Boswell v. Iowa Board of Veterinary Medicine case
brief
477 N.W.2d 366
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
CASE SYNOPSIS: Appellant
veterinarian challenged a judgment of the Iowa District Court for
Polk County, which upheld the decision of appellee Iowa Board of
Veterinary Medicine to revoke his license and impose a civil penalty.
The board cross-appealed from the burden of proof imposed by the
district court.
FACTS: The board charged the veterinarian with intermixing blood samples, falsely certifying blood specimens, authorizing surgical procedures by unlicensed persons, dishonesty with respect to billings, and violating federal drug regulations. The veterinarian challenged the fairness of the hearing and the sufficiency of the evidence. The board contested the burden of clear and convincing evidence imposed by the district court. The court affirmed the judgment against the veterinarian, but reversed on the burden of proof issue. The court determined that a preponderance of the evidence was the proper standard for a veterinarian disciplinary proceeding. Although the state veterinarian was seated next to the board during the hearing, the court concluded that there was no procedural unfairness because the state veterinarian did not act as an investigator or prosecutor, had no substantive communication with the board, and did not participate in any deliberation. On the facts, the court found that there was substantial evidence to support the board's action.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the judgment upholding the board's decision to revoke the veterinarian's license, but reversed the judgment as to the higher burden of proof imposed by the district court.
FACTS: The board charged the veterinarian with intermixing blood samples, falsely certifying blood specimens, authorizing surgical procedures by unlicensed persons, dishonesty with respect to billings, and violating federal drug regulations. The veterinarian challenged the fairness of the hearing and the sufficiency of the evidence. The board contested the burden of clear and convincing evidence imposed by the district court. The court affirmed the judgment against the veterinarian, but reversed on the burden of proof issue. The court determined that a preponderance of the evidence was the proper standard for a veterinarian disciplinary proceeding. Although the state veterinarian was seated next to the board during the hearing, the court concluded that there was no procedural unfairness because the state veterinarian did not act as an investigator or prosecutor, had no substantive communication with the board, and did not participate in any deliberation. On the facts, the court found that there was substantial evidence to support the board's action.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the judgment upholding the board's decision to revoke the veterinarian's license, but reversed the judgment as to the higher burden of proof imposed by the district court.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment