Court Opinion

ID: 9755170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:28:45.3486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:04.080773
License: Public Domain

*607NEBEKER, Associate Judge
(concurring in the result):
I concur in the result, but my doubts that petitioner has “relied” on the statute he now assails are sufficient for me to take a different approach. Petitioner did not rely on the Act; rather, he was forced to go to the Board by the United States District Court and to exhaust an administrative “remedy” rightfully assumed to be futile.1
Moreover, the second and seemingly independent basis for not deciding the issues raised is, to me, also of doubtful validity. The District of Columbia Administrative Procedure Act, D.C.Code 1973, § 1-1510, does permit “order or decision” review by this court, as the opinion of the court states. It is also true that petitioner is not really attacking the decision of the Board. He agrees it cannot grant him a license, and acknowledges that his attack is upon the validity of the Act in part due to the absence of a “grandfather clause” perpetuating his right to continued lawful practice. However, our review responsibility is not conferred solely by § 1-1510. D.C. Code 1973, § 2-492(B) specifically confers jurisdiction in this court over a decision “refusing to issue a license or certificate for any cause under the provisions of [í/íaí] subchapter”. (Emphasis supplied.) See D.C.Code 1973, § 2-492(B) & (C). It seems to me that failure to have the requisite academic degree is a “cause” for refusing a license and such may be reviewed by this court. The question whether we can or should reach the constitutional issues is, however, quite something else.2 I would not decide these issues on this administrative record, but leave petitioner to his judicial remedy in equity where he started in the first place.
It is of particular significance to this issue that the evidence petitioner presented to the Board respecting his asserted professional background and experience was irrelevant in those proceedings. The Board had no power to grant an exception as petitioner requested. Accordingly, I do not view this record as reflecting, affirmatively or negatively, a finding whether petitioner possessed equivalent professional standing sufficient to warrant excepting him from the license requirement of the Act. Moreover, this court is hardly equipped in this administrative review proceeding to decide without factual determinations the constitutional question whether petitioner has a colorable claim to a prior vested right to practice psychology by virtue of earlier experience and standing in his field. E. g., Rossiter v. Law Committee of the State Board of Law Examiners, 42 U.S.L.W. 2017 (Colo. June 12, 1973); Taylor v. Hayes, 131 Ill.App.2d 305, 264 N.E.2d 814 (1970). See Barr v. Matteo, 355 U.S. 171, 78 S.Ct. 204, 2 L.Ed.2d 179 (1957); Gomez v. Wilson, 155 U.S.App.D.C. 242, 477 F.2d 411 (1973).
We are aware that our decision returns petitioner to a court of general jurisdiction for resolution of his controversy. Since, however, there has been no disruption in his practice pending Board action and decision of this petition, we do not perceive *608that either his immediate interests or those of the community are adversely affected by the instant disposition.
I note that a case of striking similarity is Taylor v. Hayes, supra. There the Illinois court found that a court of general jurisdiction was properly and preferably the forum to decide this type controversy. We recognize here, as was concluded at the end of the Taylor opinion, that the Board lacked statutory power to issue a license or other permission to practice psychology to one not possessing the requisite academic degree. Id. at 312, 264 N.E.2d at 818.
I would also affirm the Board’s order and for the foregoing reasons decline to go further.

. Petitioner could have appealed the dismissal order and urged that the District Court erred in declining jurisdiction at least without staying its hand to permit administrative reaction. See Sohm v. Fowler, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 382, 365 F.2d 915 (1966), and Ogden v. Zuckert, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 398, 298 F.2d 312 (1961), where exercise of jurisdiction was temporarily declined to permit plaintiffs to pursue administrative relief.

. Under some circumstances, of course, constitutional challenge to the enabling legislation may be entertained on direct review of administrative action. See, e. g., Inland Steel Co. v. NLRB, 170 F.2d 247 (7th Cir. 1948), aff’d sub nom., American Communications Ass’n v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 70 S.Ct. 674, 94 L.Ed. 925 (1950). On the only issue of substantial merit here (failure to provide pe-tioner the benefit of a “grandfather” provision), I do not view the administrative record as adequate for us to make a decision.