Joseph v Guam Board of Allied Health Examiners [2015] GUSC 4 (6 February 2015)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

DR. JOEL JOSEPH,
Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

GUAM BOARD OF ALLIED HEALTH EXAMINERS,
Respondent-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA13-023
Superior Court Case No.: SP0100-12

OPINION

Filed: February 6, 2015

Cite as: 2015 Guam 4

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on August 6, 2014
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Respondent-Appellant: David Rivera, Esq. (Argued) David J. Highsmith, Esq. (Briefed) Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Civil Division 590 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 706 Tamuning, GU 96913

Appearing for Petitioner-Appellee: Mitchell F. Thompson, Esq. Maher & Thompson, P.C. 140 Aspinall Ave., Ste. 201 Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice; JOHN A. MANGLONA, Justice Pro Tempore.[1]

PER CURIAM:

[1] Respondent-Appellant Guam Board of Allied Health Examiners ("the Board") challenges the trial court's judgment granting a peremptory writ of mandate/judicial review commanding the Board to set aside its decision suspending local veterinarian, Petitioner-Appellee Dr. Joel Joseph, from the practice of veterinary medicine. In his Petition for Judicial Review/Writ of Mandate ("Petition"), Dr. Joseph alleged, inter alia, that the Board violated the Open Government Law ("OGL") by failing to give proper notice of the evidentiary hearings conducted in his disciplinary action. The trial court agreed and vacated the Board's decision to suspend Dr. Joseph's veterinary license. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the trial court's decision on other grounds.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] This case originated from a disciplinary action brought by the Board against Dr. Joseph, involving charges of professional misconduct. The Board scheduled a special meeting to take place on December 2, 2011, for the purpose of conducting a "status and scheduling hearing" in Dr. Joseph's disciplinary case. See RA, tab 37, App. 2 at 1 (Pet'r's Reply Mem., Feb. 15, 2013). The Board later rescheduled the December 2 meeting to December 9, 2011. The December 9, 2011 special meeting was then continued until February 6, 2012, which is when the Board commenced the evidentiary hearings. The February 6, 2012 meeting was continued several times: February 8 and 15, 2012; April 16-19, 23-26, 2012; and June 11 and 13, 2012. After these evidentiary hearings, the Board issued a final decision suspending Dr. Joseph's veterinary license for five years.

[3] Dr. Joseph then timely filed his Petition with the trial court, asserting, inter alia, that the Board had violated the OGL. After a hearing, the trial court granted the Petition and determined that the Board violated the OGL by failing to provide adequate notice for the evidentiary hearings that began on February 6, 2012.

[4] The trial court rendered the Board's final decision void and determined the remaining claims in the Petition moot.[2] The trial court subsequently issued a writ, ordering the Board to set aside its Final Decision. This appeal ensued.

II. JURISDICTION

[5] This court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a final judgment of the trial court pursuant to 48 U.S.C.A. § 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 113-234 (2014)) and 7 GCA §§ 3107(b) and 3108(a) (2005). See Joseph v. Guam Bd. of Allied Health Exam'rs, CVA13-023 (Order at 2 (Mar. 25, 2014)) (denying Dr. Joseph's Motion to Dismiss Appeal).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[6] "Generally, a reviewing court examines whether the Superior Court's grant of a writ of mandate is supported by substantial evidence." Guam Election Comm'n v. Responsible Choices for all Adults Coal., 2007 Guam 20 ¶ 23 (citing Guam Fed'n of Teachers ex rel. Rector v. Perez, 2005 Guam 25 ¶ 13). "But where there are no facts in dispute and the questions presented for review are strictly questions of law the court's review is de novo." Id. We examine whether the trial court's decision over a Petition for Judicial Review of an agency decision was in accordance with the law and supported by substantial evidence. See Guam Waterworks Auth. v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 2014 Guam 35 ¶ 5 ("We examine whether the trial court properly determined that the CSC's decision was in accordance with the law and supported by substantial evidence."). In doing so, all conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and we will hold unlawful and set aside any agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be irrational, or otherwise not in accordance with law or unsupported by substantial evidence in a case. Id.

IV. ANALYSIS

[7] The Board asserts on appeal that: (a) Dr. Joseph's claim the Board violated the OGL was not properly pleaded in the Petition; (b) the trial court erred in finding that the Board violated the notice provisions of the OGL; and (c) Dr. Joseph waived his claim that the OGL was violated by failing to raise it at the administrative level.[3]

A. Whether Dr. Joseph's Claim the Board Violated the OGL was Properly Pleaded in the Petition

[8] Focusing on the distinction between an appeal pursuant to the Administrative Adjudication Law ("AAL") and a mandamus action to void an agency's action not properly noticed, the Board argues that Dr. Joseph's Petition only pertained to a claim under the AAL. Appellant's Br. at 6 (Nov. 13, 2013). The Board contends that Dr. Joseph failed to properly plead his claim for OGL violation because the Petition does not satisfy the factual pleading requirements. See id. at 5-7. We reject this argument. Even though Dr. Joseph's Petition cited the AAL, the Petition contained sufficient information to put the Board on notice that Dr. Joseph was asserting a violation of the OGL.

[9] Guam law requires only notice pleading, not fact pleading. Guam Election Comm'n, 2007 Guam 20 ¶ 94 (citing Guam R. Civ. P. 8(a)).[4]