Court Opinion

ID: 7820841
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:54:12.938797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:44.104115
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I concur with the majority in holding appellant is not entitled to have a completely closed hearing in this matter. No doubt the trial court will protect appellee and his patients from being forced to openly divulge confidential information which is privileged. Whether numbers are used to identify patients or truly privileged information is prohibited from being made public by other means does not require the entire proceeding to be closed. I dissent from that part of the majority opinion which allows the Board to revoke appellee’s license prior to a hearing. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 72-613 (Supp. 1977) provides the Board may suspend a license if it finds the holder of the license has committed certain acts. There has been no such finding here as was pointed out by the trial court. Appellee requested a continuance, which the Board apparently granted without any written findings of any nature. At this point the appellee has not been found to have violated any law, rule or regulation. In my opinion, he stands exactly as he did before a complaint was filed. In effect, the Board revoked his license without a full and fair hearing as required by Ark. Stat. Ann. § 62-614 (Supp. 1977). The Board is further required to reduce the evidence to writing, which record must contain some evidence to support their finding. Hake v. Arkansas State Medical Board, 237 Ark. 506, 374 S.W. 2d 173 (1964). Neither did the Board comply with Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-712 (Repl. 1976) by issuing an order based upon findings of fact. When appellee appeared at the hearing and requested a continuance, the Board had the right to agree to a continuance upon certain conditions, grant the continuance outright or conduct a hearing. Instead, they issued a unilateral order that it granted the continuance upon condition. The condition was that they would take the doctor’s license to prescribe certain drugs pending a hearing. There is no statutory authority for such action. Therefore, I am of the opinion appellee should have the right to continue full practice until he has had a full and fair hearing.