 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Martin v. Sizemore8/22/2001
ities which, because of their technical nature, are not readily amenable to direct legislative or judicial oversight. Thus, one of the fundamental premises upon which administrative law is built is that the quality and efficiency of the regulatory process will be enhanced by entrusting decision-making authority to experienced, expert administrators. Rolfe v. Psychiatric Sec. Review Bd., 633 P.2d 846, 852-53 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
Using expert decision-makers is not the only key ingredient of administrative proceedings. The minimum requirements of due process must also be satisfied when an agency's decision could adversely affect vested property interests or other constitutional rights. While due process does not dictate particular procedures that must be used in every instance, Estrin v. Moss, 221 Tenn. 657, 676, 430 S.W.2d 345, 353 (1968), at a minimum, administrative proceedings must afford affected parties (1) adequate notice, McClellan v. Board of Regents, 921 S.W.2d 684, 688 (Tenn. 1996); (2) an opportunity for a hearing at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, Haywood v. State Bd. of Educ., 874 S.W.2d 67, 72 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993); Mid-South Indoor Horse Racing, Inc. v. Tennessee State Racing Comm'n, 798 S.W.2d 531, 540 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990); and (3) an opportunity to obtain judicial review of the board's or agency's decision. St. Joseph Stock Yard Co. v. United States, 298 U.S. 38, 84, 56 S. Ct. 720, 740 (1936); Public Serv. Comm'n v. General Tel. Co., 555 S.W.2d 395, 402 (Tenn. 1977); Bernard Schwartz, Administrative Law Cases During 1996, 49 Admin. L. Rev. 519, 536-37 (1997).
The Uniform Administrative Procedures Act addresses each of these requirements in the context of contested case proceedings to revoke or suspend professional licenses. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-320(c) (1998) requires written notice prior to commencing an administrative proceeding to revoke or suspend a license. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4-5-102(3), -312 (1998) provide for contested case proceedings in which the parties have an opportunity to respond to the charges against them, to present evidence and argument, to conduct cross-examination, and to submit rebuttal evidence. Likewise, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 4-5-322, -323 (1998) provide for judicial review of decisions in contested cases as of right at both the trial and appellate level.
B.
The State has the burden of proving one or more of the statutory grounds for revoking or suspending an architect's certificate of registration. Estrin v. Moss, 221 Tenn. at 677, 430 S.W.2d at 354 (placing the burden of proof in a disciplinary proceeding on the State). Thus, it is incumbent on the State to establish by substantial and material evidence one or more of the grounds listed in Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-2-308(a)(1). These statutory grounds do not necessarily require the same types of evidence. Some of the grounds may involve conduct and issues easily understood by persons who are not themselves registered architects. However, other grounds may require expert testimony because they involve technical issues beyond the common knowledge, experience, and understanding of persons who are not registered professionals.
For example, Tenn. Code Ann. § 62-2-308(a)(1)(D) permits revoking or suspending an architect's certificate of registration if a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the architect breached a contract for professional services. Disciplinary action under this statute could be triggered simply by introducing court papers concluding that an architect breached his or her contract for professional services. No expert testimony is necessary in this circumstance because persons who are not registered design professionals will be able to de
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|