Dragan v. Connecticut Medical Examining Board
1992 Conn. LEXIS 279, 613 A.2d 739, 223 Conn. 618 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party in an administrative proceeding waives statutory or constitutional procedural rights, such as the right to cross-examine a witness or obtain discovery, if the party fails to timely and properly assert those rights or utilize available remedies before the administrative body.
Facts:
- Myroslaw Dragan was a physician licensed to practice medicine in Connecticut.
- The Connecticut medical examining board (board) and the department of health services (department) initiated license revocation proceedings against Dragan based on his treatment of a patient, Collette Connor, for drug addiction.
- During the board's hearing, Connor testified for the department on direct examination.
- Dragan's counsel requested to reserve cross-examination of Connor until he could obtain her prior statements, which he was attempting to subpoena from the Stamford police department.
- At a subsequent hearing date, Connor was delayed due to transportation problems and did not appear. Dragan's counsel noted his expectation to cross-examine her but did not object to proceeding with other witnesses.
- The board granted Dragan's request to stay the proceedings for over a year pending the resolution of a parallel criminal case against him.
- After the administrative hearing resumed, Dragan never requested that the board produce Connor for cross-examination.
- At the conclusion of the final hearing, Dragan's counsel reserved only the right to submit additional exhibits, making no mention of the uncompleted cross-examination of Connor or his outstanding discovery requests.
Procedural Posture:
- The Connecticut medical examining board (board) revoked the medical license of Myroslaw Dragan following an administrative hearing.
- Dragan appealed the board's decision to the Superior Court of Connecticut, a state trial court.
- The Superior Court sustained Dragan's appeal, reversing the board's decision and remanding the case for a new hearing.
- The board and the department of health services appealed the Superior Court's judgment to the Appellate Court of Connecticut, an intermediate appellate court; Dragan cross-appealed.
- The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that Dragan's rights to cross-examination and discovery had been violated.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court granted the defendants' petition for certification to appeal the judgment of the Appellate Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In an administrative license revocation proceeding, does a party waive their statutory right to cross-examine a witness and their due process right to discovery of witness statements by failing to timely assert those rights or utilize available remedies before the administrative board?
Opinions:
Majority - Glass, J.
Yes. A party in an administrative proceeding waives procedural rights by failing to assert them in a timely fashion or utilize available remedies. The court held that waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right and can be inferred from a party's conduct. Dragan waived his right to cross-examine witness Collette Connor because, over the course of a year-long proceeding, he never claimed his right was being denied. After reserving cross-examination, he failed to take further steps to assert it when Connor did not appear at a subsequent hearing and did not raise the issue at the conclusion of the case. He also failed to utilize available remedies, such as requesting the board to issue a subpoena for Connor or moving to strike her direct testimony. Similarly, Dragan waived his right to discovery of witness statements by not pressing the board for a ruling on his request after it was initially deferred. A party cannot participate in a proceeding, anticipate a favorable outcome, and then raise unpreserved procedural claims on appeal if the decision is adverse.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the waiver doctrine in administrative law, emphasizing that parties bear the responsibility for actively preserving their procedural rights. It establishes that a failure to make timely objections or utilize available administrative remedies will preclude a party from raising those issues on judicial review. The ruling discourages litigants from 'sandbagging' an agency by remaining silent on procedural defects in hopes of using them as grounds for appeal after an unfavorable decision. This precedent reinforces the finality of administrative actions and requires parties to fully litigate all issues, including procedural ones, at the agency level.
