Dore v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles
2001 Conn. App. LEXIS 151, 62 Conn.App. 604, 771 A.2d 962 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A hearing officer presiding over a license suspension hearing is not bound to consider only the 'competent medical advice' submitted by a driver claiming a medical exemption for refusing a chemical alcohol test. The officer must weigh all evidence, including contradictory police reports and the driver's own statements, to resolve factual conflicts.
Facts:
- On July 24, 1998, Officer Peter A. Bosco observed a Ford automobile driven by Charles Dore weaving between lanes, almost striking another car, and hitting a median on an exit ramp.
- After Bosco activated his lights, Dore pulled over; Bosco observed that Dore's eyes were glossy and bloodshot, his speech was slurred, and he had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath.
- Dore admitted to having consumed 'a few beers.'
- When Bosco asked if any medical problems would prevent him from performing field sobriety tests, Dore replied, 'No, I should be all set.'
- Dore subsequently failed the field sobriety tests.
- At the police station, Dore again advised police that he was not ill or injured.
- Dore refused to submit to a breathalyzer test, stating, 'You know I’m going to refuse whatever test you ask. I beat it last time by refusing, I’ll beat it again.'
Procedural Posture:
- Police reported Charles Dore's refusal to take a chemical alcohol test to the commissioner of motor vehicles.
- The commissioner initiated a license suspension action, and Dore requested an administrative hearing.
- At the hearing, Dore submitted a letter from a physician to support his claim of medical exemption.
- The hearing officer, considering all evidence, found that Dore refused the test and suspended his driver's license.
- Dore appealed the commissioner's decision to the Superior Court (trial court).
- The Superior Court dismissed Dore's appeal.
- Dore (the appellant) then appealed the Superior Court's judgment to the Appellate Court of Connecticut, with the commissioner as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the medical exemption provision in General Statutes § 14-227b(j), which exempts individuals for whom a test would be 'medically inadvisable,' limit the evidence a hearing officer may consider to only the 'competent medical advice' presented, thereby excluding contradictory evidence like a police report?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Connell, J.
No. The medical exemption provision does not limit the evidence a hearing officer may consider to only the competent medical advice presented by the driver. The function of the hearing officer is to resolve conflicts in the evidence by weighing all factual predicates presented. Here, the officer was faced with two conflicting scenarios: the police officer's report describing an intoxicated driver who denied any medical issues, and a letter from Dr. James E. O'Brien, submitted after the fact, claiming a severe asthmatic condition made the test medically inadvisable. The court held that the hearing officer was free to believe the police version of the facts and disbelieve the plaintiff's version, which was based on contested facts. The court's review of an administrative finding is limited to determining if it is supported by 'substantial evidence,' a standard that requires deference to the agency's role in assessing witness credibility, even that of an expert.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary scope of administrative license suspension hearings in cases involving medical exemption claims. It establishes that the 'competent medical advice' provision is not an evidentiary shield that bars the consideration of contradictory facts. The ruling reinforces the deferential 'substantial evidence' standard of review for administrative findings, granting hearing officers significant latitude to weigh credibility and resolve factual disputes. Consequently, a driver cannot automatically defeat a license suspension by simply producing a doctor's note after the fact if there is credible, contemporaneous evidence from the time of the arrest that contradicts the medical claim.
