Opinion ID: 1918218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the hearing officer erred in denying molden's and avery's motion to compel the department of health to disclose all documents in its files regarding this case.

Text: ¶ 26. Molden and Avery contend that the hearing officer erred in denying them discovery of all the documents maintained by the Department regarding the investigation and allegations against Molden and Avery. Molden and Avery assert that given the highly penal nature of the proceeding and the potential retribution they face, their federal and state due process rights demand they be given prior access to all documents and any other evidence or information in the State's possession relating to the charges against them. The Department, however, asserts that the hearing officer did not err in denying Molden's and Avery's request for discovery because the full panoply of pleadings and processes or discovery provided for fullfledged litigants in law and equity courts is not available for use before an administrative board. ¶ 27. In State Oil & Gas Board v. McGowan , this Court stated that [t]he general rule ... is that rules of civil procedure do not apply to administrative proceedings unless the rules specifically so provide. State Oil & Gas Bd. v. McGowan, 542 So.2d 244, 247 (Miss.1989). The McGowan Court stated: There appears to be no authority for transplanting the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure into administrative proceedings. The scope of the rules, found in Rule 1, M.R.C.P., govern procedures in the circuit courts, chancery courts, and county courts in all suits of a civil nature. Administrative hearings are not included within their purview as the State Oil & Gas Board is not a circuit, chancery or county court. McGowan, 542 So.2d at 247. Likewise, the State Department of Health is not a circuit, chancery, or county court, and thus, the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure, including the rules of discovery, were not applicable to the administrative hearing before the hearing officer. Id. ¶ 28. In the case sub judice, Molden and Avery filed a motion to compel discovery before the hearing to require the Department to produce any and all documents or other evidence, whether incriminating or exculpatory, in its possession regarding the pending charges against them, and the hearing officer denied the motion except that he allowed Molden and Avery to be provided those documents that the Department would introduce into evidence. The Department's regulations governing the administrative hearings held with regard to the removal of nurse aides from the registry provide: C. If a hearing is requested, the same shall be held within sixty (60) days of the request. A Notice of hearing shall be sent to all parties stating the date, time, and place of the hearing. 1. The aide may appear with or without counsel and shall have the right to cross-examine all witnesses, present evidence/testimony, either written or oral, on his or her own behalf, and to refute any testimony or evidence presented. 2. A hearing officer shall be appointed by the Director. 3. Formal rules of evidence and procedure will not apply, but a record of said hearing shall be made. The licensing agency shall present its case, and the aide will then present his or her case. In order for the licensing agency's decision to be upheld, the facts constituting the violation must be proved by substantial evidence. Regulations § II(C). Thus, since the regulations do not provide that the formal rules of evidence and procedure are applicable at the hearing, we hold that the hearing officer did not err in denying Molden's and Avery's motion to compel discovery as to all documents possessed by the Department. See McGowan, 542 So.2d at 247. As a result, this issue is without merit.