Section 14 Interpretations of Grounds for Disciplinary Action or Denial

• Library: Administrative Law 2011

Disciplinary action should not be penal, quasi-criminal, or punitive. The power to discipline is within the police power of the state because it is performed with the purpose of protecting the public. Younge v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts,
451 S.W.2d 346 (Mo. 1969). Business entities that are licensed are subject to the same types of disciplinary action. See Sander v. Missouri Real Estate Commission, 710 S.W.2d 896 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986), in which a corporate officer and a corporation licensed as brokers were both subject to disciplinary action.

Boards approach each professional licensee individually, and
no standard policy is imposed for particular violations. To put
it in a criminal context, “sentencing guidelines” do not exist,
and if a board did impose “sentencing guidelines,” it would be required to make that statement of general applicability into a rule. Each particular disciplinary action depends on its facts and circumstances. When analyzing an action involving discipline against a professional licensee or a denial of licensure, it is still helpful to review similar cases to assess the likelihood of a particular defense, know the law, and determine what evidence may be needed. Courts on appeal have interpreted various grounds for discipline in light of the conduct of the licensee appealing and may be of guidance when looking at what specific conduct of the professional licensee falls within a particular ground for discipline.

In interpreting whether discipline in another state constitutes grounds for disciplinary action in Missouri, courts have defined “disciplinary action” as “any censure, reprimand, suspension, denial, revocation, restriction or other limitation placed upon the license of a person.” Bhuket v. State ex rel. Mo. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 787 S.W.2d 882, 885 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990) (consent order in Texas was a disciplinary action in another state and a ground for discipline in Missouri).

Applicants and licensees are usually required to disclose convictions, pleas of guilty, and pleas of nolo contendere regardless of whether sentences are imposed. An Alford plea, N.C. v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), is a guilty plea. Watkins v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 651 S.W.2d 582 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983). A few boards even have automatic disciplinary proceedings for felony convictions. See § 334.103, RSMo Supp. 2010, and § 340.274, RSMo 2000.

In a professional licensing context, it is not necessary to...