COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Frank, Huff and Senior Judge Haley

DR. YVOUNE KARA PETRIE, D.C. MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1986-13-4 PER CURIAM APRIL 8, 2014 VIRGINIA BOARD OF MEDICINE

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF FAIRFAX COUNTY David S. Schell, Judge (Vincent M. Amberly; Amberly Law, on briefs), for appellant. (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General; Ronald C. Forehand, Deputy Attorney General; Allyson K. Tysinger, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Ishneila G. Moore, Assist ant Attorney Gene ral, on brief), for appellee.

Dr. Yvoune Kara Petrie, D.C. appeals the deci sion by the circuit co urt upholding a decision by the Virginia Board of Medicine (the Board) finding that Dr. Petrie violated certain laws governing the practice of chiropra ctic. The circuit court also upheld the Board’s decisions to suspend Dr. Petrie’s license to practice chiropractic for six mo nths and to impose a monetary penalty. On appeal, Dr. Petrie argu es that (1) the Board failed to provide her with meaningful notice at a meaningful time and failed to notify her of the possible seve rity of the consequences, thus preventing her from presenting evid ence of the standard for the prac tice of chiropractic and ethical standards; (2) there was insuffici ent evidence to support the Boar d’s findings and conclusions; (3) the Board was improperly constituted, having no doctors of chiropractic; (4) the Board exceeded its authority in denying appellant the ability to practice her profession; (5) the Board erred in not presenting expert witnesses or other evidence to support its determination of the scope of

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opin ion is not designated for publication.UNPUBLISHED- 2 - chiropractic practice; and (6) the Board erred in excluding documentary evidence and expertise sought to be introduced by appellant. The Court of Appeals will not consider an argument on appeal which wa s not presented to the Board. Goad v. Virginia Bd . of Med., 40 Va . App. 621, 623 n.3, 58 0 S.E.2d 494, 495 n.3 (2003); Rule 5A:18. “‘Ru le 5A:18 applies to bar even constitutional claims.’” Tackett v. Arlington Cnty. Dep’t of Human Serv s., 62 Va. App. 296, 3 15, 746 S.E.2d 509, 519 (2 013) (quoting Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998)). Dr. Petrie failed to argue to the Board that her due process rights were violated when it failed to provide her with meaningful notice at a meaningful time and a fair opportunity to be heard 1 nor to the composition of the Boar d. She did not object to the Board proceeding without any expert nor did she request the presence of an expert on her behalf. Neithe r did she object to the Board’s

exclusion of certain evidence. These issues were first raised in her not ice of appeal of April 1, 2013. Having failed to present those arguments before th e Board, she is precluded from raising them on appeal. As to the remaining a ssignment of error, i.e. the sufficiency of th e evidence, Dr. Petrie argues the Board’s decision failed to meet the substa ntial evidence test that she falsely advertised,

that she held herself out as a di etician or nutritionist, and that she permitted individuals under her supervision to engage in the unlicensed practice of medicine. Upon review ing the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that this remaining assignment of er ror is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Board in its final order, see In re: Yvoune Kara Petrie, D.C., License No. 010 4-556481 (Feb. 28, 2013), as affirmed by the circuit cour t, see Petrie v. Virginia Bd. of Med., Case No. CL 2013-7931 (Sept. 12, 20 13). We dispense with oral argument

1 Dr. Petrie cites her notice of appeal to th e circuit court as to where she preserved the arguments. Dr. Petrie failed to provide a refe rence in the record where she presented the arguments to the Board.- 3 - and summarily affirm because the facts and lega l contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27.

Affirmed.