Case Title: Davuluri v. State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bd. Of Med. Licensure & Supervision

Citation: 

Docket Number: 91750

State: oklahoma

Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Date: 2000-06-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
Davuluri v. State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bd. Of Med. Licensure & Supervision  Davuluri v. State ex. rel. Oklahoma Bd. Of Med. Licensure & Supervision 2000 OK 45 10 P.3d 198 71 OBJ 1594 Case Number: 91750 Decided: 06/13/2000 Mandate Issued: 07/21/2000 Supreme Court of Oklahoma CHAUDHURY DHANA KOTESWARA DAVULURI, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ex rel., OKLAHOMA BOARD OF MEDICAL LICENSURE AND SUPERVISION, Defendant-Appellant. CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS, DIVISION 3 ¶0 The Court of Civil Appeals, in an opinion released by that court for publication, reversed a judgment in favor of Plaintiff entered by the District Court of Pontotoc County, Hon. Thomas S. Landrith, Judge. The trial court had reversed the Board of Medical Licensure's order denying Plaintiff a license to practice medicine. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court on the ground that district courts lack jurisdiction to hear appeals from decisions of the Board denying applications for licenses to practice medicine and that all such appeals must be taken to the Supreme Court. Plaintiff sought certiorari, which we granted on February 22, 2000. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED, COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED, JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED. Daniel J. Gamino, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant_Appellant. Kent F. Frates, Linda G. Scoggins, Melissa Beeson Heindselman, HARTZOG CONGER & CASON, Oklahoma City, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Watt, Justice, FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶1 Plaintiff, Chaudhury Dhana Koteswara Davuluri, M.D., complains of an opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, Division 3, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order of the Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision, which had denied Dr. Davuluri's application for a license to practice medicine. The Court of Civil Appeals held that an appeal from an order of the Board denying an application for a license to practice medicine may not be taken to the district court but "lies directly to the Supreme Court under ¶2 Dr. Davuluri graduated from Spartan Health Sciences University, School of Medicine, located in Vieux Fort, St. Lucia, West Indies, in 1985. In 1986 he was certified by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates. ECFMG certification is a prerequisite for a graduate on a non-U.S. medical school to enter any residency or fellowship program accredited by the American Colleges of Medical Education. Dr. Davuluri was accepted to the medical graduate training program at the State University of New York at Syracuse, which, like the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, is accredited by the American Colleges of Graduate Medical Education. ¶3 Dr. Davuluri completed his one year internship at SUNY, Syracuse in 1988 and began a three year residency there in obstetrics and gynecology. During the final year of his residency at SUNY, Syracuse, Dr. Davuluri was chief resident of the OB/GYN residency program. Dr. Davuluri graduated from SUNY, Syracuse's OB/GYN program in 1991 and had passed Parts I and II of the Federal Licensing Examination. All physicians must pass Parts I and II of the FLEX examination as a prerequisite to practicing medicine in the United States. Dr. Davuluri has since been licensed to practice medicine in Michigan, Nebraska, South Dakota, and West Virginia. ¶4 In 1991 Dr. Davuluri was employed as staff obstetrician and gynecologist at Carl Albert Indian Health Facility in Ada, Oklahoma. He was not required to have an Oklahoma license to practice medicine at that time as his unrestricted licenses from other states satisfied the Indian Health Service's requirements. ¶5 Dr. Davuluri applied to the Board for a license to practice medicine in Oklahoma in 1997. The Board's secretary issued Dr. Davuluri a temporary license, following which Dr. Davuluri left the Indian Health Service to establish an obstetrical and gynecological practice in Ada, and was granted privileges at Valley View Hospital in Ada. ¶6 It is undisputed that during the more than six years Dr. Davuluri practiced at the Indian Health Facility and was in private practice in Ada, no complaints were lodged and no medical malpractice actions were instituted against him. Dr. Davuluri presented letters of recommendation to the Board from the supervising OB/GYN at the Indian Health Facility and from its administrator that vouched for Dr. Davuluri's good character and professional skill. ¶7 The Board conducted a hearing on Dr. Davuluri's application for a permanent and unrestricted license to practice medicine on November 20, 1997. At the conclusion of the hearing the Board denied Dr. Davuluri's application and terminated his temporary license to practice medicine by a vote of five to one. ¶8 On December 2, 1997 Dr. Davuluri filed suit in the District Court of Pontotoc County under the authority of ¶9 In its written order dated December 5, 1997 the Board gave as the reasons that Dr. Davuluri failed to satisfy the licensure requirements of the Oklahoma Statutes, The evidence reflects that Applicant's medical school was not substantially equivalent to the education and training offered by the University of Oklahoma College of Medicine; that Applicant has multiple examination failures, failing Component 1 of the Federation Licensing Examination (FLEX) four times and failing Component 2 of the FLEX twice; and that Applicant reported only three of these licensing examination failures on the Application for licensure." The Board's order is silent with respect to Dr. Davuluri's successful completion of four years of postgraduate medical study at SUNY, Syracuse, his possession of licenses to practice medicine in four other states, and his more than six years of practice at the Carl Albert Indian Health Facility. ¶10 The trial court held a hearing on Dr. Davuluri's application for a temporary restraining order on December 16, 1997. On December 30, 1997 the trial court entered a temporary restraining order reinstating Dr. Davuluri's temporary license to practice medicine pending a final determination of his appeal of the board's ruling. ¶11 The matter was tried on the merits on July 13, 1998; on July 20, 1998 the trial court entered an order holding for Dr. Davuluri and ordered the Board to issue to Dr. Davuluri a full and unrestricted license to practice medicine. ¶12 The trial court held that Dr. Davuluri had presented evidence to the Board that overcame all of the factors cited by the Board as reasons for denying Dr. Davuluri's application for a permanent and unrestricted license to practice medicine in Oklahoma. The trial court found that the requirement contained in Subsection B of ¶13 Finally, the trial court held that the Board's failure to consider Dr. Davuluri's successful completion of medial training in the United States, his possession of licenses to practice medicine in four other states, and his years of practice at the Carl Albert Indian Health Facility was "clear error." The trial court held that Dr. Davuluri had presented relevant, reliable, material, probative, and substantial evidence showing that he satisfied all statutory requirements for a license to practice medicine. ¶14 The Board appealed the trial court's decision claiming that (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal of the Board's ruling; (2) the trial court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the Board; (3) the trial court erred in holding that ¶15 ISSUES We answer no to both questions. DISCUSSION I. THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY HELD THAT IT HAD JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER DR. DAVULURI'S APPEAL OF THE BOARD'S DECISION ¶16 This is an issue of first impression. We have not previously addressed whether an appeal from a decision of the Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision that has rejected an application for a medical license should be taken to the district court under the Administrative Procedures Act, ¶17 The Board contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Dr. Davuluri's appeal of the board's decision because ¶18 The Board also cites DiMauro v. Oklahoma State Board of Medical Examiners, ¶19 To the extent that either Naifeh or DiMauro might be construed to stand for the proposition that the district courts lack jurisdiction to consider appeals from refusal by the Board to grant a medical license, those opinions are expressly overruled. Similarly, the published opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in Metcalf v. Oklahoma State Board of Licensure and Supervision, ¶20 The plain language of II. THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN HOLDING THAT THE BOARD'S DECISION TO DENY DR. DAVULURI'S APPLICATION FOR A MEDICAL LICENSE WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS ¶21 The Board argues that the trial court substituted its judgment for that of the Board. The Administrative Procedures Act, ¶22 The Board argues that the trial court violated § 321 by considering new evidence in the form of witnesses and exhibits not presented to the Board. We disagree. The witnesses and exhibits about which the Board complains were presented at the December 16, 1997 hearing on Dr. Davuluri's application for a temporary restraining order. The review of the merits of the appeal were not presented to the trial court until a hearing held on July 20, 1998. No witnesses testified and no exhibits were offered at that hearing. Further, there is no indication in either the transcript of the July 20, 1998 hearing or the trial court's order following it that the trial court considered evidence outside the record made before the Board in arriving at its decision on the merits of Dr. Davuluri's appeal. ¶23 The Board argues that the trial court should have deferred to its decision because the Board's "specialized knowledge may be used in the valuation of the evidence." Title ¶24 The Board's Order Denying Licensure relied, in part, on its conclusion that Dr. Davuluri's medical training was not substantially equivalent to that of the University of Oklahoma. The Board's attorney, however, admitted at the July 20, 1998 hearing that the Board had granted unrestricted licenses to other graduates of the medical school from which Dr. Davuluri had graduated. Further, the Board's secretary had granted Dr. Davuluri a temporary license. ¶25 By statute, before granting a temporary license, the secretary was required to conclude that Dr. Davuluri was "an applicant demonstrably qualified for a full and unrestricted medical license under the requirements set by this act and the rules of the Board." Subsection D.1, ¶26 In its briefs, the board made much of Dr. Davuluri's failure to report all of his attempts to pass the FLEX exam, going so far as to characterize Dr. Davuluri's failure to do so as "misrepresentation." We note, however, that the Board in its Order Denying Licensure made no finding of misrepresentation. Dr. Davuluri took part I of the FLEX exam five times, never failing it by more that four points, and failing by only one point on his third and fourth attempts. Dr. Davuluri took Part II of the FLEX exam three times, failing by three points on his first attempt and two on his second attempt. In his application Dr. Davuluri accurately reported that he had taken Part II three times but indicated that he had taken Part I three times rather than five. ¶27 We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Dr. Davuluri's understatement of the number of times he had taken the FLEX exam did not misrepresent his qualifications. Having admitted that he had taken Parts I and II of the FLEX exam six times, there is no showing that Dr. Davuluri had anything to gain by failing to state in his application that he had actually taken them eight times. Thus, the record supports the trial court's finding that "There is no evidence in the record that Dr. Davuluri intentionally misrepresented the number of examination failures in order to acquire an Oklahoma license." ¶28 The Board makes no attempt to explain why Dr. Davuluri's qualifications to practice medicine in Oklahoma are not established by Dr. Davuluri's successful completion of four years of post graduate study at SUNY, Syracuse, his six years of successful OB/GYN practice at the Carl Albert Indian Health Facility, and his attainment of unrestricted licenses to practice medicine in the states of Michigan, Nebraska, South Dakota, and West Virginia. The trial court found that these factors are "relevant, reliable, material, probative, and substantial" and that "the Board's failure to consider such evidence is clear error." We hold that the record supports the trial court's findings and its order directing the Board to grant Dr. Davuluri an unrestricted medical license. CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED, COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OPINION VACATED, JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED. ¶29 SUMMERS, C.J., HARGRAVE, V.C.J., LAVENDER, WATT, BOUDREAU, and WINCHESTER, JJ. - concur. ¶30 OPALA, J. - concurring in the court's disposition and dissenting from today's pronouncement. ¶31 KAUGER, J. - concurs in part, dissents in part. FOOT