Opinion ID: 2512056
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence concerning whether the Division made a promise to Dr. Yost

Text: Dr. Yost and Thorner [8] submitted affidavits saying that Matthews orally promised Dr. Yost the opportunity to address the Board before the MOA could be adopted. Matthews submitted an affidavit saying he never made that promise. Leslie Gallant, the medical board executive administrator, submitted an affidavit saying she spoke with Dr. Yost in Matthews' presence at the Division office after the MOA was signed and that Matthews did not make any promises to Dr. Yost at that time. In addition to these conflicting affidavits, the parties support their positions with competing selections from a cache of documentary evidence. In a cover letter faxed to Thorner along with the proposed MOA, Matthews wrote I will do my best to have the MOA reviewed by the Board during the April 21, 2005 meeting, however, as I advised you this date, the agenda is already quite full and that may not be possible. Dr. Yost and you could certainly attend the meeting either in person or telephonically. After Dr. Yost signed the draft MOA, Matthews' detailed log notes reflect that he told her the MOA was on the April board meeting agenda for 4:30 PM April 21, 2005[and] she could come to this office and be on the phone at the time the Board reviews the MOA and that Mr. Thorner could also be on the line. Next, Matthews wrote I have spoken with Atty Thorner and advised him ... that [Yost's] appt with the Board was for 4:30 PM, (est) on 04.21.05, that I had told Yost she could come to the office and we could hook her and Atty Thorner so they could be on line when board reviews the MOA. Finally, along with a confirmation that Dr. Yost's temporary license had been issued, Matthews faxed a handwritten note to Thorner which said Appt with Board 4:30 P.M. (EST) 04.21.05. In his deposition, Matthews read this to mean: [a]ppointment with board 4:30 p.m. estimated. On April 13, 2005, Matthews sent an email to Gallant informing her of the phone number where Thorner could be reached during the board meeting. The board meeting agenda included this note: In the Matter of Anne-Marie Yost, MD Call Attorney David Thorner. In his deposition, Matthews said I never, in the 18 years I worked for the Division, told anyone they could go to a board meeting and present evidence, mitigating or otherwise. I routinely said, `You can attend the board meeting, but they don't necessarily have to talk to you. He had no hesitation saying this, he explained, because that's not the format for it.... If the board wants to... ask you questions, they can do that. But I never guaranteed that anyone could talk to the board because ... that's not the way it's done. They don't do it. To Dr. Yost, the above evidence demonstrates that everyone knew it was part of the deal that she and her attorney would have an opportunity to address the Board before the MOA could be finalized. To the Division, the evidence shows that while it tried to accommodate Dr. Yost and Thorner's desire to listen in on the public meeting, it never guaranteed the matter would be considered at a specific time, let alone promised Dr. Yost an opportunity to be heard.