Opinion ID: 2633430
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Making of a Record

Text: RCW 34.05.449(4) requires the recording of hearings. The recording of the hearing in this case was transcribed, and appears in the appellate record.
The Commission's findings of fact and conclusions of law were set forth in a 74-page opinion and were supported by the evidence. j. Public Attendance RCW 34.05.449(5) provides hearings are open to public observation. The record is silent as to whether members of the public attended Dr. Nguyen's hearing. k. Judicial Review RCW 34.05.510 through .598 provides for judicial review of the Commission's decision. Pursuant to those provisions, Dr. Nguyen sought review in the superior court, the Court of Appeals, and now this Court. In sum, the statute and regulations for medical discipline afforded Dr. Nguyen as much procedural due process as the law allows in any context, and certainly no less than the constitution requires. Moreover, the unequivocal impression the record conveys is of a case exhaustively litigated with appropriate skill and fervor by both parties. The conduct of the hearing, before a panel the majority of whom were medical practitioners, does not support Dr. Nguyen's claim regarding an unacceptable risk of inadvertent or erroneous deprivation of Dr. Nguyen's professional license. This risk was certainly minimal given the numerous procedural protections afforded Dr. Nguyen.