Kieffer v. Department of Licensing & Regulation
169 Mich. App. 312, 425 N.W.2d 539 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A reviewing court must uphold an administrative agency's decision if it is supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record, which is evidence a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support the conclusion.
Facts:
- Petitioner, a licensed medical doctor, was charged with selling prescriptions for controlled substances and false work excuses.
- The complaint against petitioner also alleged that he failed to keep adequate medical records.
- After his license was revoked by the Michigan Board of Medicine, petitioner refused to continue treatment with a therapist.
- Petitioner later applied for reinstatement of his license.
- In support of his reinstatement application, petitioner presented evidence of completing twenty-five hours of continuing medical training, testimony that he would change his bookkeeping practices, and several witnesses who testified to his good moral character.
Procedural Posture:
- The Michigan Board of Medicine summarily suspended petitioner’s medical license in October 1982.
- The Board formally revoked petitioner's license in June 1983.
- Petitioner appealed the revocation to the Wayne Circuit Court (a state trial court), which vacated the Board's order.
- On appeal by the Board, the Michigan Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed the revocation.
- Petitioner filed an application for reinstatement, which the Board denied.
- Petitioner appealed the denial to the Wayne Circuit Court, which remanded the case to the Board for a hearing on petitioner's moral character.
- Following a hearing, a hearing referee recommended reinstatement, finding petitioner was of good moral character.
- The Board of Medicine rejected the referee's finding and issued a final order again denying reinstatement.
- Petitioner appealed this final order to the Wayne Circuit Court, which affirmed the Board's decision.
- Petitioner (appellant) now appeals the circuit court's affirmance to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an administrative agency's decision to deny reinstatement of a professional license required to be upheld by a reviewing court when it is supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence, even if a hearing referee reached a contrary conclusion?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. An administrative agency's decision must be upheld if it is supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the record as a whole. The proper standard of judicial review for an agency decision is not whether there was an abuse of discretion, but whether the decision was authorized by law and supported by such evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate. Reviewing courts must give deference to an agency's credibility assessments and its interpretation of its own rules, and may not substitute their own judgment for that of the agency where substantial evidence exists to support both sides. In this case, petitioner’s felony conviction, probationary status, and refusal to continue therapy constituted competent, material, and substantial evidence supporting the board’s decision to deny reinstatement, despite the countervailing evidence petitioner presented.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle of judicial deference to administrative agencies in Michigan. It clarifies that the "competent, material, and substantial evidence" standard is the correct benchmark for judicial review, preventing courts from re-weighing evidence or substituting their judgment for that of the agency. This decision empowers professional licensing boards by affirming their authority to make final determinations on matters like licensee character and fitness, even when a subordinate hearing officer disagrees, so long as the board's decision rests on a reasonable evidentiary foundation.
