (1983) 146
Cal.App.3d 533, 539. Pet. Op. Br. at 15. Art. III, section 3.5 does not deprive the
superior court of the power to declare a statute unconstitutional and order an
agency not to enforce it against the challenging party. Therefore, the court must address the Board’s
Executive Officer’s correct burden of proof before the ALJ.
When an administrative agency seeks to revoke or suspend a
license, the agency must bear both the burden of production and the burden of
persuasion. Daniels v. Department of
Motor Vehicles, (1983) 33 Cal.3d 532, 536.
“[A]n individual having obtained the license required to engage in a
particular profession or vocation, has a ‘fundamental vested right’ to continue
in that activity.” Hughes v. Board of Architectural Examiners,
(“Hughes”) (1998) 17 Cal.4th 763, 788-89 (due process permits
discipline for pre-licensure conduct).
For the suspension or revocation of a professional license,
an agency must provide its case “by clear and convincing proof to a reasonable
certainty” rather than preponderance of the evidence. Ettinger v. Board of Medical Quality
Assurance, (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 853, 856 (imposing a clear and convincing
standard for physician discipline because its purpose is to protect the public
and it would be anomalous to treat physicians differently than attorneys or
real estate agents); The Grubb Co., Inc. v. Department of Real Estate, (“Grubb”)
(2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1502 (statute that permits agency to discipline real
estate broker based on civil judgment obtained by a preponderance of the
evidence violates due process); Realty Projects, Inc. v. Smith, (1973)
32 Cal.App.3d 210, 212 (real estate license revocation). This procedural protection is consistent with
the constitutional due process right to practice a profession. Hughes, supra, 17 Cal.4th
at 788-89. “[U]nder the California
Constitution, the suspension or revocation of a professional license must be
based on misconduct proven by clear and convincing evidence.” Grubb, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th
at 1502 (citing Hughes, supra, 17 Cal.4th at 789,
n.9).
Blea relies on Grubb.
Pet. Op. Br. at 12-13. In Grubb,
an employee of a licensed real estate broker represented both sides to the sale
of a residence. 194 Cal.App.4th
at 1496. The sale fell through and the
sellers refused to return the buyers’ deposit.
Ibid. The buyers sued the
sellers, the brokerage, and several of the brokerage’s employees. Ibid.
The jury returned a verdict finding that the brokerage and one of its
employees had made misrepresentations and breached their fiduciary duty. Ibid.
The jury also found that the buyers had not shown malice, fraud, or
oppression by clear and convincing evidence in order to support punitive
damages. Ibid.
The Real Estate Commissioner initiated administrative
disciplinary proceedings and imposed against Grubb under section 10177.5, which
authorized discipline against a real estate licensee based on a civil judgment for
misrepresentation, fraud, or deceit. Id.
at 1497. The appellate court concluded
that collateral estoppel could not apply to impose discipline because the
brokerage’s “due process right to proof by clear and convincing evidence”
barred reliance on the civil judgment for purposes of licensing discipline
because it was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at
1503. Notwithstanding section 10177.5’s requirement that discipline be imposed
based on the civil judgment, due process does not permit a civil judgment to be
used to impose discipline where it was reached based on a lower standard of
proof than the one required in the disciplinary proceeding. Ibid.
Blea argues that there is no principled reason why Grubb’s
rule for clear and convincing evidence would not also apply to an interim
suspension proceeding. Pet. Op. Br. at
13-14.
The Board responds
that statutes are generally presumed to be constitutional. Property
Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court, (2016) 1 Cal.5th 151, 192. The Board argues that courts have consistently held that a temporary
restraint on liberty is permissible to prevent harm, and due process does not
necessarily require the same standard of proof for interim orders as is required
for final adjudication of the charges.
The Board correctly notes that Ettinger, supra, 135 Cal.App.3d at 853 and Grubb, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at 1494, are distinguishable because they
concern the standard of proof for final discipline after hearing on an accusation
and do not address proceedings involving interim orders. Opp. at 6-7.
Consistent with section 494(e) is the statutory interim
suspension of a medical professional license where the statutory degree of
proof also is not clear and convincing evidence. An interim suspension may be granted against
a medical professional’s license if there is a reasonable probability that the Medical
Board will prevail and there is a likelihood of injury to the public in not
issuing the order that outweighs the likelihood of injury to the licensee. Govt. Code §11529(e). This statute adopted a standard consistent
with the preliminary injunction standard in a civil case under CCP §527 and overturned
Silva v. Superior Court, (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 562, 569-71,
which construed the previous version of Govt. Code section 11529 to require
clear and convincing evidence.
Although it does not mention Govt. Code section 11529(e), the
Board relies on the same preliminary injunction standard, noting that administrative
proceedings are civil in nature (Petrucci v. Bd. of Med. Examiners,
(1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 83, 88) and the proof required for a
preliminary injunction may be lower than that for a permanent injunction due to
its temporary nature, citing People ex rel. Gow v. Mitchell Brothers'
Santa Ana Theater, (“Gow”) (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 863, 872. Opp. at 7-8.
In Gow, the court addressed a preliminary
injunction in a public nuisance abatement action for obscenity. Id. at 872. The court held that, while a permanent
injunction carries a proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard (for First
Amendment reasons), this is not the burden
of proof for a preliminary injunction. “A
preliminary injunction, however, is only a temporary remedy[;]....the
trial court does not decide the case on its merits; it merely decides whether
or not a defendant's activities should be limited during the period before a
final judgment is made.” Ibid. (italics in original).[3]
The Board notes that a court may grant a preliminary
injunction in a civil action which burdens constitutional rights to the extent
necessary to serve a significant government interest. Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc.,
(1994) 512 U.S. 753, 765. The Board
contends that section 494(e)’s preponderance of the evidence standard for an
interim suspension is consistent with its legislative purpose of preventing
harm; it would be anomalous to require a higher degree of proof for interim
suspension orders than for a preliminary injunction that places a temporary
restraint on constitutionally-protected liberties. Opp. at 8-9.
Blea argues that an interim suspension is still a suspension,
and it is still subject to the constitutional requirement that the state must
produce evidence of compelling weight and persuasive power. The damage to a licensee’s reputation, and
the interference with licensees’ ability to practice within their profession,
is just as immediate and irremediable for an interim suspension lasting a
period of weeks or months as it is for a for a term of suspension. In most cases the licensing agency will be prepared
to present its full case at the time it applies for an interim suspension. Reply at 7, n. 1. There is no reason, in law or in policy, to
permit a board to impose a suspension on its licensee except when its case for
doing so is compelling from the outset -- i.e., when the board is
satisfied at the time the accusation is made that it will be able to prove its
principal case on the merits clearly and convincingly to a reasonable
certainty. Reply at 7.
While Blea makes a good argument, it is worth noting that the
preponderance of the evidence standard in section 494(e) is supported by the
procedural protection of a swift final decision. Section 494(f) expressly requires that the
board shall file an accusation within 15 days of the interim order. If the licentiate defends, the hearing must
be held within 30 days of receipt of the notice of defense. §494(f).[4] The decision must be made within 30 days
after submission of the matter. Id. The board’s failure to comply with these
timelines dissolves the interim order as a matter of law. Id.
The prompt resolution of the accusation suggests that a temporary burden
on a licensee may constitutionally justify a lesser burden of proof.
The court concludes that the constitutionality of a
preponderance of evidence burden of proof for interim suspensions has not been
properly briefed by the parties. There
is no controlling case law. Silva v.
Superior Court, supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at 569-71 -- the
case which Govt. Code section 11529(e) overturned to set a standard for the interim
suspension for medical professionals consistent with a preliminary injunction
under CCP §527 -- expressly declined to determine whether due process requires
the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof for the interim suspension
of a medical professional license.
The due process constitutionality of the burden of proof for
a section 494 interim suspension must be evaluated by addressing the factors articulated
by the United States Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge,
(“Mathews”) (1976) 424 U.S. 319, 335 and embellished by the California
Supreme Court in People v. Ramirez, (“Ramirez”) (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260, 269. Pursuant to Ramirez, the due process required in
a particular circumstance in California requires consideration of (1) the private interest
that will be affected by the official action, (2) the risk of an erroneous
deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable
value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards, (3) the
dignitary interest in informing individuals of the nature, grounds and
consequences of the action and in enabling them to present their side of the
story before a responsible governmental official, and (4) the governmental
interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative
burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would
entail.” 25 Cal.3d at 269. Except for the
additional “dignitary interest” factor, this balancing test is nearly identical
to the one articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Mathews,
supra, 424 U.S. at 335. “Thus we must look to and weigh the various
interests at stake before deciding what procedures are constitutionally
required.”
Saleeby v. State Bar, (1985) 39 Cal.3d 547, 565.
Neither Blea nor the Board addresses the Mathews/Ramirez
factors. The Board also fails to present
the legislative history for section 494 on which it purports to
rely. Based on the insufficiency of the
evidence and argument presented, the court declines to decide whether the Board
is required to prove the allegations for an interim suspension by clear and
convincing evidence. Given the proximity
of the upcoming hearing on the FAA, there is no reason for the court to require
additional briefing.[5]
2. Danger to the
Public Welfare
a. The Standard of Harm
Blea argues that the Board’s Executive Officer was obliged
to prove by “affidavits that demonstrate” both that he engaged in conduct
violating the VMPA and that he “would endanger” the public if his license is
not immediately suspended -- i.e., that there is an articulable and
imminent peril if he is not instantly sidelined. §494(a).
Pet. Op. Br. at 15.
The Board correctly points out (Opp. at 9-10) that section
494(a) does not require a showing of “imminent danger”. Section 494(a)(2) provides that a board may
issue an interim order suspending any licentiate after a showing that “[p]ermitting
the licentiate to continue to engage in the licensed activity, or permitting
the licentiate to continue in the licensed activity without restrictions, would endanger the public health,
safety, or welfare.” (emphasis added). The term “endanger” means “to expose to
danger,” which is the commonly understood and plain meaning.
Blea responds that the Board’s position disregards the
express language of the section 494(a), which requires that the licentiate’s
continued licensed activity “would endanger the public”, as well as general law
governing the proof required for restraining orders and prohibitory preliminary
injunctions. Blea relies on Gray v.
Superior Court, (“Gray”) (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 629, as instructive. Reply at 9-11.
In Gray, a psychiatrist facing criminal charges of unlawfully
prescribing and possessing controlled substances was prohibited from practicing
medicine as a condition of bail. Id. at 635. The physician pursued judicial relief from
this bail condition. Id. at
636. The appellate court concluded that a
prohibition on medical practice is not an unreasonable bail condition per se,
but “its imposition violated Gray's procedural due process rights” where he has
not been convicted and not received a preliminary hearing on the charges and
where he otherwise would have been entitled to statutory procedures before the
Medical Board. Id. at 643.
In discussing alternatives available to the Medical Board, the
court considered a preliminary injunction under section 2312, which has the
same language as section 494 concerning danger to the public: “The Division of
Medical Quality shall seek to obtain an injunction against any physician and
surgeon within its jurisdiction if the division has reasonable cause to believe
that allowing such person to continue to engage in the practice of medicine
would endanger the public health, safety, or welfare.” Id. at 639-40. The court emphasized the need for a specific
and direct danger posed by the licensee:
“In the absence of a verified showing of threatened
harm by the moving party, a trial court exceeds its jurisdiction by granting a
preliminary injunction....[T]he complaint alleges no facts supporting a
conclusion that permitting Gray to practice medicine poses an imminent
danger of serious injury to the public. Therefore, if the Medical Board had
pursued an injunction instead of a bail condition prohibiting Gray from
practicing medicine, the trial court's order would constitute an abuse of
discretion because there is no competent evidence demonstrating a serious
threat of injury to the public....” Id.
at 640–41.
Gray does not aid Blea. Gray’s reference to “imminent danger
of serious injury” is both dictum for its holding that the psychiatrist’s bail
condition violated due process and loose language not tailored to the statute. See §2312. The fact is that neither section 2312 nor
494(a) requires imminent harm. They only
require the risk of harm to the public welfare, a concept familiar to any court
handling preliminary injunctions. The
purpose of licensing statutes is to protect the public (§4800.1)
and neither actual nor imminent harm is required. See Kearl v. Board of Medical Quality
Assurance, (1986) 189 Cal.App.3d 1040,
1053 (actual harm not required for discipline
of physician’s license).
b. The Presumption of Harm
Blea contends that the ALJ did not require a showing by
affidavit that permitting him to practice “would endanger the public health,
safety, or welfare”. Rather, the ALJ
found that the Board’s proof of a violation of the VMPA was sufficient to
warrant a “presumption of public endangerment”, shifting the burden to him to
affirmatively establish that he posed no such danger.
The ALJ relied on IT Corp. v. County of Imperial, (“IT
Corp”) (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 72-73, and stated in her decision: “[The Board]
need only prove it is more likely than not that [Blea] violated the Practice
Act....Once [the Board] meets [its] burden, a rebuttable presumption of public
endangerment arises. See IT Corp....” AR 683.
In IT Corp, the plaintiff corporation engaged in
disposal of hazardous waste and had obtained a conditional use permit (“CUP”) from
the county authorizing construction of a disposal facility. 3 Cal.3d at 68. The county filed a cross-complaint against
the company seeking injunctive relief from the company's violation of the CUP. Id.
The county’s ordinances specifically authorized an injunctive remedy for
violation of its zoning laws, declaring any such violation to constitute a
nuisance subject to abatement. Id.
at 68, n. 3.
In
determining the proper standard for the issuance of the preliminary injunction,
the California Supreme Court held that where a government agency seeks a
preliminary injunction for violation of a statute or ordinance that
specifically provides for injunctive relief, a rebuttable presumption arises
that the potential harm to the public outweighs any harm to the defendant. Id. at 72. If the
defendant shows that it would suffer grave or irreparable harm from the
issuance of the preliminary injunction, the court must then examine the
relative actual harms to the parties. Ibid. The court concluded that the trial court’s
issuance of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion because the
county demonstrated a reasonable probability it would prevail in establishing a
violation of the CUP and the corporation failed to show grave or irreparable harm to rebut the
presumption. Id. at 73-75.
Blea argues that the circumstances in IT Corp differ
significantly from an interim suspension under section 494(a). When an ordinance or statute includes
injunctive relief as a remedy for its violation, it is reasonable to infer that
the legislators included that injunctive authority precisely because the prohibited
activity is likely to affect public safety in a manner warranting immediate
remedial action. The county ordinance in
IT Corp was clear on this point, declaring zoning violations to be a
nuisance, which is by definition a harmful condition. 3 Cal.3d at 68, n. 3. In that circumstance, a presumption of
potential harm is “baked in” to the authorization to seek injunctive remedies.
In contrast, section 494(a) authorizes a prohibitory
injunction against the practice of a licensed profession where the statutes regulating
the conduct do not do so. Section 494 is a catch-all provision
permitting suspension of a professional license for violation of any provision
of the Business and Professions Code. Moreover,
section 494 explicitly calls for the agency seeking the suspension to submit
“affidavits that demonstrate” the existence of imminent harm. This requirement is inconsistent with the
existence of a presumption concerning the matter to be demonstrated by those
affidavits. Pet. Op. Br. at 17.
Blea is
correct. The ALJ erroneously relied on
the rebuttable presumption of public endangerment in IT Corp to show irreparable harm to the public
welfare. IT Corp’s holding is that irreparable
harm is presumed where a statute or ordinance provides for enforcement of a
violation by injunction. As Blea
describes it, this is for statutes or ordinances that “bake in” injunctive
relief. In contrast, section 494(a) is a
general statute authorizing any pertinent board to issue an interim suspension
upon a necessary showing. It is not
relief tied to any violation of the VMPA (§4800 et seq.). Indeed, the court is unaware of any case
holding that a rebuttable presumption of harm applies to a disciplinary case,
whether a public employee or licensee. IT
Corp’s holding may well be limited to nuisance cases, which is the
situation in which the presumption of harm typically arises.
Moreover, Blea rightly argues that the ALJ ignored section
494(a)’s requirement that the Board’s Executive Officer must show by affidavit
that continued license activity would endanger the public welfare. Nothing in section 494(a) permits the Board
to bypass the necessary showing through a presumption.
The ALJ
abused her discretion by relying on a presumption of harm upon a showing that
Blea violated the VMPA.
c. The
Finding of Danger to the Public Welfare
The ALJ found
that “permitting [Blea] to practice and engage in veterinary medicine poses a
risk of injury to the public health, safety, and welfare.” AR
687. “Though [Blea] argues that he is
not currently practicing, this does not ensure public safety. As long as [his] license to practice is
active, he is free to return to the practice of veterinary medicine at any
time.” AR
687.
Blea argues that the Board’s Executive Officer presented no
evidence that he posed an actual threat to the public welfare. He has left private practice and had ceased
every violation of the VMPA he was alleged to have committed nearly six months before
the Accusation was filed because he had become EMD. Blea argues that the ALJ’s finding of a danger
was based entirely on speculation that events that might happen, not events
likely to happen. There is not a single
shred of evidence that any of the violations would occur again during the
pendency of the administrative case, and certainly no evidence that the danger only
could be addressed by stripping Blea of his license. Pet. Op. Br. at 17-18; Reply at 11-12.
The ALJ found that Blea engaged in “conduct that is
negligent, unprofessional, and poses a danger to the public health, safety, and
welfare.” AR 687.
This finding is undisputed for this case. Blea’s medical records evidence his
failure to examine and diagnose six equine patients prior to administering
medically unnecessary drugs. AR 435-36, 703, 706, 709, 717, 719, 722, 727,
752-57, 759-63, 765-70, 772-78. His VCRs
show that he routinely and customarily administered medically unnecessary drugs
to racehorses at the behest of a trainer.
AR 442. He was a prolific veterinarian, administering
drugs to approximately 3,225 horses over 67 working days between January and
March 2021, an average of 48 different racehorses each working day. AR
441. He consistently failed to establish
a VCPR, examine and diagnose racehorse patients before prescribing and
administering drugs.
From this evidence
and the ALJ’s findings of misconduct, the Board argues that Blea’s continued licensure
poses a public endangerment. Blea’s
argument that he poses no danger to the public because he is the UC Davis EMD
and no longer sees patients is an argument that he is not a danger because he
is choosing not to be a danger is not reliable assurance. Blea may no longer treat equine patients, but
that does not preclude a finding of public endangerment. Opp. at 11.
The court agrees with Blea that this argument is speculation. But there also is real evidence of danger to public
welfare. Nothing in section 494 states that
public harm only exists where a licensee is actively involved in patient care
or personally interacting with consumers.
The EMD is primarily responsible for the enforcement of
violations that harm the health and safety of racehorses, including medication
and drug testing, and the practice of veterinary medicine at racetracks. AR 676; §19578. The EMD oversees the UC Davis Kenneth L.
Maddy Equine Analytical Chemistry Laboratory drug-testing program, works with
CHRB investigators to investigate potential medication violations, liaises with
peers directing programs at UC Davis, including the UC Davis-CHRB necropsy
program, and works with Official Veterinarians in their oversight of practicing
veterinarians. AR 444-45, 490. The EMD has control or influence over the
drugs administered to racehorses, drug detection, and the investigations of
medication violations and racehorse deaths, including the direction of the
investigation, the necropsies, and their results. AR
490-91.
Blea’s numerous violations of the VMPA reflect at best a
casual approach to veterinary racehorse medicine. The Board notes that Petitioner was an author
of the “Clinical Guidelines for Veterinarians Practicing in a Pari-Mutuel
Environment” (“Guidelines”) published by the American Association of Equine
Practitioners. AR 458, 467.
The Guidelines’ important core recommendations include (a) all
therapeutic treatments for a horse involved in racing or race training should
be based on a specific diagnosis and administered in the context of an
owner-trainer-veterinarian relationship, and (b) all medical treatments and
diagnostic procedures performed on a horse in a race or training center setting
should be documented in a medical record.”
AR 460-61. These core recommendations were developed for
the “health, safety and welfare of the racehorse.” AR 459. Blea’s failure to adhere to his own
recommendations illustrates that he does not act in the best interests of his
equine patients. Opp. at 12-13.
As the Board argues (Opp. at 12), if Blea is allowed to continue
his EMD role, his involvement will raise questions about the integrity of the
drug testing program, the investigations, their findings, and their results due
to the unquestionable conflict of interest.
Public trust will diminish.
Without a trusted drug testing system and without impartial, complete,
and accurate investigations, the Board will be prevented from learning the true
causes of horse death and injury, from enforcing the VMPA, and from instituting remedial action or
regulations to curb unnecessary deaths of racehorses. AR 447. Indeed, this public harm is why the Board pursued
the Order to prevent Blea from using his EMDt position to interfere with
investigations into the sudden deaths of racehorses at CHRB facilities. AR 143.
See AR 23, 447.
The ALJ’s finding that Blea would be a danger
to the public if he retained his license is supported by substantial
evidence. §494(g).[6]
F. Conclusion
The Petition is denied.
The Board’s counsel is ordered to prepare a proposed judgment, serve it
on the Petitioner Blea’s counsel for approval as to form, wait ten days after
service for any objections, meet and confer if there are objections, and then
submit the proposed judgment along with a declaration stating the
existence/non-existence of any unresolved objections. An OSC re: judgment is set for September 13,
2022 at 1:30 p.m.
[1] On July
25, 2022, the Board filed an opposition to a motion by CHRB to file an amicus
curiae brief in this action. No such
motion has been filed. CHRB only lodged
a courtesy copy of its application without filling it. Therefore, the court need not consider CHRB’s
application for leave to file an amicus brief.
[2]
Unless otherwise stated, all further statutory references are to the Business
& Professions Code.
[3] The Board
also relies on civil harassment and workplace violence cases in which a
petitioner need only show reasonable proof for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order. CCP §§ 527.6(d), 527.8(e). Opp. at 8.
These statutes are sui generis and have little relevance to the
interim suspension of a license.
[4] The
Board’s Executive Officer filed the Accusation on December 21, 2021, and the
ALJ issued the final Order on January 28, 2022. Although the Board was required to hold a
hearing on the Accusation (now FAA) within 30 days, Blea presumably consented
to postpone the hearing until August 8, 2022.
[5] The
Board is correct (Opp. at 9) that, by not disputing the facts found by the ALJ,
Blea fails to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome on the
charges supporting the Order. Due
process violations always require prejudice and Blea has not demonstrated a reasonable
probability of a different outcome on the charges if the ALJ had applied the
clear and convincing evidence standard. Fisher v. State Personnel Bd., (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1, 20 (“Reversible
error requires demonstration of prejudice arising from the reasonable
probability the party ‘would have obtained a better outcome’ in the absence of
the error”).
Blea replies that, while this may be true for the charged
offenses, the ALJ did not have clear and convincing evidence, or any direct evidence
at all, of public endangerment. He argues
that the ALJ’s failure to apply a clear and convincing evidence standard
unquestionably relieved the Board of its burden to demonstrate an articulable
cause and effect relationship between specific danger and his continued
licensure during the pendency of the Accusation. Reply at 8.
The court will address this issue post.
[6] As
stated ante, Blea argues that the ALJ did not have clear and convincing
evidence of public endangerment and that he was prejudiced by her failure to
apply the proper standard. Reply at
8. This issue is problematic. The inferences arising from the evidence of Blea’s
casual approach to racehorses do not necessarily rise to the level of clear and
convincing evidence of public harm. As a
result, it is not clear that the ALJ should have reached the same result if she
applied a clear and convincing standard.
See Fisher v. State
Personnel Bd., supra, 25 Cal.App.5th at 20. The court need not decide this issue because
it has declined to decide whether a clear and convincing standard is
constitutionally required.