Opinion ID: 2425036
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Equal Protection Claims

Text: Dr. Linton's first equal protection argument centers on a kind of playground theory of equal protection, that is, that she should be given the same treatment as was afforded to two other applicants who were four-time takers. However, the other two four-time takers were candidates who had failed the examination prior to the August 1992 effective date of the amendment to section 340.240.6. The statute did not specify that the three-time limit was prospective, or should be applied to those who had already taken the examination once, twice, or three times before the effective date. In any event, it was reasonable for the Board to apply the statute prospectively and not to count the examination attempts that occurred prior to August 1992. Moreover, if the other two applicants received some preference, because of their earlier taking of the examination, Dr. Linton is without standing to complain, in much the same way that she should not compare her own situation with that of those examination takers who took it more than three times and were licensed prior to August 1992. Moreover, this theory of equal protection would deny the legislature and the Board the ability to make changes in the licensing examination system where such changes would make licensure more difficult for future applicants than for current applicants. Dr. Linton's serious equal protection challenge inheres in her argument that the distinction drawn by the statute and regulation does not bear some rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose, is purely arbitrary, and therefore fails even the low level of scrutiny given to legislative judgments under the equal protection clause. See, e.g., Mahoney v. Doerhoff Surgical Services, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. banc 1991); Missourians for Tax Justice v. Holden, 959 S.W.2d 100, 103 (Mo. banc 1997). Dr. Linton must show that the classification does not rest on any reasonable basis and is purely arbitrary. Under the record, I believe that she has made this showing. There is something inherent in the American culture about three strikes, probably because of our national pastime. If the state were to allow Dr. Linton and other doctorate applicants only one try, most of us would say that the state action was arbitrary and unreasonable. However, even in baseball, a batter is allowed more than three swings because a foul ball, which normally counts as a strike, does not count when it occurs on the third strike. Thus a batter may swing at several pitches before getting a hit, and it is no less a hit than if it had occurred on the first or second swing. By Dr. Miller's testimony, a pass on the fourth try is no less a hit than a passing grade on the first try. The analogy to baseball is not entirely apt, because after three strikes, the batter is only out  not banned for eternity. Dr. Linton was permitted to take the examination in Illinois. It is precisely the same examination administered at exactly the same time as the examination administered to veterinary licensure candidates in Missouri. She scored 483, some 57 points higher than necessary for passing in Missouri. The record shows that her request for recognition of the passing examination score was based on the Board's authority granted under section 320.240.4. Thus, the issue is this: Is it acceptable for the Board to refuse to recognize the results of the National Board Examination administered to Dr. Linton on which she scored a 483? In the absence of any justification other than its own regulation, the Board's action is entirely arbitrary. Dr. Miller's testimony that the result of the examination is just as valid on the fifth taking as on the first taking is unrebutted. There is simply no basis to believe that a person who scores a 483 on the examination is less qualified than a person who scores 483 (or even 425) on the first time. To impose an arbitrary limit on the number of times the examination may be taken before branding the applicant as permanently unqualified with no recourse, even though the applicant may be qualified as shown by her actual performance on the examination in another state, deprives Dr. Linton of the opportunity to pursue her chosen calling, and to get a fair return on the tremendous amount of time and money she has invested in her education, in the absence of any reasonable basis to believe that a person who passes the examination after three unsuccessful attempts is unqualified to enter her profession. I do not mean to imply that an applicant must be allowed to take the examination an unlimited number of times, nor to say that an applicant may be deemed unqualified based on multiple failures, nor that the Board may not impose additional requirements on applicants after a certain number of unsuccessful attempts. I would merely hold that there must be some reasonable basis for believing that a particular limit would protect the public from unqualified practitioners. The arbitrary three-times-and-out limit imposed by section 340.240.6 and the Board's regulation has not been shown to have any basis in the educational theory of the National Board Examination, as Dr. Miller has testified. In this case in particular we do not need to speculate whether her three previous attempts make Dr. Linton unqualified, because she has in fact established that she is qualified. The limit imposed by the Board pursuant to the statute is based upon a supposition. But the supposition is not true, as shown by Dr. Linton's score of 483. If the judgment made by the Board pursuant to the statute is at least debatable, the issue settles on the side of validity. Mahoney, 807 S.W.2d at 512-13; See also, Casualty Reciprocal Exchange v. Missouri Employers' Mutual Insurance Company, 956 S.W.2d 249, 257 (Mo. banc 1997). In Dr. Linton's case, the absolutist judgment is not debatable. Protection of the public is a stated purpose of occupational and professional licensing; yet section 340.202 provides for a Board composed of five veterinarians and one public member. The statute thus entrusts to a board dominated by the profession itself the duty of protecting the public. In these circumstances, it is appropriate for courts to guard against the danger of economic protectionism by careful scrutiny of the Board's actions. See, Fair Treatment for the Licensed Professional: The Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission, 37 Mo. L.Rev. 410, 416-421 (1972). The only basis that could be seen for the Board's action pursuant to the statute is economic protectionism, that is, as Dr. Miller testified, limiting the number of qualified applicants who are licensed to practice veterinary medicine in Missouri. Arbitrary action, done for reasons of economic protection, is simply not legitimate. The Board has the power ultimately to protect the public from unqualified practitioners, but its exclusions, whether based on statute or the Board's own judgment, must be rationally related to that objective. Since that is not the case here, I would conclude that the absolute bar imposed by the Board pursuant to the statute and regulation violates Dr. Linton's right to equal protection. I would affirm the decision of the trial court ordering the Board to grant a license to Dr. Linton.