Brian E. Cressman, M.D. v. Alabama Board of Medical Examiners
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 5/6/11 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090989 B r i a n E. Cressman, M.D. v. Alabama Board o f M e d i c a l Examiners Appeal from D e c i s i o n o f the Alabama Board o f M e d i c a l Examiners On R e h e a r i n g Ex Mero Motu PER CURIAM. T h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n o f December 10, 2010, i s w i t h d r a w n , and the f o l l o w i n g i s s u b s t i t u t e d t h e r e f o r . The Alabama B o a r d of Medical Examiners ("the Board") 2090989 ordered B r i a n E. show c a u s e why issued Cressman's t o appear f o r a h e a r i n g h i s Alabama C o n t r o l l e d S u b s t a n c e s ("ACSC") s h o u l d Board C r e s s m a n , M.D., a not be revoked. decision on ACSC. n o t i c e of appeal On July with this Following June 21, 21, 2010, court. We the 2010, Dr. Certificate hearing, 2090751, M a r c h 25, 2011] So. Cressman d i s m i s s the 3d the revoking I n B r u n s o n v. A l a b a m a S t a t e B o a r d o f M e d i c a l [Ms. to Dr. filed a appeal. Examiners, (Ala. Civ. App. 2011), t h i s c o u r t d i s c u s s e d the procedure f o r seeking j u d i c i a l review of a Brunson, t h i s decision court of the Board revoking an ACSC. explained: "Dr. Brunson a p p e a l e d from t h [ e Board's] ... o r d e r [revoking h i s ACSC] t o this court, which has exclusive appellate j u r i s d i c t i o n pursuant to A l a . Code 1975, § 3 4 - 2 4 - 3 8 0 ( c ) (as e n a c t e d i n 2 0 0 8 ) . However, i t a p p e a r s f r o m our e x a m i n a t i o n of the record after the submission of this case for d e c i s i o n t h a t Dr. B r u n s o n f a i l e d t o t i m e l y i n v o k e this court's appellate j u r i s d i c t i o n . " S e c t i o n 2 0 - 2 - 5 3 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, provides t h a t a p a r t y s e e k i n g j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f an o r d e r revoking a controlled-substances r e g i s t r a t i o n may o b t a i n s u c h r e v i e w by f i l i n g a w r i t t e n p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w ' i n accordance w i t h S e c t i o n 41-22-20,' A l a . Code 1975, a p o r t i o n o f t h e A l a b a m a A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t ('AAPA'). Under t h e AAPA, a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l o r r e v i e w i s t o be f i l e d w i t h t h e r e n d e r i n g a g e n c y ' w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e r e c e i p t o f t h e n o t i c e or other s e r v i c e of the f i n a l d e c i s i o n of the agency' or, i f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e h e a r i n g i s sought, 2 2 In 2090989 w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e d e c i s i o n on t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g ; i n t u r n , an a p p e a l i n g p a r t y must f i l e a p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review i n the reviewing c o u r t w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r f i l i n g t h e n o t i c e o f appeal or r e v i e w w i t h the r e n d e r i n g agency. Ala. Code 1975, § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( d ) . 'Appeals from d e c i s i o n s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s a r e s t a t u t o r y , and t h e time p e r i o d s p r o v i d e d f o r the f i l i n g of n o t i c e of a p p e a l s and p e t i t i o n s must be s t r i c t l y o b s e r v e d , ' on p a i n of d i s m i s s a l . E i t z e n v. M e d i c a l Licensure Comm'n o f A l a b a m a , 709 So. 2d 1239, 1240 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 8 ) . F u r t h e r , any f a i l u r e t o a c t w i t h i n t h e p e r i o d s p r e s c r i b e d by t h e AAPA w i l l be n o t e d by t h i s c o u r t ex mero motu, and the appeal dismissed, n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g any f a i l u r e by t h e p a r t i e s t o r a i s e the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t i n t h e i r b r i e f s . See L a w r e n c e v. A l a b a m a S t a t e P e r s . Bd., 910 So. 2d 126, 128 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 4 ) . "Although Dr. Brunson's a p p e l l a t e docketing s t a t e m e n t i n d i c a t e s t h a t he filed a ' n o t i c e of i n t e n t t o a p p e a l ' on M a r c h 24, 2010, t h e a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d t r a n s m i t t e d by t h e B o a r d t o t h i s c o u r t d o e s n o t r e f l e c t t h e f i l i n g o f any n o t i c e o f a p p e a l o r r e v i e w w i t h t h e B o a r d , much l e s s t h e f i l i n g o f s u c h a n o t i c e w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r r e c e i p t o f t h e B o a r d ' s February 17, 2010, order. There i s also no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t Dr. B r u n s o n f i l e d any a p p l i c a t i o n for a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e h e a r i n g w i t h the Board or t h a t t h e B o a r d a c t e d on s u c h an a p p l i c a t i o n i n a manner t h a t m i g h t have t o l l e d t h e t i m e f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e of appeal or review under § 41-22-20(d). Finally, and p e r h a p s most s a l i e n t l y , Dr. B r u n s o n d i d n o t f i l e a p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review i n t h i s court u n t i l May 17, 2010, more t h a n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e d a t e upon w h i c h Dr. B r u n s o n p u r p o r t e d l y f i l e d a ' n o t i c e o f i n t e n t to appeal' w i t h the Board. Thus, f o r a l l t h a t t h e r e c o r d shows, Dr. B r u n s o n m i s s e d b o t h t h e AAPA's d e a d l i n e f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l o r r e v i e w and t h e AAPA's d e a d l i n e f o r f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n for j u d i c i a l review. 3 2090989 " A l t h o u g h s u b s e c t i o n s (b) a n d (c) o f § 20-2-53, w h i c h was last amended i n 2002, specify that j u d i c i a l review of such o r d e r s i s t o occur i n the Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t , § 3 4 - 2 4 - 3 8 0 ( c ) , w h i c h was a d d e d p u r s u a n t t o A l a . A c t s 2008, A c t No. 2008-397, provides that t h i s court i s the e x c l u s i v e a p p e l l a t e venue as t o t h o s e o r d e r s . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h o s e two s t a t u t e s are i n d i r e c t and irreconcilable c o n f l i c t c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r o p e r a p p e l l a t e forum, § 34-24-380(c), being the later expression of legislative intent, prevails. See Ex p a r t e S t e w a r t , 730 So. 2d 1246, 1250 ( A l a . 1999) ( d e s c r i b i n g r e p e a l b y i m p l i c a t i o n as 'an a c c e p t e d l e g i s l a t i v e t o o l ' ) . " 2 Brunson, In with So. 3d a t this this d i d not he rather file d i d not consequently, We Dr. C r e s s m a n court Cressman Board, case, . than a filed with h i s n o t i c e of the Board. timely notice invoke this court's we must d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l . recognize that § 34-24-380(c), of appeal Because appeal with jurisdiction, Dr. the and, Id. Ala. Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t " a n y a c t i o n commenced f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f s e e k i n g judicial r e v i e w o f an o r d e r o r d e c i s i o n o f t h e ... B o a r d suspending and o r r e v o k i n g a [ n ACSC] ... must be f i l e d , maintained E l e y v. M e d i c a l 269 i n t h e Alabama Court of C i v i l ( A l a . 2003), t h i s court construed a similar 4 commenced, Appeals." L i c e n s u r e Commission o f Alabama, ... In 904 So. 2d provision in 2090989 § 34-24-367, A l a . Code 1975, which at t h a t time p r o v i d e d t h a t the administrative judicial Medical filed, Licensure commenced, Montgomery Eley, review County, sought of an Commission and maintained Alabama." judicial ("the Commission") in the In review that of 1 decision the a the "must be Court Circuit case, of of physician, Commission's order r e v o k i n g h i s m e d i c a l l i c e n s e by f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t . explained that commenced, and the 904 requirement maintained" So. 2d a t 275. that i n the an appeal This be t o be court "filed, Montgomery C i r c u i t i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was with Court f i l e d with the Commission: " E l e y c o n t e n d s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e of § 41-22-20(b), [a part of the Alabama A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t , § 41-22-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975,] p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f an a p p e a l by t h e f i l i n g o f a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w i t h t h e a g e n c y , i s o v e r r i d d e n by t h e more s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n o f § 34-24-367, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e f i l i n g i n t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f Montgomery C o u n t y o f any a c t i o n commenced f o r t h e p u r p o s e of seeking j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Commission. We c o n s i d e r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p r o v i s i o n S e c t i o n 34-24-367, as amended i n 2008, now p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t " a n y a c t i o n commenced f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f s e e k i n g j u d i c i a l review of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s of the ... C o m m i s s i o n ... must be f i l e d , commenced, and m a i n t a i n e d i n the Alabama C o u r t of C i v i l A p p e a l s . " 1 5 2090989 o f § 34-24-367 a s b e i n g i n t e n d e d t o a d d r e s s where j u d i c i a l r e v i e w i s t o be commenced a n d m a i n t a i n e d , n o t how i t i s t o be commenced or maintained, particularly i n light of the fact that this p r o v i s i o n was i n p l a c e a t t h e t i m e t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s d e c i d e d E i t z e n v. M e d i c a l L i c e n s u r e Commission o f Alabama, 709 So. 2d 1239 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998) [ ( d i s m i s s i n g an a p p e a l f r o m an o r d e r o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n when t h e a p p e l l a n t f a i l e d t o f i l e a notice of appeal with the Commission)] " Eley, 904 So. 2 d a t 274 n.2. Thus, i n o r d e r t o f i l e , commence, a n d m a i n t a i n h i s a p p e a l in t h i s c o u r t under § 34-24-380(c), to file Eley, D r . C r e s s m a n was r e q u i r e d a t i m e l y n o t i c e o f appeal w i t h t h e Board. and E i t z e n . Because Dr. Cressman Brunson, f a i l e d t o do s o , we must d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l . ON REHEARING EX MERO MOTU: OPINION OF DECEMBER 10, 2 0 1 0 , WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; APPEAL DISMISSED. P i t t m a n , Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan, J . , concurs Thompson, P . J . , j o i n s . specially, 6 with writing, which 2090989 BRYAN, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g specially. I concur i n t h e main o p i n i o n . not f i l e a t i m e l y n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w i t h t h e Alabama B o a r d o f M e d i c a l Examiners I write specially 380(c), A l a . Code ("the B o a r d " ) , we must d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l . t o note 1975, that merely the p r o v i s i o n requiring d e c i s i o n o f t h e B o a r d t o be " f i l e d , in B e c a u s e Dr. C r e s s m a n d i d an in § appeal 34-24from a commenced, and m a i n t a i n e d t h e A l a b a m a C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s " may be a t r a p f o r t h e unwary. I urge the l e g i s l a t u r e to c l a r i f y a p p e a l i n g from a d e c i s i o n of the Board. Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s . 7 the procedure f o r
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
