Court Opinion

ID: 9545408
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:11:38.42444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:42.019864
License: Public Domain

McKINNON, Justice, specially concurring. While I am in substantial agreement with Justice Minzner’s analysis and determination that the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, I am concerned that our court continues to support a minority view that expert testimony is not required to revoke a professional’s license for failure to practice in a competent manner. Basie concepts of due process mandate that expert testimony be adduced by the Board in its prosecutorial role establishing professional incompetence. The fact that “experts” may be conducting the revocation hearing without more is not sufficient. The absence of expert testimony renders the right to judicial review illusory or meaningless. Fortunately here, such testimony was adduced and thereby furnished substantial evidence to support a determination of professional incompetence. Thus, I would also reinstate the order of the Board.