Opinion ID: 2626552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Licensing Records of Dr. Greene's Experts

Text: [¶ 35] Dr. Greene asserts that error occurred when the State obtained and used information contained in the professional licensing files of Mr. Blanchard and another expert witness, Bret Brown, D.C. Dr. Greene contends that professional licensing information is confidential and the State acted inappropriately when it obtained the information in its advisory role and then, in its prosecutorial role, used the information at the hearing. [¶ 36] Prior to the hearing, the State supplemented its earlier disclosure statement with additional exhibits, including materials related to the licensure of Mr. Blanchard and Dr. Brown. When the hearing convened, Dr. Greene objected to the exhibits on the grounds that they were late, irrelevant, confidential, and obtained in violation of the State's obligation to keep separate its prosecutorial and advisory functions. The hearing examiner ruled that the exhibits would not be admitted at this time while informing the State that it could try again during the course of the hearing. The State did not attempt again to introduce the exhibits but did attempt to use some of the information contained in them during its questioning of Mr. Blanchard and Dr. Brown. [¶ 37] In cross-examining Mr. Blanchard, the State established that he did not have a Ph.D. in psychology and the requirements for licensure as a professional counselor in Wyoming might be different today than they were when he obtained his license. The State sought but failed to establish that Mr. Blanchard did not meet the requirements for licensure in Wyoming. Although the State objected to his testimony as an expert, the hearing officer overruled the objection and allowed Mr. Blanchard to testify as an expert. [¶ 38] With respect to Dr. Greene's chiropractic expert, Bret Brown, D.C., the State asked to voir dire the witness in an effort to show that he was not qualified to testify as an expert witness. During its voir dire, the State established that Dr. Brown had been practicing chiropractic for only five years, was not a member of any national or state chiropractic panels or affiliations, had never testified as an expert in any chiropractic malpractice action, had no knowledge base concerning the American Chiropractic Association Code of Ethics, had no experience with the use of therapeutic touch in chiropractic practice, and, after taking the chiropractic exam twice and failing both times, successfully challenged the results on the second exam and received his license. On the basis of Dr. Brown's testimony during the voir dire examination, the State objected to Dr. Brown testifying as an expert. Counsel for the Board agreed with Dr. Greene that Dr. Brown should be accepted as an expert based on his licensure in Wyoming, commenting that the adequacy of his credentials went to the weight of his testimony not its admissibility. The hearing examiner accepted Dr. Brown as an expert witness. The State did not cross-examine Dr. Brown concerning his credentials. [¶ 39] From this record, we conclude neither the Board nor the OAH committed any evidentiary error with respect to Dr. Greene's expert witnesses' licensing records. The hearing examiner properly declined to admit the records into evidence. The State's questions to Dr. Blanchard concerned information found in his curriculum vitae. With only one exception, the State's questions to Dr. Brown likewise did not require his licensing records. The one area of questioning that likely came from the records concerned Dr. Brown's score on one part of one exam, to which the hearing officer sustained an objection, and the fact that he obtained his license after successfully challenging his score after taking the examination a second time. While confidential licensing records concerning Mr. Blanchard and Dr. Brown may have been improperly obtained, they were not admitted into evidence for consideration by the Board. No confidential information was used in questioning Mr. Blanchard and the State's effort to use information questionably obtained about Dr. Brown to disqualify him from testifying as an expert was unsuccessful. The Board did not rely upon, or even mention, the information in its findings regarding Dr. Brown's testimony. Dr. Greene received a fair hearing and the OAH handled the records appropriately in a manner that did not violate his due process rights or materially prejudice him. [¶ 40] Despite our conclusion that Dr. Greene's due process rights were not violated, we are concerned about the State's effort to use information concerning Dr. Brown from the Board of Chiropractic Examiners' file. Chapter 8, Section 1(a), of the Board's rules provides: The information in files compiled by the Board concerning each chiropractor, except for Board decisions concerning licensure or certification, is confidential and shall be released only to the chiropractor to whom the record pertains, to others upon the chiropractor's notarized written consent or upon court order. The majority of the information the State obtained concerning Dr. Brown appears to be confidential, yet there is no indication in the record that it was obtained with his consent or by court order. Under these circumstances, the assistant attorney general was not authorized to obtain and the Board was not authorized to release confidential information from Dr. Brown's file. [2] [¶ 41] We have previously emphasized the importance of separating prosecutorial and advisory functions in contested cases before licensing boards. Dorr v. Wyoming Bd. of Certified Public Accountants, 2001 WY 37, ¶ 20, 21 P.3d 735, 745 (Wyo.2001); Painter v. Abels, 998 P.2d 931, 938-39 (Wyo. 2000). We have also stressed the importance of agencies following their own rules. Id. at 938. In Dr. Greene's case, the OAH acted appropriately by not admitting the records and sustaining an objection to a question concerning confidential information obtained from the records, and no due process issue resulted. The fact remains, however, that the Attorney General's office, in its role as prosecutor, should not have had access to the records without fully complying with the applicable rules. We expect such compliance in the future.