Court Opinion

ID: 9760255
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:44:57.415536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:09.834291
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I must dissent from the majority opinion for several reasons. First is that the findings of the Board did not comply with the terms of the applicable statute. Under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 72-307 (Repl. 1979), before revoking a license the Board must find a podiatrist to be guilty of grossly unprofessional and dishonest conduct. No such findings were made in this case. The words of the statute should be interpreted in their accepted meaning in common language. Hicks v. Arkansas State Medical Board, 260 Ark. 31, 537 S.W. 2d 794 (1976). Therefore, the findings are insufficient to allow the Board to revoke the license of the appellant. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 72-307 (a) states in part: The words “unprofessional and dishonest conduct” shall be held to mean: The wilful betrayal of a professional secret, having professional connections with, or lending the use of one’s name to an unregistered podiatrist, or having professional connection with any one who has been convicted in any court of any criminal offense whatsoever; being guilty of offense involving moral turpitude, habitual intemperance, or being habitually addicted to the use of morphine, opium, cocaine or other drugs for other use than legal and legitimate purposes. Another matter which was wrong with the proceeding below was that the rules had not been filed in the Circuit Court of Benton County as required by law. The Board should at least be expected to comply with the law itself before taking away the license of any person engaged in the practice of podiatry. I realize that the majority is correct in holding that our review on administrative decisions is based on the entire record and that the record must reflect substantial evidence to support the findings of the Board. White County Guaranty Savings & Loan Ass’n. v. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Des Arc, 262 Ark. 893, 562 S.W. 2d 582 (1978). However, in the present case four podiatrists testified on behalf of the appellant and two of them testified that appellant used extreme care both before and after operations. Summed up, the testimony of the four podiatrists called on behalf of the appellant was highly favorable to him. No place in the record do I find any statement that the appellant was guilty of dishonesty. Therefore, it is my opinion that there is no substantial evidence upon which to base a finding that the appellant was guilty of “grossly unprofessional and dishonest conduct. ” Consequently I would reverse and dismiss.