Case Title: Delozier v. State

Citation: 160 Vt. 426, 631 A.2d 228

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1993-02-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
DELOZIER_V_STATE.92-532; 160 Vt. 426; 631 A.2d 228


 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. 92-532


 Howard Delozier, M.D.                        Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Washington Superior Court

 State of Vermont                             February Term, 1993


 Stephen B. Martin, J.

 S. Crocker Bennett, II and Joseph E. Frank of Paul, Frank & Collins, Inc.,
   Burlington, for plaintiff-appellee

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Geoffrey A. Yudien, Assistant
   Attorney General, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ., and Peck, J. (Ret.),
           Specially Assigned


      ALLEN, C.J.   The State appeals from a grant of summary judgment
 ordering the Board of Medical Practice to dismiss charges of immoral or
 dishonorable conduct brought before the Board against the licensee.  The
 trial court concluded that an earlier determination by the Board that it
 lacked subject matter jurisdiction was res judicata and barred a subsequent
 investigation, and that, in any event, the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear
 the matter.  We reverse.
      On January 26, 1990, an investigator for the Board of Medical Practice
 informed the Board that licensee had been arraigned on a charge of sexual
 assault of a female under the age of sixteen.  On January 29, 1990, the
 Board sent a notice to licensee that a complaint had been filed and an
 investigation would be commenced.  Licensee's attorney asked the Board to
 close the file because licensee's conduct did not fall within the statutory
 criteria of unprofessional conduct listed in 26 V.S.A. { 1354.  The
 investigatory committee considered this request and, after obtaining
 information as to the conditions of licensee's release from criminal
 charges, recommended to the Board that it close the file on licensee.  The
 Board met on May 2, 1990, voted to close licensee's file, and on June 13,
 1990, wrote a letter to licensee informing him that the file had been
 closed due to lack of jurisdiction.
      On August 26, 1991, the Board informed licensee that a new file had
 been opened on him as a result of an article alleging that the University
 Health Center had suspended him for six months.  On November 6, 1991, the
 Board issued charges specifying that licensee had engaged in immoral and/or
 dishonorable conduct under 26 V.S.A. { 1398.  Licensee's motion to dismiss
 was denied.  The Board ruled that neither res judicata nor collateral
 estoppel applied to the Board's prior determination because the Board had
 not been acting in its judicial capacity.  Licensee brought an action for
 extraordinary relief under V.R.C.P. 75(a), and the superior court granted
 his motion for summary judgment.  The State appeals.
                                     I.
      The State first argues that the Board's letter closing the initial
 investigatory file due to a lack of jurisdiction did not have a res judicata
 effect on future investigations of licensee's conduct by the Board.
      The doctrine of res judicata provides that a valid and final judgment
 in favor of one party bars another action by the other party on the same
 claim.  Restatement (Second) of Judgments { 19 (1982); see Hill v. Grandey,
 132 Vt. 460, 463,