Opinion ID: 1450616
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the district court err by upholding the board members' refusal to disqualify themselves?

Text: The Appellant contends that the members of the Board of Examiners should have disqualified themselves from hearing the action against him because the Board initiated proceedings against him without a sworn citizen complaint. Appellant's argument is based on 59 O.S. 1971, § 164d, which appears to require the existence of a sworn citizen complaint before a revocation or suspension proceeding is commenced. Appellant's theory is groundless. The purpose of requiring a sworn complaint before the initiation of proceedings is to reduce the possibility of arbitrary actions by the Board members. In this case, the Board acted on Appellant's conviction, which was a matter of public record. Lowry's conviction had occurred before the Board initiated the proceedings against him. As a matter of fact, the original letter sent to Dr. Lowry contained direct reference to his conviction. The interpretation of the complaint requirement urged by the Appellant would weaken the obvious public protection purpose of the laws regulating this profession by denying the reviewing Board freedom to act when there is no reason for any delay. For these reasons, we find that the Board of Examiners acted within the confines of its powers and that the Appellant was afforded all necessary safeguards. Thus, we find that the trial court did not err in affirming the Board's refusal to disqualify. For the above stated reasons, we affirm the action of the trial court. AFFIRMED. IRWIN, C.J., and WILLIAMS, HODGES, LAVENDER, SIMMS, HARGRAVE and OPALA, JJ., concur.