ANDY D. BENNETT, Judge.
This appeal arises out of disciplinary proceedings against a physician before the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners. The proceedings were instituted after the New York State Board for Professional Medical Conduct disciplined the physician. The Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners revoked the physician's medical license and the physician appealed to the chancery court pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 4-5-322. The chancery court reversed and vacated the order revoking the physician's medical license. The Tennessee Department of Health and the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners appealed. For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for reconsideration.
Adedamola Oni ("Dr. Oni") received a Tennessee medical license in 1995 and a New York medical license in 2000. He never practiced medicine in New York, but renewed his New York medical license until 2011.
On August 24, 2007, following an investigation by the Tennessee Department of Health ("TDOH"), the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners ("Board")
Dr. Oni timely paid the civil penalties on October 17, 2007. The costs were due by December 14, 2007, but Dr. Oni made no payments until May 2010. He remitted three $300 payments on May 13, 2010, July 13, 2010, and December 21, 2011, and one $2,100 payment on January 20, 2012.
In February and September 2003, Dr. Oni incurred criminal charges for burglary, theft by taking, and simple battery in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia. On his October 2003 New York medical license renewal questionnaire, Dr. Oni responded "No" to the question, "Since your last registration application, are criminal charges pending against you in any court?". On November 21, 2007, while again in the process of renewing his New York license, Dr. Oni responded "No" to the application question, "Since your last registration application, has any licensing or disciplinary authority . . . reprimanded or otherwise disciplined you?".
In January 2011, the New York State Board for Professional Medical Conduct ("New York Board") instituted disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Oni based upon four alleged "specifications of misconduct":
On March 24, 2011, Dr. Oni, represented by counsel, appeared before the New York State Department of Health, an administrative law judge ("ALJ"), and the New York Board. After a full hearing in which Dr. Oni testified, the New York Board issued its final determination and order revoking Dr. Oni's license to practice medicine in New York and setting forth findings and conclusions that included the following:
In its final order, the New York Board discussed the fact that Dr. Oni had been exonerated of the Georgia criminal charges and reasoned as follows:
It does not appear that Dr. Oni appealed from the New York Board's final order or otherwise tried to reinstate his New York medical license.
On October 25, 2011, the TDOH filed a notice of charges against Dr. Oni, alleging that his failure to pay the full costs from the Board's 2007 reprimand and the revocation of his New York medical license constituted grounds for discipline per Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 63-6-214(b)(1), (2), and (20).
The Board conducted a contested case hearing over which an ALJ presided on January 25, 2012.
Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322, Dr. Oni petitioned the chancery court for review of the Board's decision. On March 22, 2012, the court entered an order staying Dr. Oni's license revocation pending judicial review. After oral argument and by memorandum and final order entered May 25, 2012, the chancery court reversed and vacated the Board's order revoking Dr. Oni's medical license, concluding in part that:
However, the court affirmed the portion of the Board's order requiring Dr. Oni to pay the cost balance from 2007 and costs from the 2011-2012 proceeding, noting "that [Dr. Oni's] conduct warranted the institution of disciplinary proceedings" and "that the Board was justified in levying some degree of discipline against him." The chancery court remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's rulings.
The TDOH and the Board perfected this appeal.
The TDOH and the Board articulate the issue on appeal as follows: Whether the chancery court erred in vacating the Board's decision by misapplying the applicable reciprocal discipline statutes (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 63-1-120(b) and 63-6-214(b)(20)) and by inappropriately substituting its own judgment for that of the Board as to the choice of a disciplinary sanction. In the posture of appellee, Dr. Oni asks us to consider: (1) Whether the statutory presumption of penalty in Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-1-120(b) applies to disciplinary proceedings before the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners; (2) Whether the chancery court correctly reversed the Board for violating statutory requirements governing its proceedings in revoking Dr. Oni's medical license; and (3) Whether the chancery court erred in affirming the Board's assessment of administrative costs against Dr. Oni in the 2011-2012 license revocation proceeding.
Disciplinary proceedings against medical licensees are conducted in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act ("UAPA"). Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-216. The UAPA, Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-101 et seq., limits our scope of review of the agency decision to a "narrow and statutorily prescribed review of the record made before the administrative agency." Crawford v. Dep't of Fin. & Admin., No. M2011-01467-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 219327, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2012) (no Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed) (quoting Metro. Gov't v. Shacklett, 554 S.W.2d 601, 604 (Tenn. 1977)). The UAPA's narrow standard of review for an administrative body's factual determinations "suggests that, unlike other civil appeals, the courts should be less confident that their judgment is preferable to that of the agency." Wayne Cnty. v. Tenn. Solid Waste Disposal Control Bd., 756 S.W.2d 274, 279 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). This Court may modify or reverse the administrative agency's decision if the agency's findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are:
Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(h).
When we must interpret the meaning of a statute, our review is de novo without deference to the decision of the court below. Estate of French v. Stratford House, 333 S.W.3d 546, 554 (Tenn. 2011).
The parties' dispute over whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-1-120(b) applies to disciplinary proceedings before the Board requires us to construe this statute.
Myers v. AMISUB (SFH), Inc., 382 S.W.3d 300, 308 (Tenn. 2012) (citations omitted).
By its terms, Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-1-120 governs disciplinary actions before certain boards only:
Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-1-120(a)(1). Tennessee Code Annotated section 63-1-120(b) provides:
The boards created pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated title 63 chapters 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 12 are, respectively, the boards of chiropractic examiners, dentistry, nursing, osteopathic examination, examiners in psychology, and veterinary medical examiners.
The applicable reciprocal discipline statute, under which the Board could impose upon Dr. Oni sanctions based on his having incurred disciplinary sanctions by the New York Board, is set forth at Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(20). It provides that the Board may exercise its disciplinary authority based upon:
Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(20).
A certified copy of the New York Board's final order revoking Dr. Oni's New York medical license was entered into evidence at the hearing before the Board. Dr. Oni testified that his failure to report the Georgia criminal charges on his New York license renewal application was based on his mistaken belief that New York law required the reporting of criminal convictions, not charges. Subsequently, in its final order, the Board found as follows:
The Board concluded that these findings "constitute grounds for disciplinary action against [Dr. Oni's] license to practice as a medical doctor in the State of Tennessee pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)[20]. . . ."
Dr. Oni challenges the Board's findings and conclusions,
Dr. Oni correctly notes that Tennessee law requires physicians to report criminal convictions, but not charges. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(10). However, the Board's conclusion that Dr. Oni was subject to discipline under Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(20) was not based upon his incurring criminal charges in Georgia or a previous reprimand in Tennessee, but rather upon unrebutted evidence that Dr. Oni made false statements in his New York renewal applications. Section 63-6-214(b)(20) authorizes the Board to impose reciprocal discipline "for any acts or omissions that would constitute grounds for discipline" in Tennessee (emphasis added). Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(3), "[m]aking false statements or representations" is a ground for discipline. Therefore, the Board properly subjected Dr. Oni to discipline pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(20). We reverse the chancery court's order to the extent that it is inconsistent with this conclusion.
We now consider the Board's decision that revocation of Dr. Oni's Tennessee medical license was the appropriate sanction in this case. At the hearing, the ALJ instructed the three-member Board to independently evaluate Dr. Oni's testimony and credibility and to determine the appropriate disciplinary action, if any, "in accordance with [its] legal authority and the particular aspects of this case." Much aggrieved, Dr. Oni argues that the Board "clearly and erroneously believed that `mirroring' the New York Board's action relieved it of the responsibility of making an independent determination whether Dr. Oni's license should be revoked."
As discussed above, Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(20) allows the Board to impose reciprocal discipline on licensed Tennessee physicians against whom another state takes disciplinary action. While another state's disciplinary order against a Tennessee physician for acts or omissions that are punishable in Tennessee provides the Board "sufficient grounds upon which to deny, restrict or condition licensure or renewal and/or discipline a person licensed in this state," the statute contains no requirement or implication that the Board's choice of sanction must be comparable to that of the other disciplining state. Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(20).
It appears from the transcript that the Board's two-to-one decision to revoke Dr. Oni's Tennessee medical license was based on an erroneous belief that the Board had to mirror the New York Board's choice of sanction:
(Emphasis added).
Based on the record, we cannot understand how or why the Board arrived at its choice to revoke Dr. Oni's medical license. The Board's stated policy reason behind its decision—"to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Tennessee"—is equally unenlightening. While we are mindful that "the appropriate remedy is peculiarly within the discretion of the agency," McClellan v. Bd. of Regents of State Univ., 921 S.W.2d 684, 693 (Tenn. 1996), it appears from this record that the Board did not follow the ALJ's instructions to independently evaluate Dr. Oni's testimony and credibility, and that it did not articulate why revocation was appropriate. By simply mirroring the New York Board's choice of discipline, the Board rendered an arbitrary or capricious decision, that is, "one that is not based on any course of reasoning or exercise of judgment, or one that disregards the facts or circumstances of the case without some basis that would lead a reasonable person to reach the same conclusion." City of Memphis v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 216 S.W.3d 311, 316 (Tenn. 2007) (quoting Jackson Mobilphone Co. v. Tenn. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 876 S.W.2d 106, 111 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993) (internal citations omitted)).
We are therefore of the opinion that the chancery court correctly reversed the Board's decision to revoke Dr. Oni's Tennessee medical license, and we remand this matter to the chancery court with instructions to remand it to the Board for reconsideration of the sanction.
Lastly, Dr. Oni maintains that he should not have to pay the administrative costs from the 2011-2012 disciplinary proceeding before the Board. Tennessee Code Annotated § 63-6-214(k) specifies that the Board "may, whenever a final order is issued after a disciplinary contested case hearing that contains findings that a licensee or other person has violated any [statutory provision governing the practice of medicine and surgery], assess the costs directly related to the prosecution of the case against the licensee or person." Dr. Oni's conduct underlies the Board's disciplinary proceedings against him, and the Board properly found that he was subject to discipline under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 63-6-214(b)(1), (2), and (20). We affirm the Board's final assessment of costs against Dr. Oni.
We remand this case to the chancery court with instructions to remand the case to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs of appeal are assessed against the Tennessee Department of Health and the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners.