Opinion ID: 1179653
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: The Dental Board is subject to the Administrative Procedures Act. Okla.Stat. tit. 75, §§ 301-323 (1991). Section 306 authorizes an action for declaratory judgment to test the validity of an agency rule. Section 318 provides for judicial review of final agency orders. Section 328.43 of title 59 provides that an appeal from a disciplinary proceeding is in the district court. The Board argues Dr. Johnson is appealing an interlocutory order and, under these statutory provisions, the district court does not have jurisdiction until a final order issues. Generally, a litigant must seek review of agency decisions in a manner prescribed by statute and cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court in a separate proceeding. Conoco, Inc. v. State Dep't of Health of the State of Oklahoma, 651 P.2d 125, 129 (Okla.1982); Martin v. Harrah Independent School District, 543 P.2d 1370, 1377 (Okla.1976). An independent action is permitted where the judicial review of an agency decision fails to provide an adequate remedy. Martin, 543 P.2d at 1375. Statutory procedures can be circumvented when there is a constitutional question, inadequate administrative relief, and threatened or impending irreparable injury. Id. A district-court action is not abatable if the uninvoked administrative remedy was unavailable, ineffective or would have been futile to pursue. Tinker Investment & Mortgage Corp. v. City of Midwest City, 873 P.2d 1029, 1038 (Okla. 1994) (emphasis omitted). Dr. Johnson has alleged a constitutional question in that the right to due process is a protection afforded by both the United States and the Oklahoma Constitutions. Due process entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal adjudicative proceedings. Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 1613, 64 L.Ed.2d 182 (1980); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 578-79, 93 S.Ct. 1689, 1697-98, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973). The lack of due process resulting from a biased tribunal cannot be corrected on appeal. Ward v. Village of Monroeville, Ohio, 409 U.S. 57, 61, 93 S.Ct. 80, 83-84, 34 L.Ed.2d 267 (1972). Likewise, a professional whose license is at stake is entitled to be treated according to a previously established uniform system of published rules and regulations. Adams v. Professional Practices Commission, 524 P.2d 932, 934 (1974). Dr. Johnson has also alleged inadequate administrative relief and irreparable injury. Dr. Johnson alleged the members of the Board were biased and proceeding without having properly enacted rules or the rules under which the Board was acting were void. There is little doubt an appearance before a biased tribunal will be ineffective and inadequate and is not authorized by law as the Board argues. An appellate review is inadequate to correct injury to a professional's reputation after a board has pronounced a negative decision. Because Dr. Johnson has alleged facts sufficient to justify circumventing statutory procedures, the district court's jurisdiction was correctly invoked. Not only did the trial court have jurisdiction under the rule set out in Martin, 543 P.2d 1370, it also had jurisdiction under article 7, section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Article 7, section 7 vests in the district court ` unlimited original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters . . . and such powers of review of administrative action as may be provided by statute. ' Lincoln Bank and Trust v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 827 P.2d 1314, 1318 (1992).