Saturday, May 17, 2008
Case summary: Omaha dentist appeals license revocation. The Nebraska Supreme Court in 2001 had disciplined the dentist who was also a member of the Bar for narcotics abuse. Nebraska Judicial Branch. S-07-0588, Shaun O. Parker, D.D.S., Appellant v. State of Nebraska, Appellee Lancaster County, Judge Jeffre CheuvrontAttorneys: Jerry Katskee (Appellant); Jon Bruning and Lisa Anderson (Attorney General’s Office). Civil: Revocation of professional license Proceedings Below: Parker filed a petition for review with the district court seeking to review the decision by the Chief Medical Officer/Director (CMO) for the Department of Health and Human Services Regulation and Licensure (DHHS), which decision revoked his license to practice dentistry. The district court affirmed the agency's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order, which order revoked Parker's license to practice dentistry in Nebraska. Issues: On appeal, Parker argues: (1) Whether Parker was denied procedural due process by DHHS in the crucial stages of the proceedings against him, to wit: (a) the investigation of the complaint derived from a confidential informant; (b) the presence of the attorney general at the closed session investigation; (c) the subsequent recommendations by the CMO; (2) whether the punishment meted out to Parker, viz., the revocation of license to practice his profession, fit the nature of the alleged infraction; (3) whether the district court erred in not considering the impact of the failure of the hearing officer to consider the arguments of Parker on constitutional issues by remanding the case to the CMO for further proceedings as permitted by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-917(5)(b)(i); (4) whether the district court erred in its order by holding that its de novo review presented clear and convincing evidence that Parker engaged in unprofessional conduct and that the discipline imposed was appropriate under the circumstances; (5) whether the entire administrative procedure is flawed and grants arbitrary and dictatorial powers to the CMO; (6) whether the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the CMO were arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable; and (7) whether the district court erred in its order by not finding the administrative findings of fact and conclusions of law were arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.