Opinion ID: 2167002
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: A. Dr. Tinner's Qualifications

Text: Dr. Tinner first contends that the Board erred by not assessing his individual qualifications and instead relying solely on the single sitting requirement of the pre-1985 FLEX. In doing so, he argues, the Board arbitrarily denied licensure to a candidate whose qualifications are superior to other candidates admitted under qualifying state-constructed examinations such as the applicant in Roberts, supra. Dr. Tinner asserts that the Board thus created an impermissible distinction between applicants submitting applications based on FLEX examinations and those submitting applications based on state-constructed examinations. Dr. Tinner's argument fails for two reasons. First, while his approximately twenty years of practice and apparently flawless record suggest that he is a competent physician, [w]e cannot say, as Dr. [Tinner] would, that the [Board's] judgment is irrational merely because [his] experience is long and [his] achievements many. Roberts, supra, 577 A.2d at 326. D.C.Code § 2-3305 (1994 Repl.) conveys the legislature's intent that, notwithstanding current licensure and good standing in another state or territory, the relevant considerations for a license by waiver of examination or endorsement and reciprocity are circumstances at the time of original licensure and not intervening experience or accomplishmentperhaps because the latter, as an objective measurement of qualifications, are too difficult to assess. Id. We deferred in Roberts to the Board's decision to adopt a bright-line requirement of a passing grade of 75 for applicants relying on out-of-state FLEX exams. Roberts, supra, at 325, 327. Similarly, we see no reason why we should not defer to the Board's decision to adopt a bright-line requirement of a single sitting for pre-1985 FLEX examinees. Such a requirement is consistent with D.C.Code § 2-3305 in that it falls within the Board's discretion to establish standards for FLEX examinees from other states substantially equivalent to standards required of District of Columbia FLEX examinees. [6] Secondly, Dr. Tinner's attempt to draw a comparison between applicants who sat for the FLEX and those who sat for state-constructed examinations would call for discussion outside the scope of this case. As indicated in Tinner I, our task is to assess whether the Board can proffer a satisfactory explanation for requiring applicants seeking licensure in the District based on a pre-1985 FLEX to meet a single sitting requirement while not demanding the same of applicants applying on the basis of a post-1985 FLEX. Even if the Board makes decisions about different applicants that appear inconsistent and suggest different treatment, we are obliged to defer to its decision as long as the Board explains the arguably different treatment, and its decision is consistent with the mandates of the Act. [7]