Title: Slagle v. Wyoming State Bd. of Nursing

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Slagle v. Wyoming State Bd. of Nursing1998 WY 41954 P.2d 979Case Number: 96-265Decided: 04/01/1998Supreme Court of Wyoming

E. 
Lennea SLAGLE, Appellant (Petitioner),

v.

WYOMING STATE BOARD OF NURSING, 
Appellee (Respondent).

 

Appeal from District Court, 
Laramie County, Edward L. Grant, J.

 

Bruce S. Asay of Associated 
Legal Group, LLC, Cheyenne; and James L. Norris, Bismarck, for 
Appellant.

William U. Hill, Attorney 
General; Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General; and John S. Burbridge, 
Assistant Attorney General, Cheyenne, for Appellee.

 

Before THOMAS, 
MACY, GOLDEN and LEHMAN, JJ., and KAUTZ, District 
Judge.

 

KAUTZ, 
District Judge.

 [¶1] Appellant claims the Wyoming State Board of 
Nursing violated her constitutional right to due process when it suspended her 
license as an "Advanced Nurse Practitioner" (ANP) for one month. Appellant 
petitioned the district court for review of the suspension order, and the 
district court certified the matter to this court under W.R.A.P. 12.09(b). We 
hold that the suspension of appellant's license as an ANP was entered in 
violation of her constitutional right to due process, and, therefore, 
reverse.

 

                                             
I. ISSUES

 

[¶2] Appellant, E. Lennea 
Slagle (Slagle), defines the issues as follows:

 

          
ISSUE I

 

Wyoming law does not require Slagle to have separate 
recognition or separate licensure of her specialties.

 

          
ISSUE II

 

The Board's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 
are not based on substantial evidence, are mistakes of law, or are based on 
unconstitutional conduct by the Board.

 

          
ISSUE III

 

The Board's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 
that Slagle fraudulently falsified her 1993 application are outside the 
pleadings and further, lack substantial evidence of any fraudulent conduct on 
the part of Slagle.

 

[¶3] The Wyoming State Board 
of Nursing (Board), as appellee, states the issues as:

 

I. 
Whether the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence of 
record.

 

II. Whether Wyoming law requires separate 
qualification and recognition of specialty areas for advanced practitioners of 
nursing.

 

III. Whether the Board afforded Slagle proper due 
process of law in hearing this matter.

 

IV. Whether the court can consider appellant's third 
issue of Board findings and conclusion outside the pleadings as it is not 
supported by cogent argument or pertinent authority.

 

[¶4] Slagle filed a reply 
brief which repeated its principal brief and is disregarded by this court.1 

 

                                             
II. FACTS

 

[¶5] In 1993, Slagle applied 
for and received a license as an ANP from the Board. That license designated a 
specialty as a "geriatric nurse practitioner." As an ANP, Slagle treated 
prisoners in the Fremont County, Wyoming jail.

 

[¶6] On March 1, 1995, the 
Board received a complaint against Slagle from a prisoner in the Fremont County 
jail. On March 20, 1995, the Board asked Slagle to send information about her 
adult nurse practitioner standing. The Board's notice advised Slagle that her 
license was limited to geriatric clients/patients. The notice did not notify 
Slagle of the complaint or that the Board was considering disciplinary 
action.

 

[¶7] Slagle immediately 
wrote to the Board indicating she believed she was licensed to practice adult 
nursing and discussed her qualifications. She included attachments showing 
substantial training completed in the specialty area of adult/geriatric advanced 
nursing practice. On April 12, 1995, Slagle sent the Board descriptions of 
course work taken during her graduate program, a copy of her transcript from the 
University of Utah, and other supplemental information. Approximately three 
months later, the Board called Slagle to relate she should obtain a specialty 
license for "adult" practice to treat non-geriatric patients. The Board 
representative again did not advise Slagle there was a disciplinary matter 
before the Board or that disciplinary action could result. Slagle once again 
sent information telling of her qualifications and requested that her license 
indicate specialties of both geriatrics and adults. The Board apparently did not 
respond, as no response is found in the record.

 

[¶8] In March, April and 
August, 1995, Slagle's supervising physician and the director of the University 
of Utah nursing program sent information to the Board about Slagle's 
qualifications to treat adults. The Board did not respond to this information 
either.

 

[¶9] On August 22, 1995, the 
Board's Disciplinary Committee issued a "Cease and Desist Order" to Slagle which 
dismissed the jail inmate's complaint against Slagle, but found that Slagle had 
violated the Board's rules and the Wyoming Nursing Practice Act by treating 
"adults" (as opposed to "geriatric" patients). The order also directed Slagle to 
stop treating non-geriatric patients.

 

[¶10] Slagle continued to 
treat adult patients. On October 30, 1995, the Board filed its own complaint 
against Slagle which alleged that Slagle exceeded the limits of her license by 
treating adult patients who were not "geriatric" patients. The complaint did not 
allege that Slagle had violated the "Cease and Desist Order," nor did it allege 
that Slagle submitted false information in her 1993 application. In March 1996, 
the Board conducted a hearing on its complaint against Slagle, and in June 1996, 
the Board suspended her license for one 
month. The Board's decision was based, in part, upon a finding that "Slagle 
violated the Wyoming Nursing Practice Act * * * when she continued to treat 
adult patients after receiving * * * the August 28, 1995 cease and desist 
order." The decision also found that Slagle "practiced fraud and deceit" in 
submitting untruthful information to the Board in her 1993 
application.

 

[¶11] In January 1996, the 
Board issued a license to Slagle indicating she could treat both adults and 
geriatric patients.2

 

                                      
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

 

[¶12] The Wyoming Nursing 
Practice Act, Wyo. Stat. §§ 33-21-119 through 33-21-156 (1997), provides for 
judicial review of the actions of the Board pursuant to the Wyoming 
Administrative Procedure Act. The scope of the review provided for in the 
Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act is found at Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-114 
(1997):

 

(c) To the extent necessary to make a decision and 
when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, 
interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or 
applicability of the terms of an agency action. In making the following 
determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it 
cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial 
error. The reviewing court shall:

 

          
* * *

 

(ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, 
findings and conclusions found to be:

 

          
* * *

 

          
(B) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or 
immunity;

 

          
* * *

 

          
(D) Without observance of procedure required by 
law[.]

 

                                          
IV. DISCUSSION

 

[¶13] The Fourteenth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution and Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 6 
guarantee the right to due process before a governmental agency may interfere 
with one's property interest in a professional license or one's liberty interest 
in a right to earn a living. Due process guarantees apply to administrative 
proceedings which restrict or limit a professional license. Slagle's license as 
an ANP is a conditional property right and encompasses a liberty interest, 
similar to other types of licensed rights to work. See Roush v. Pari-Mutuel 
Com'n of State of Wyo., 917 P.2d 1133 (Wyo. 1996); Allhusen v. State By and 
Through Wyoming Mental Health Professions Licensing Bd., 898 P.2d 878 (Wyo. 
1995); Devous v. Wyoming State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 845 P.2d 408 (Wyo. 
1993); Garrison v. Board of Trustees of Memorial Hosp. of Laramie County, Wyo., 
795 P.2d 190 (Wyo. 1990); Paravecchio v. Memorial Hosp. of Laramie County, 742 P.2d 1276 (Wyo. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 915, 108 S. Ct. 1088, 99 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1988); and Fallon v. Wyoming State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 441 P.2d 322 
(Wyo. 1968).

 

[¶14] Statutes, as well as 
constitutional provisions, require due process before a license may be infringed 
upon by an administrative agency. The Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act 
states:

 

No 
revocation, suspension, annulment or withdrawal of any license is lawful unless, 
prior to the institution of agency proceedings, the agency gave notice by mail 
to the licensee of facts or conduct which warrant the intended action, and the 
licensee was given an opportunity to show compliance with all lawful 
requirements for the retention of the license.

 

Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-113(c) 
(1997).

 

In any contested case, all parties shall be afforded 
an opportunity for hearing after reasonable notice served personally or by 
mail.

 

Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-107(a) 
(1997).

 

The notice shall include a statement 
of:

 

          
* * *

 

          
(iv) A short and plain statement of the matters 
asserted.

 

Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-107(b)(iv).

 

[¶15] The same principle is 
found in the Wyoming Nursing Practice Act, at least with respect to denial or 
revocation of licenses:

 

No 
license to practice nursing may be revoked or denied by the board without 
affording the licensee or applicant due process of law.

 

Wyo. Stat. § 33-21-147.

 

[¶16] Slagle's license to 
practice - a property right - and her right to earn a living - a liberty 
interest - are so fundamental that such rights cannot be restricted by agency 
action without the agency first giving notice of the alleged grounds for 
sanctions. Notice is required constitutionally and by statute. See Devous, 845 P.2d  at 416 and Wyo. Stat. §§ 16-3-113(c) and 16-3-107(b).

 

[¶17] The complaint used to 
suspend Slagle's license contained absolutely no reference to any alleged 
violation of the "Cease and Desist Order" nor to false statements on her 1993 
application. It gave her no notice that the Board would consider these alleged 
violations as a basis for discipline. However, the Board considered such 
allegations, made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law about these matters, and then used them as bases 
for its decision. Such lack of due process is prohibited by the Wyoming and 
United States Constitutions, and violates Wyo. Stat. § 
16-3-113(c).

 

[¶18] The Board's failure to 
give Slagle notice requires that its action be set aside because it was 
"[c]ontrary to constitutional right" and "[w]ithout observance of procedure 
required by law * * *." Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(B) and 
(D).

 

                                         
V. OTHER CLAIMS

 

[¶19] The Board's failure to 
afford due process to Slagle is dispositive of this matter and requires reversal 
of the order suspending her license for one month. It is unnecessary to decide 
Slagle's issues regarding substantial evidence or whether an ANP is limited to 
practice in an area of specialty.3

 

                                          
VI. CONCLUSION

 

[¶20] The Board filed its 
own complaint against Slagle and suspended her license for one month on the 
basis of matters entirely foreign to that complaint. That suspension is a 
restriction on her property right to her license and liberty interest to earn a 
living. It was made without providing her due process. The decision of the 
Wyoming State Board of Nursing is reversed.

 

          

FOOTNOTES

1We have 
previously addressed redundant reply briefs:

 

A reply 
brief is "limited to those new issues and arguments raised by the brief of 
appellee." WYO.R.APP.P. 7.03.  
Because appellant's reply brief stated that it would "emphasize again" 
and "reexamine," it was disregarded by this court.

 

Furman 
v. Rural Elec. Co., 869 P.2d 136, 139 (Wyo. 1994). Slagle's reply brief breaches 
W.R.A.P. 7.03 by rehashing issues and arguments addressed in her principal 
brief, citing numerous times to numerous pages in the principal brief.  The reply brief implores this "Court 
refer to and re-read Slagle's Argument II [in her principal brief] again as if 
fully set  forth herein." Therefore, the reply brief is 
disregarded.

  

2Neither 
the Wyoming Nursing Practice Act nor the Board's rules and regulations as 
contained in the record include any definitions of "adult" or 
"geriatric."

  

3Although 
we do not decide whether an ANP is limited to practice only in a specialty area, 
we note that the Board found that its application forms, procedures and rules 
are unclear on this issue.