Court Opinion

ID: 9711392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:30:57.13802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:04.503550
License: Public Domain

SAUFLEY, C.J.,
concurring.
[¶ 29] I concur in the opinion of the Court, and write separately to address an issue not raised by the parties and, therefore, not addressed by this Court. The Board, and those who look to the Board for guidance, would benefit from an articulation of the rationale for a particular sanction.
[¶ 30] Specifically, although the Board’s interpretation of the statute at the point of trial was both reasonable and based on the language of the statute itself, it is fairly clear from the proceedings that the Board has not previously enforced its holding that an LCP is not authorized to diagnose and treat mental health disorders. Indeed, uncontested evidence at the hearing demonstrated that Cobb had engaged in diagnosis and treatment, under appropriate supervision, for a number of years, without an objection being raised by her supervisors or the Board.
[¶ 31] Given the silence on this issue that preceded the Board’s announcement of its interpretation of the statute, its determination that Cobb should be sanctioned by censure, costs of $1113.50, a fine of $500, and thirty hours of supervision seems excessive to members outside the counseling community. However, the Board appears to have considered the actual censure to be necessary and to have considered the thirty hours of supervision de minimis. Had the excessiveness or appropriateness of the sanction been before us in this appeal, the record may have been insufficient for meaningful judicial review. See Christian Fellowship & Renewal Ctr. v. Town of Limington, 2001 ME 16, ¶ 15, 769 A.2d 834, 839.
[¶ 32] Accordingly, in order to provide us enough information to determine that the sanction is proportionate to the offense, administrative boards will be well served to detail the rationale for the type and amount of the sanction imposed.