 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Younes v. Nolan1/19/2005
ces. Dr. Agatiello noted numerous instances where Appellant failed to adhere to the standard of care and testified that Appellant was negligent in his treatment of Patient A. (Tr. 7/23/03 at 44-45.) Additionally, Dr. Agatiello testified that Prednisone would have not had any effect on the patient's condition from the time that she saw Appellant on June 3, 1999, and the time that she saw Dr. D'Amato on June 9, 1999.
On October 20, 2004, the Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline and Patricia A. Nolan, M.D., in her capacity as the Director of the Department of Health, issued an Administrative Decision and Order. The Order reprimanded Dr. Younes and ordered him, within four weeks of the issuance of the Order, to enroll in a program approved by the Board which would evaluate Dr. Younes' fitness for continuation in the practice of medicine. The Board's Order further stated that if, as a result of the evaluation, there were recommended limitations, restrictions, terms or other conditions applied to Dr. Younes' license, they would be reviewed by the Board.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court is granted jurisdiction to review final orders of the Board of Medical Licensure and Discipline pursuant to § 42-35-15 of the Administrative Procedures Act. Specifically, this Court's scope of review is governed by § 42-35-15(g), which provides:
"(g) The court shall not substitute its judgments for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings, or it may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;
(4) Affected by other error or law;
(5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or
(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
A reviewing court will give great deference to an agency's final decision. Blackstone Valley Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, 543 A.2d 253 (R.I. 1988). The Court's review is limited to a determination of whether substantial evidence existed to support the Board's decision. Newport Shipyard v. R.I. Comm'n for Human Rights, 484 A.2d 893 (R.I. 1984). "Substantial evidence" has been defined by the court to mean that which "a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion." Id. at 897 (quoting Caswell v. George Sherman Sand & Gravel Co., 424 A.2d 646, 647 (R.I. 1981)). The Court will "reverse factual conclusions of administrative agencies only when they are totally devoid of competent evidentiary support in the record." Milardo v. Coastal Res. Mgmt. Council, 434 A.2d 266, 272 (R.I. 1971). However, questions of law determined by the administrative agency are not binding upon the court and may be freely reviewed to determine the relevant law and its applicability to the facts presented in the record. Carmody v. Rhode Island Conflict of Interest Commission, 509 A.2d 453, 458 (R.I. 1986).
Analysis of § 5-37-5.1(19)
Appellant first argues that the Board's decision should be reversed because none of the expert testimony presented during the hearings concerned the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing medical practice as defined in § 5-37-5.1(19). It is Appellant's position that Dr. Agatiello's expert testi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rhode Island Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|