you may have reserved some time for a bottle like every case we get this morning the issue about this is come up now that anything that is retired gets to do with this case still being still practicing he is still seeking employment he is restricted in the state of texas where he resides from any direct hands on patient care he may still practice preventive medicine but he's seeking his reinstatement without any restriction receiving or a large amount so i don't take it for granted and we know it's very discretionary on the court are i'd like to get to the point and focus down on what i think is the one issue in this case and it was the same issue as when dr called me several years ago and that is that and you'll forgive me if i don't take up your time with fact that under the boards or on the epley boards on the bylaws dr was to have been given an opportunity to be heard and yes he was allowed to submit letters why he should his sports for vacation should not have been revoked and he did submit such letters and he did wait months and months and months for the board to but there were others there were communications between your client and the board to believe there's a couple letters that your clients and that it to the board during the time when they were considering his revocation correct yes and it was then right yes the board if i if i might just quote this snippet which i realize is out of context bore chill established procedures which on this whole argument  advising its board members that they would have an opportunity to be heard and show cause why their certification and deployment still left doing that my way i think that this  to revoke i have wanted him to have had the opportunity to face to face explain to the hearing committee which never occurred that that restriction to which he agreed both in the military and then when he got back to texas had nothing to do with preventive medicine he was rather thrust into patient care duties in okinawa he wasn't prepared for he hadn't seen patients for years and the military personnel i've represented i have found to take their medicine they stand up and own up to their deficiencies and that's what i said a few minutes ago you know why is this not what a mystery what occurred submission of writings that you know every spawns from the other side they've messed with and then they raise the same point my response is that just submitting an explanation in writing is not being heard it's a making up plain meaning interpretation of  again i don't wish to argue in circles but just that the mere opportunity to submit explanations is in our opinion when i became a member of the so ca should agree to all the terms such forth in the byelaws and one of the conditions was that the certificate actually was property of the corporation where here is the the defendant association and it c  so we made an argument that we should have been grandfathered but putting that aside perhaps i should finish up by once again  going back to the chancellor very good chancellor's opinion that had to be jocular we needed the third base we satisfy the first three elements for injunctive relief but we were out at home in trying to prove a likelihood of success on the merits because of lack of an underlying cause of action which we disagree as i said before we patient care as part of his license in order to even get a preventive medicine physician but what it comes down to just as various is that if you have any restriction on medical license anywhere in the country you're not going to get a job at his age and that i would contend to be the year of it you refer to chancery court made a finding that and abilities with regard to our preventive medicine have not been challenged and that he felt that he could make a contribution it still pick a contribution it feel you made you made an argument and you did his letter that's correct or on the right so what more would you be seeking to present along those lines in a hearing in person hearing the opportunity that you're giving me right with the disciplinary actions of a private voluntary organizations such as the board in this case except in very narrow situations the first is where that board has violated its own bylaws or constitutional rules policies and procedures manual in the section four point three subsection c they state if a board certified physician is subject to an action by a state medical board such as the texas or in this instance the american board of preventive medicine shell notified in writing which it did to dr chin and invite the physician to respond in writing concerning the matter so they gave him notice policies and procedures it's a policies and procedures manual that is inactive in furtherance and with the authority of the bylaws because the bylaws state we're going to establish procedures the bylaws don't state those procedures the policies what happened here dr chen was provided written notice in accordance with this section and he responded in accordance with this section he sent a three page written response detailing these background facts that he's tracking to you about today what happened in japan what went on with the texas medical board what he agreed to and he explained that he did not believe this situation should warrant revocation of his certification  involve the appellate appeal of the decision they had nothing to do with whether he got an in person hearing up front because the former section three of the procedures for processing complaints which is cited in our preferred it set forth the same process that he would receive written notification and that he would have the opportunity to respond in writing so it doesn't matter even if you looked at those outdated procedures he star only got a response  writing opportunity they did not provide for him personally as a receipt i believe the when the kid there was a policeman or a determination the nose of there was going to be a final determination in the appeal right that would have been that would have been the process if those outdated procedures had still been in effect and he actually did you know submit a request for an appeal but he doesn't have any grounds and i think that the circles back to the moon is issue he doesn't have any real grounds the rules the bylaws are very clear you must at all times we've submitted the nine hundred ninety four ninety six one thousand nine hundred twenty five by laws at every stage from the inception of the certification back in one thousand ninety four ninety five it always required all mates of the of the board to maintain an unrestricted medical license he has by his own admission and with the consent procedure in texas he does not have an unrestricted license anymore he's got a restricted license but notified of the charges but in this case the written notification said you're licensed your certification is subject to revocation because you now have a restricted license and you must maintain an unrestricted license so he was notified of precisely the basis why his certification might be revoked we don't have any accusers here this is not a situation where he was accused of misconduct and patients were coming in or evidence of that type would be necessary we had a decision by the texas medical board entered with consent that his license would be restricted we have a very clear mandate in the bylaws you must have an unrestricted license so the questions that came up earlier what would you do literally is this what exactly did he  deficient but he felt that didn't impact his ability to practice preventive medicine because that was more research based than clinical and so i'm actually a little bit puzzled if he actually wants a research and not clinical on the job right now it would seem to me that he would still pursue that but now today his attorney has said something to friends that if he has a restricted license he won't be able to get a job well that's something for the texas medical board to address and he has reasons procedures that he can follow there and i assume that he has but here he was trying to explain and convince to the right that a restrictive license was ok for preventive medicine because he wasn't going to be involved in clinical care but the i believe it would be discretionary on the boards part right so it's not automatic that you keep saying that there's no question you automatically lose your status as a diplomat if you have a restricted license but that's not necessarily the case is it's  revoke for anyone this wasn't a bias or prejudice or sham proceeding directed against that your chin your position was if it is really if it is restricted license we will revoke the certification and the whole point of rice my question is on th lend a little credence to the argument you know i'd like to have the opportunity to appear before the board and explain to them why they should exercise her discretion when you are well but he had the opportunity to do that in writing and really i think what this is directed at is situations where there might have been a problem with the underlying restriction faced with the medical board we could easily envision situations unlike a consent proceeding here where he agreed to have his license restricted and he acknowledge  there interpretation of opportunity to be heard just to be in person presenting whatever evidence or testimony that they want before the board you look to the meeting that that is is not the case because the board defined what an opportunity to be heard was in its policies and procedures by saying we will provide you written notice we will entertain written notice and again as you pointed out earlier he didn't request an in person hearing he didn't object to the process he set forth this case in his written response thanked the board at the end of that response for having me opportunity to explain his situation to them and he only raised this issue when the board ruled against him so to determine whether or not summers and travelled to be heard in person bottom entry due process that lower standard because we don't have a state actor i think we can envision situations where a good argument could be made there this is not one of those cases where you have a very straightforward can by consent agreement to have their license restricted because your patient here is deficient he had knowledge and he acknowledged that in his written submissions to the board he gave some background dr he felt this shouldn't prevent him from holding his certification and the board ruled against him there is no further evidence that need to be entertained in an in person hearing because those essential facts which form the crux of the decision were established in the written procedure and i submit it's no different than if you had decided this case on the briefs for an entertaining oral argument or certainly you would be fully apprised of the situation and as a private and this is a bar it's different you are state actors we've got a private voluntary association here the courts are very reluctant to step in and interfere with the procedures and policies properly implemented by the board in this case especially here where we have no there is no allegation of bias hello there is no allegation that this was a sham proceeding was very fear straight forward in upright again  really the crux of his problem it's not the certification and secondly inversion the hospitals own bylaws did provide for written notice of the charges against the end in person hearing and i believe both of those procedures were not followed in their case that case there was no written notice and they didn't give him the physician the opportunity for the in person hearing so there was a clear violation of their own bylaws here we don't have that violation because we gave him written notice we gave him the written response which he pursued before make two final points to the court of any questions of me of a moment if not of as far and this is a collateral point as far as thanking the board for allowing him to write to him that's like me over thousands of emails i sent in the last ten years ninety eight percent of them around them by saying thank you it's is just