Opinion ID: 1435969
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sheehan's testimony

Text: [¶ 15] Zegel contends that the Board violated her basic due process rights when it permitted Sheehan to testify as an expert after she had played an active role in pursuing Zegel's case in its earlier stages as a Board member. The Board contends that it did not violate Zegel's due process rights because Sheehan did not participate in the hearing as an adjudicator and Zegel did not establish bias during the hearing. [¶ 16] An administrative process may be infirm if it creates an intolerable risk of bias or unfair advantage. Gashgai v. Bd. of Registration in Med., 390 A.2d 1080, 1082 n. 1 (Me.1978) (stating in dictum that the combination of investigator, prosecutor and sitting member of the adjudicatory panel, even if ostensibly a non-participating member, creates an intolerably high risk of unfairness) (emphasis added); see also Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975); Brengelmann v. Land Res. of New Eng. & Can., Inc., 393 A.2d 174, 178 (Me. 1978). [3] [¶ 17] We need not determine whether the process used here crossed the line because the error, if any, was harmless. See So. Me. Props. Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 1999 ME 37, ¶ 9, 724 A.2d 1255, 1257 (stating that procedural errors are harmless unless they are inconsistent with substantial justice and result in prejudice). Zegel was not prejudiced by Sheehan's testimony, which agreed with that of her own expertthat is, if Zegel failed to co-operate with her client's expressed intent, she violated the code. The Board's factual finding that Zegel discouraged her client from her goal of applying for insurance reimbursement without fully assisting her in her effort, led to the conclusion that Zegel violated the Code. This conclusion comports with each expert's construction of the Code.