Case Title: Dailey v. North Carolina State Bd. of Dental Examiners

Citation: 309 S.E.2d 219

Docket Number: 134PA83

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 1983-12-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
309 S.E.2d 219 (1983) In the Matter of Bradford P. DAILEY, D.D.S., Judicial Review of the Decision of the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS. No. 134PA83. Supreme Court of North Carolina. December 6, 1983. *226 Bailey, Dixon, Wooten, McDonald & Fountain, by Ralph McDonald and Carson Carmichael, III, Raleigh, attorneys for appellant, N.C. State Board of Dental Examiners. Sumrell, Sugg & Carmichael, by Fred M. Carmichael and Rudolph A. Ashton, III, New Bern, attorneys for appellee, Bradford P. Dailey, D.D.S. The primary issue on this appeal is whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the standard of G.S. § 90-21.12, relating to civil liability for medical malpractice, to a professional licensing board disciplinary hearing. We hold that it did. This appeal is from an administrative hearing held pursuant to the Dental Practice Act, N.C.G.S. Chapter 90, Article 2, and the Administrative Procedure Act, N.C.G.S. Chapter 150A, Article 3, to determine whether respondent should be disciplined for alleged violations of the Dental Practice Act. G.S. § 90-21.12, on the other hand, provides that: G.S. § 90-21.12 thus establishes a standard of care below which a health care provider may be held civilly liable in damages. Clearly, G.S. § 90-41 and G.S. § 90-21.12 serve different purposes. Admittedly the violations for which a dentist may be subject to discipline include acts of "malpractice," G.S. § 90-41(a)(19). We do not believe, however, that this language was intended to incorporate a standard applicable in actions for damages "for personal injury or death arising out of the furnishing or the failure to furnish professional services in the performance of . . . dental . . . care." G.S. § 90-21.12. In fact, G.S. § 90-41 was first enacted in 1935, long before the 1975 enactment of G.S. § 90-21.-12. Therefore, the standard of health care enunciated under G.S. § 90-21.12 is inapplicable. The Dental Practice Act is silent as to the standard of practice by which a dentist's negligence or incompetence is to be measured. In considering the regulatory, licensing and disciplinary functions of the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners, we hold that a statewide standard must be applied. That is, prior to invoking disciplinary measures as authorized under G.S. § 90-41(a), the Board must first be satisfied that the care provided by the licensee was not in accordance with the standards of practice among members of the dentistry profession situated throughout the State of North Carolina at the time of the alleged violation. The North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners, like all other professional licensing boards, was created to establish and enforce a uniform statewide minimum level of competency among its licensees. *227 Applicants are required to meet a minimum statewide standard prior to being granted a license, G.S. § 90-30; and licensees are required, irrespective of location in the State, to comply with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Board. Likewise we believe that the decision of whether an applicant or licensee has violated any of the factors enumerated in G.S. § 90-41 authorizing disciplinary action must also be viewed in the context of a uniform statewide standard.[1] In this respect Judge Smith was correct in remanding the case for findings and conclusions based on a statewide standard of practice. We do not agree with the Board, however, that it was authorized to enter its Final Agency Decision Upon Remand without the benefit of additional expert testimony that the care provided by the respondent was not in accordance with the standards of practice among members of the dentistry profession situated throughout the State at the time of the alleged violations. The Board argues that because it is an administrative agency "composed of experts," it may make its own judgment of the evidence and reject even uncontradicted expert testimony. Utilities Commission v. Duke Power Co., 305 N.C. 1, 287 S.E.2d 786 (1982). Thus, reasons the Board, as a professional licensing body it is authorized to substitute its own expertise for that of expert witnesses, and is therefore authorized to make an independent determination of the standards of practice required for continued licensure without the benefit of expert testimony. We first point out that Utilities Commission v. Duke Power Co., 305 N.C. 1, 287 S.E.2d 786, was a utility rate case. G.S. § 150A, the Administrative Procedure Act, specifically exempts the Utilities Commission from its coverage. G.S. § 150A-1. The cornerstone of the Administrative Procedure Act is a requirement that there be preserved a record for judicial review. Implicit in this requirement is the necessity for reasoned evaluation and analysis of evidence presented before the agency upon which its determination must be based. As stated in Arthurs v. Board of Registration, 383 Mass. 299, ___, 418 N.E.2d 1236, 1244 (1981), (Citations omitted.) Accord, Wood v. Texas State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 615 S.W.2d 942 (Tex.1981); Dotson v. Tex. State Bd. of Medical Exam., 612 S.W.2d 921 (Tex.1981); Franz v. Board of Medical Quality Assur., 31 Cal. 3d 124, 181 Cal. Rptr. 732, 642 P.2d 792 (1982); Farney v. Anderson, 14 Ill.Dec. 346, 56 Ill.App.3d 677, 372 N.E.2d 151 (1978). Thus, while it is true that "`[t]he determination whether by common judgment certain conduct is disqualifying is left to the sound discretion of the board,'" In re Hawkins, 17 N.C.App. 378, 395, 194 S.E.2d 540, 551 (1973), cert. denied, 283 N.C. 393, 196 S.E.2d 275 (1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1001, 94 S. Ct. 355, 38 L. Ed. 2d 237 (1973), the record must include an indication of the basis upon which the board or other agency exercised its expert discretion. On this issue, the following observation by the Supreme *228 Court of the United States is applicable and bears repeating. Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 167, 83 S. Ct. 239, 245, 9 L. Ed. 2d 207, 215 (1962) (citations omitted). Having reviewed the testimony of record, we agree with Judge Smith and find substantial, competent evidence to support those findings of fact and conclusions of law as set out and affirmed in Judge Smith's Judgment of 20 February 1981. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to that court for further remand to the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners for the purpose of taking additional testimony respecting the statewide standard of practice and whether the care provided by the respondent was in accordance with that standard. REVERSED AND REMANDED. [1] We note that language similar to that in G.S. § 90-41(a)(12), (14) and (19) appears in numerous other health profession licensing statutes: see G.S. § 90-14(a)(11) (Supp.1983) (Practice of Medicine); G.S. § 90-121.2(a)(12), (14) and (19) (Supp.1983) (Optometry); G.S. § 90-136(3) (Osteopathy); G.S. § 90-154(5), (6) (Supp.1983) (Chiropractic Medicine); G.S. § 90-171.37(5) (Supp.1983) (Nursing Practice); G.S. § 90-202.8(a)(12), (13) (Supp.1983) (Podiatrists); G.S. § 90-229(a)(5), (10) (Dental Hygiene); G.S. § 90-270.36(7) (Physical Therapy); G.S. § 90-270.60(a)(4) (Marital and Family Therapy).