Case Title: Perry v. VT Medical Practice Board

Citation: 169 Vt. 399, 737 A.2d 900

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-07-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
Perry v. Medical Practice Board (98-270); 169 Vt. 399; 737 A.2d 900

[Filed 16-Jul-1999]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as  formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the  Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 98-270

Robert Perry, M.D.	                         Supreme Court

	                                         On Appeal from
     v.		                                 Washington Superior Court

Vermont Medical Practice Board	                 April Term, 1999

Matthew I. Katz, J.

                                   
       Ritchie E. Berger and Shapleigh Smith, Jr. of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew,
  P.C., Burlington,    for Plaintiff-Appellant.

       William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Montpelier, and Geoffrey A.
  Yudien, Assistant Attorney   General, Waterbury, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT:  Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ, and Gibson, J. (Ret.), 
        Specially Assigned

       SKOGLUND, J.  Robert Perry appeals from a superior court judgment
  upholding the  authority of the Board of Medical Practice to deny Perry's
  motion to withdraw his medical-license application.  Perry contends that:
  (1) his appeal of the Board's decision was timely; and  (2) the court
  misconstrued the Board's statutory authority.   We affirm.

                                    FACTS

       The material facts are undisputed.  In August 1993, following his
  graduation from the  University of Vermont Medical School, Perry applied to
  the Board for a medical license.  The  application was held in abeyance
  until Perry completed his first year of postgraduate medical  training, as
  required for license eligibility.  In June 1994, Perry notified the Board
  that he was  prepared to have it review his application.  In May 1995,
  Perry sent a letter to the Board  requesting to withdraw his application
  because he had moved out of State and no longer wished  to practice in
  Vermont.  The Board denied the request, as well as a follow-up request sent
  by 

 

  Perry's attorney.  Thereafter, the Board continued the investigation it had
  begun, focusing on  certain apparent misrepresentations in Perry's
  application.  In December 1995, Perry submitted a  formal motion to
  dismiss, arguing that the Board lacked the statutory authority to deny his 
  withdrawal request.  The following January, the Board issued a written
  decision denying the  motion, and also preliminarily denying the license
  application subject to further review at Perry's  request.  Perry
  subsequently appealed the preliminary denial of his license application,
  which  remains pending.
	
       In response to the Board's decision, Perry filed appeals of the
  Board's interlocutory  ruling denying his withdrawal request with both this
  Court and the Washington Superior Court.   On April 2, 1996, this Court
  granted the State's motion to dismiss, ruling that interlocutory  appeals
  from Board decisions were subject to the requirements of 3 V.S.A. § 130a,
  which  establishes a procedure for appeals from Board decisions to an
  administative appellate officer,  followed by an appeal to the Washington
  Superior Court.  See In re Perry, No. 96-038 (Vt. Apr.  2, 1996) (mem.). 
  Perry thereupon pursued an administrative appeal, and the State moved to 
  dismiss on the ground that it was untimely.  Following a hearing, the
  appellate officer denied the  State's motion to dismiss, and granted
  Perry's motion to withdraw his application, ruling that the  Board lacked
  either express or implied statutory authority to deny the request.  The
  State  appealed.  In a written opinion, the superior court affirmed the
  appellate officer's conclusion that  Perry's appeal was timely, but
  reversed the officer's decision concerning the Board's statutory 
  authority. The court ruled that the Board's authority to deny the request
  was "simply a logical  extension" of its express power to deny an
  application in the first instance, and therefore within  the scope of its
  statutory mandate.  This appeal followed.

                                 DISCUSSION

       We address two procedural issues at the threshold.  First, although
  not raised by either of  the parties, we note that the judgment remains
  interlocutory in nature, and that none of the  procedures for perfecting an
  interlocutory appeal was followed in this case.  See V.R.A.P. 5, 

 

  5.1.  Nevertheless, the court's ruling resolves an important issue separate
  from the merits, a  dismissal of the appeal would most likely result in
  another appeal after final judgment, the merits  have been fully briefed,
  and the Court has reviewed the case.  Therefore, we exercise our 
  discretion to suspend the rules and reach the merits.  See Huddleston v.
  University of Vermont,  ___ Vt. ___, ___,