79. Which of the following is the strongest argument in support of the state medical board?

The doctor has sued the board in state court to set aside the revocation, alleging deprivation of property without due process of law because the board did not provide an opportunity for a trial-type hearing before revoking the license. The doctor does not deny the conviction or the factual basis for it.

A doctor who was licensed to practice medicine in a particular state was convicted in state court of improperly distributing specified drugs by writing prescriptions for fictitious persons. Under state law, such an abuse of the prescription-writing privilege requires revocation of a doctor's license. After it received an official notification of the doctor's conviction, the state medical board revoked the doctor's license without affording the doctor any opportunity for a hearing.

A doctor’s license to practice is a privilege, not a right, and therefore is not property within the meaning of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Due process requires a balancing of interests, and the state’s interest in preventing drug abuse outweighs the doctor’s interest in the particular procedure followed in the disciplinary proceeding
The adjudicative facts necessary to revoke the doctor’s license were determined in the criminal trial, and therefore due process does not require any further trial-type hearing
The licensing board was required to summarily revoke the doctor’s license because Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution requires the licensing board to give full faith and credit to the doctor’s criminal conviction

« PreviousSkipNext »

Show clarification Download PDF

The Due Process Clause protects not only «substantive» rights, but it also requires that the state act with adequate or fair procedures when it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Most procedural due process problems involve the issue of whether the thing being taken constitutes «property.» Property includes more than personal belongings and realty, chattels, or money, but an abstract need or desire for (or a unilateral expectation of) the benefit is not enough. There must be a legitimate claim or «entitlement» to the benefit under state or federal law. Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972).

Due process contemplates fair process/procedure, which requires at least an opportunity to present objections to the proposed action to a fair, neutral decision-maker (not necessarily a judge). Fair process in terms of the timing and scope of the hearing varies according to the circumstances of the deprivation. Courts should weigh: (i) the importance of the individual interest involved; (ii) the value of specific procedural safeguards to that interest; and (iii) the governmental interest in fiscal and administrative efficiency. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). In all situations, courts will probably require fair procedures and an unbiased decision-maker.

The Supreme Court has applied procedural due process analysis to the revocation of physicians' licenses. See, e.g., Barsky v. Bd. of Regents, 347 U.S. 442 (1954). Criminal defendants automatically receive extensive procedural due process protections during the course of their trial.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, Section 1 requires states to honor (or give «full faith» and «credit» to) any rulings, decisions, and public records from other states.

C is correct. The Due Process Clause provides that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. There must be a fair process or procedure, which requires an opportunity to present objections to the proposed action to a neutral decision-maker. Criminal defendants receive extensive procedural due process protections when they are on trial. Here, the doctor had a fair criminal trial where he had an opportunity to defend his actions. There is no indication that a hearing would uncover additional facts not already adjudicated at the previous criminal trial. Therefore, this is the strongest argument for the state medical board.

A is incorrect. The Court has applied procedural due process analysis to the revocation of physicians' licenses. See, e.g., Barsky v. Bd. of Regents, 347 U.S. 442 (1954). Therefore, the doctor's license is not considered a mere privilege and does fall within the protections of procedural due process.

B is incorrect. Although due process does require the balancing of interests in determining the proper process under the Due Process Clause, this is not the strongest argument for the board. As explained above, because the doctor received extensive procedural due process protections during his criminal trial, there is no need for an additional hearing on the same previously-adjudicated facts.

D is incorrect. The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to honor the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings from other states. Although the doctor's criminal conviction would be given full faith and credit under Article IV, Section 1, this does not apply to separate findings of state medical boards.

Comments (0)

There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it

79. Which of the following is the strongest argument in support of the state medical board?

Comments (0)

Trial period expired