may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1998).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of Joseph P. Repice, M.D.,
Date of Birth: 3-19-45
License No. 23.774.
Filed July 6, 1999
Minnesota Board of Medical Practice
Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Thomas C. Vasaly, Assistant Attorney General, 525 Park Street, Suite 500, St. Paul, MN 55103 (for respondent Minnesota Board of Medical Practice)
Considered and decided by Toussaint, Chief Judge, Short, Judge, and Schultz, Judge.[*]
The Minnesota Board of Medical Practice revoked Joseph P. Repice's medical license for various ethical and professional violations. On writ of certiorari, Repice argues the board's decision must be reversed because: (1) he was denied his right to due process and effective assistance of counsel; (2) there was insufficient evidence to revoke his license; and (3) the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred when allowing the subpoena and admission of Repice's confidential medical records. We affirm.
An agency decision is presumed to be correct and will be reversed on appeal only when the decision reflects an error of law, when the findings are unsupported by substantial evidence, or when the agency's decision is arbitrary and capricious. Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (1998); Mammenga v. State, Dep't of Human Servs., 442 N.W.2d 786, 789 (Minn. 1989). We defer to the agency's expertise in fact finding, and will affirm an agency's decision if it is lawful and reasonable. Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 824-26 (Minn. 1977).
Repice argues his due process rights were violated when the board revoked his medical license because he was not advised of the consequences of his default at the hearing before the ALJ. But the record shows: (1) Repice was given written notice of the allegations against him; (2) the notice of and order for hearing stated: "Respondent [Reprice] is urged to attend; failure to do so may prejudice Respondent's rights in this proceeding and any subsequent proceedings related to this matter, may result in the allegations contained herein being taken as true, and may be the basis for disciplinary action against Respondent;" (3) at the hearing, Repice's counsel stated that she had spoken with her client the night before and they decided together to "give up" because they would not gain anything by the hearing; and (4) Repice testified that he decided to give up at the administrative level because he did not believe he could win. Given these facts, we conclude Repice was given notice consistent with constitutional due process standards. See Minnesota State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs v. Schmidt, 207 Minn. 526, 529, 292 N.W. 255, 257 (1940) (holding due process violation did not occur where doctor was given notice of nature of charges against him with opportunity for hearing).
[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by apointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.