Board of Dental Examiners v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Jan 29, 1976 No. Civ. 15452Published

Before: Friedman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by ordering discovery against members of the Board of Dental Examiners, as the petitioner failed to provide a foundational showing to overcome the presumption of administrative regularity.

Issues

Whether the superior court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the deposition of administrative board members in a mandate proceeding.
Whether discovery orders were appropriate where the petitioner's allegations of misconduct were based on speculation rather than a factual foundation.

Disposition. Writ of prohibition issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Sacramento Superior Court acted in excess of jurisdiction in granting to Dr. David Korb (real party in interest) the right to take the depositions of two members of the Board of Dental Examiners”

“It was not the function of the superior court to inquire into the evidence examined and relied upon by the board members or to inquire into the reasoning processes underlying their decision.”

“In the face of the presumption of regularity, the issue of discovery orders in aid of a fishing expedition represented an abuse of discretion.”

Opinion

FRIEDMAN, J.

The Sacramento Superior Court acted in excess of jurisdiction in granting to Dr. David Korb (real party in interest) the right to take the depositions of two members of the Board of Dental Examiners; in ordering a third board member to answer questions previously put to him at his deposition; in imposing sanctions upon the board in the amount of $500 in addition to costs totalling $548.70. A writ of prohibition will issue.

Following an administrative hearing the Board of Dental Examiners found Dr. Korb guilty of unprofessional conduct, gross ignorance, and inefficiency in his profession, and ordered revocation of his dental license. After the board’s denial of his petition for reconsideration, Dr. Korb filed a petition for writ of mandate under section 1094.5, Code of Civil Procedure.

Counsel for Dr. Korb then gave notice of taking depositions by oral examination of the administrative hearing officer and of two members of the Board of Dental Examiners. Upon the board’s motion, the trial court quashed these notices. Dr. Korb then filed an amended petition for mandate, adding a new allegation on information and belief that the board “took and considered evidence outside the administrative record and after the administrative hearing in Teachings [ízc] its findings of fact and its decision.” The amended petition did not reveal the source or basis of this information and belief.

The board filed an answer denying this and other allegations. Dr. Korb then served subpoenas calling for the attendance of the board members at the hearing of his petition for mandate. Although several

[814]

board members filed affidavits denying that they had considered evidence outside the administrative record, the trial court denied the board’s motion to quash, Eventually the court issued the discovery-enforcement orders assailed in the board’s petition for prohibition.

In reviewing revocation of a license by a state agency the court renders its independent judgment on the basis of the administrative record plus such additional evidence as may be admitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (d).

Board of Dental Examiners v. Superior Court

AI Brief

FRIEDMAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief