Stewart v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance

Opinion

Robert H. Stewart, a medical doctor, appeals from an order of the superior court granting a new trial on grounds of an error in law in a mandamus proceeding (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) instituted by Dr. Stewart against the Board of Medical Quality Assurance, Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California (hereinafter referred to as the Board).

The Case

The chronology of events is as follows;

On February 10, 1976, the Board filed an accusation charging Dr. Stewart with committing in the practice of medicine acts and omissions which constituted gross negligence and incompetence and resulted in the

The Board assigned the matter to an administrative law judge of the Office of Administrative Hearing, Helen L. Gallagher (hearing officer), who presided alone at the hearing held May 10 and 11, 1976, made findings of fact and determinations of law, and issued her proposed decision to the Board. The proposed decision incorporated findings that Dr. Stewart had committed the acts and omissions charged which constituted incompetence in the practice of medicine and it recommended, inter alia, the revocation of his medical certificate with the revocation to be stayed and a five-year probationary period imposed upon his successfully passing an oral examination to be administered to him by the Board.

On July 19, 1976, the Board adopted the decision of the administrative law judge as its own.

On or about July 23, 1976, Dr. Stewart filed a petition for reconsideration which was not granted prior to the effective date of the Board’s decision and was thus deemed denied by operation of law on August 19, 1976 (Gov. Code, § 11519, subd. (a)).

On August 26, 1976, Dr. Stewart filed a petition for writ of mandate to set aside the Board’s decision in the superior court, which issued its order to show cause why the writ should not issue.

On October 8, 1976, trial was held on the mandamus proceedings. At its conclusion the superior court granted the writ setting aside the Board’s decision on the ground that Business and Professions Code section 2123.9 required the administrative hearing to be “held by the committee or panel thereof’ rather than a single administrative law judge.

The Board thereafter made a motion for new trial on the basis that the court had improperly interpreted and applied the law with respect to the hearing procedure (Code Civ. Proc., § 657, subd. 7) and that motion was heard November 24, 1976.

The trial court, following oral argument and a review of the disciplinary law controlling physicians, ruled that an error in law had

During 1975 the Board of Medical Quality Assurance, which replaced the Board of Medical Examiners, was established under the Department of Consumer Affairs. The new board consisted of three divisions: a division of medical quality, a division of licensing, and a division of allied health professions (§ 2100.5) and it was the division of medical quality which was assigned responsibility for reviewing quality of medical practice and carrying out disciplinary action (§ 2100.6). The medical quality review committees established by article 2.3 were to operate under the jurisdiction of the “Division of Medical Quality of the Board of Medical Quality Assurance” (§ 2123). The composition of these committees, which ranged in size from 10 to 20 members and represented 14 different districts, was specified in section 2123.3. That section authorized the medical quality review committees to establish smaller panels of five committee members (three physician members, one public member, and one member licensed by the healing arts board other than the Board of Medical Quality Assurance) “for the purposes of hearing and deciding cases before a committee.” (§ 2123.3.)

The fulcrum of this appeal is the interpretation of section 2123.9 which is entitled “Conduct of hearings; law governing; contested cases; duties of hearing officer.” That section provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “Except as otherwise provided in this article, all hearings shall be conducted by ... a committee or panel of a committee in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500), Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code.” (Italics added.) The

On passing upon this issue this court adverts to those well established rules of statutory construction which require first and foremost that the statutory scheme be given a reasonable and practical interpretation. (Fortenberry v. Weber (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 213 [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 834 ].) It is the golden rule of statutory construction that where several alternatives exist that interpretation which appears the most reasonable shall be favored. (Samarkand of Santa Barbara, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 341 [ 31 Cal.Rptr. 151 ].) “Statutes must be given a fair and reasonable interpretation, with due regard to the language used and the purpose sought to be accomplished. (Cedars of Lebanon Hosp. v. County of L A. (1950) 35 Cal.2d 729 , 734-735 [ 221 P.2d 31 , 15 A.L.R.2d 1045 ]; People v. Sciortino (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d Supp. 905 , 908-909 [ 345 P.2d 594 ].) Words of a statute must be given such interpretation as will promote rather than defeat the general purpose and policy of the law. (City of L. A. v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co. (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 253 , 256-257 [ 330 P.2d 888 ].) . . .” (Rushing v. Powell (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 597 , 603-604 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 110 ].)

With respect to the statutes presented for interpretation in the present case, we are further reminded of the elementary rule of statutory construction which dictates that effect be given, if possible to every word, clause and sentence. (Soby v. Workman’s Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 555 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 727 ].) As a corollary, a statute should be construed so that effect is given to all its provisions, leaving no part superfluous or inoperative, void or insignificant and so that one section will not destroy another. (Van Nuis v. Los Angeles Soap Co. (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 222 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 398 ].)

Keeping these rules in mind and viewing article 2.3 within the framework of the entire State Medical Practice Act, it becomes abundantly clear that the Legislature did not intend that the medical quality review committees thereby established were to constitute the exclusive disciplinary forum nor that the use of a hearing officer acting alone pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act should be foreclosed.

When the legislation was submitted to the Senate, various amendments were made thereto and with these amendments the bill was ultimately enacted into law. (Stats. 1975, Second Ex. Sess., ch. 2, § 1.05 et seq., p. 3981.) These amendments are significant for purposes of interpretation in the present case because in each instance reference to use of a hearing officer was incorporated. At the end of section 2100.6, subdivision (c), the words “a hearing officer, or the division” were added (Stats. 1975, Second Ex. Sess., ch. 2, § 1.02, p. 3980); the words “hearing officer” were also added to sections 2372 (Stats. 1975, Second Ex. Sess., ch. 2, § 1.14, p. 3986) and 2372.5 (Stats. 1975, Second Ex. Sess., ch. 2, § 1.15, p. 3987).

Furthermore, it is apparent from the contents of article 13, entitled “Denial, Suspension and Revocation,” that hearing officers are accorded authority coextensive with that exercised by committees or panels. The division of medical quality is required thereunder to take action against any certificate holder who engages in the enumerated acts which constitute unprofessional conduct. (§ 2361.) In such actions the licenses of physicians are subject to disciplinary suspension or revocation and hearings must be conducted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (§§ 2360, 2324). The Administrative Procedure Act, in turn, provides that every hearing in a contested case shall be presided over by a hearing officer, and that the agency (the Board in the present case) shall determine whether the hearing officer is to hear the case sitting alone or sitting with the agency itself. (Gov. Code, § 11512, subd. (a).) Sections 2372 and 2372.5 are found in article 13. Section 2372 thereof specifies that a certificate holder may be found guilty by a “committee, panel or hearing officer thereof.” Section 2372.5 extends

We are admonished to gather the legislative intent from the whole act rather than from its isolated parts and to attempt to give effect to the object the enactment sought to achieve. (Rushing v. Powell, supra, 61 Cal.App.3d 597 , 604.) In so doing we have reviewed the provisions of the Medical Practice Act as it existed in 1976 and we note that it provided several alternatives for the conduct of disciplinary proceedings, all within the authority of the division of medical quality. The division of medical quality could either sit with a hearing officer (§ 2364; Gov. Code, § 11512, subd. (a)) or delegate the authority to make findings to a hearing officer sitting alone. (§§ 2360, 2361; Gov. Code, § 11512, subd. (a).) Alternatively, the case could be assigned to a medical quality review committee sitting with a hearing officer (§§ 2123, 2123.9; Gov. Code, § 11512, subd. (a)) or could be delegated to a panel of a medical quality review committee which would sit with a hearing officer. (§§ 2123.2, 2123.9; Gov. Code, § 11512, subd. (a).) Our conclusion that the hearing officer was, at the time the present case was heard, an independent authority entitled to receive from the Board the delegation of authority to hear the case alone is founded on the legislative intent, the history of the legislation, and our reading of article 13 which clearly assigns specific powers to the hearing officer alone. Implicit in the authority to make findings, which may clearly be delegated to hearing officers pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, is the power of the hearing officer to preside alone at disciplinary proceedings when such authority is delegated by the agency.

Dr. Stewart further contends on appeal that the trial court improperly considered the affidavit of Assemblyman Barry Keene which was inadmissible. The trial court accepted and considered the affidavits of Senator Alan Robbins and Assemblyman John Collier of the California Legislature, both of whom voted on the bills presented in their respective houses, together with the affidavit of Assemblyman Barry Keene who authored the original bill. The Keene affidavit declares that it was the intent of the combined legislation (Assem. Bill No. 1 and Sen. Bill No.

In statutory construction various aids to determine legislative intent have been utilized by courts since “[i]t is a cardinal rule that statutes should be given a reasonable interpretation and in accordance with the apparent purpose and intention of the law makers.” (County of Alameda v. Kuchel (1948) 32 Cal.2d 193 , 199 [ 195 P.2d 17 ].) In so doing, the court is entitled to consider the affidavits of the author of the subject legislation. (Campbell v. Board of Dental Examiners (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 283 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 694 ]; see also Chapman v. Federal Power Comm’n. (1953) 345 U.S. 153 [ 97 L.Ed. 918 , 73 S.Ct. 609 ].) Statements of individual legislators are not inadmissible; the issue is merely one of the weight which these may be accorded. (Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247 , 258 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 761 , 502 P.2d 1049 ].) Similarly the digests of legislative counsel are of interest but not, as Dr. Stewart argues, controlling. While we do not rely on the affidavit of Assemblyman Keene to sustain our interpretation, it is noteworthy that his statement of legislative intent is in accord with the construction derived from the statute by this court applying basic rules of statutory construction.

Finally, contrary to the contention of Dr. Stewart, we are not called upon herein to consider a penal statute. “The revocation or suspension of a license is not penal, but rather, the Legislature has provided for such to protect the life, health and welfare of the people at large and to set up a plan whereby those who practice medicine will have the qualifications which will prevent, as far as possible, the evils which could result from ignorance or in competency or a lack of honesty and integrity.” (Furnish v. Board of Medical Examiners (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 326 , 331 [ 308 P.2d 924 ].)

The judgment (order granting the motion for a new trial) is affirmed. The matter is remanded to the superior court for a hearing on the merits.

Wood, P. J., and Lillie, J., concurred.