Austin Conner v. Alabama State Board of Pharmacy

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/16/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100589 A u s t i n Conner v. Alabama S t a t e Board o f Pharmacy Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-10-900232) Court THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Austin appeals from a Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g h i s p e t i t i o n seeking review ("the Conner, a licensed pharmacist, o f a d e c i s i o n o f t h e A l a b a m a S t a t e B o a r d o f Pharmacy Board"). 2100589 After a December administrative testified 16, 2009, hearing i n the underlying a c t i o n , t h e B o a r d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Conner falsely i n a previous h a d b e e n h e l d i n A u g u s t 2009. disciplinary hearing, had which On December 3 0 , 2009, t h e B o a r d e n t e r e d a d e c i s i o n o r d e r i n g t h a t C o n n e r be p l a c e d on p r o b a t i o n f o r f i v e y e a r s a n d o r d e r i n g h i m t o p a y a $5,000 f i n e . timely f i l e d a petition the circuit circuit with court. c o u r t was notice hearing of Conner f o r review of the Board's d e c i s i o n i n The o n l y i s s u e Conner r a i s e d b e f o r e whether the B o a r d had p r o p e r l y t h e December on t h e p e t i t i o n , 16, 2009, the c i r c u i t served hearing. court entered the circuit The the case w i t h p r e j u d i c e . c o u r t ' s judgment t o t h i s only issue Conner r a i s e s on Conner t i m e l y him After a j u d g m e n t on F e b r u a r y 22, 2011, d e n y i n g C o n n e r ' s p e t i t i o n dismissing the a final and appealed court. appeal i s whether the B o a r d ' s December 3 0 , 2009, d e c i s i o n i s v o i d on t h e g r o u n d t h a t Conner d i d not r e c e i v e t i m e l y n o t i c e o f t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t him o r o f t h e December 16, 2009, h e a r i n g , as r e q u i r e d b y § 3 4 ¬ 23-34, A l a . Code relevant 1975. The record facts. 2 contains the f o l l o w i n g 2100589 On October director, sent 22, 2009, H e r b Bobo, a Statement of ("the notice") t o Conner. that C o n n e r had violated the Board's C h a r g e s and In the Notice n o t i c e , the § 34-23-33, A l a . executive of Hearing Board charged Code 1975, which s e t s f o r t h t h e b a s e s upon w h i c h a p h a r m a c i s t ' s l i c e n s e may revoked or suspended. Specifically, the notice stated be that C o n n e r had made f a l s e s t a t e m e n t s t o t h e B o a r d d u r i n g an A u g u s t 2009 hearing sexually regarding inappropriate supervision. The 1 a l l e g a t i o n was conduct with he had people engaged under notice also stated that a hearing s c h e d u l e d f o r December 16, the Board's o f f i c e The allegations that in his on the 2009, a t 1 p.m. at i n Birmingham. n o t i c e was sent by certified mail t o C o n n e r ' s home a d d r e s s i n F l o r i d a - - t h e same a d d r e s s where he r e c e i v e d p a p e r s r e l a t i n g to the p r e v i o u s had provided Postal Service to the hearing Board. and the Records of same a d d r e s s C o n n e r the United ("USPS") i n d i c a t e t h a t C o n n e r was States notified at The r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e i n d i c a t e s t h a t , a t t h e A u g u s t 2009 h e a r i n g , t h e B o a r d ' s p r e s i d e n t w a r n e d C o n n e r t h a t c e r t a i n o f h i s s t a t e m e n t s w o u l d be i n v e s t i g a t e d and, i f i t was d i s c o v e r e d t h a t he was n o t b e i n g t r u t h f u l , o t h e r c h a r g e s w o u l d be l e v i e d . C o n n e r was f o u n d g u i l t y o f i n a p p r o p r i a t e c o n d u c t as c h a r g e d . As a r e s u l t , C o n n e r was p l a c e d on p r o b a t i o n f o r two y e a r s and was o r d e r e d t o pay a f i n e . 1 3 2100589 his residence on O c t o b e r 28, O c t o b e r 3 1 , a n d November 12, 2009, t h a t he h a d a c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r a w a i t i n g h i m a t t h e p o s t office. At t h e December 16 h e a r i n g , t h a t he d i d n o t r e c e i v e USPS. have Conner i n i t i a l l y the c e r t i f i e d - m a i l testified notices from t h e He t h e n t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s c h i l d r e n o r h i s w i f e received the notices but that he might d i d not. After p r o v i d i n g e v a s i v e t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r he r e c e i v e d mail a t h i s home a d d r e s s , C o n n e r made t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t : " I never got t h e paperwork [ t h e c e r t i f i e d - m a i l n o t i c e s ] . got t h e p a p e r w o r k , i t was t o o l a t e paperwork my wife home. I g e t home When I f o r me t o g e t t h e r e . The g e t a l o t o f p a p e r w o r k when my k i d s come late at night. And I d i d n ' t get the p a p e r w o r k t o g e t done t o t h e p i c k - - w h e n I g o t a p a p e r w o r k - when I g o t t h e l e t t e r " C o n n e r t h e n went b a c k t o h i s o r i g i n a l a s s e r t i o n t h a t he h a d n o t r e c e i v e d r e m i n d e d t h a t he was u n d e r o a t h , found a c e r t i f i e d - m a i l Friday before notice "any n o t i c e . " After being C o n n e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d "piled t h e December 16 h e a r i n g . up on [his] desk" t h e He s a i d he went t o t h e p o s t o f f i c e t o c l a i m h i s l e t t e r t h e next day, Saturday, b u t , he s a i d , t h e p o s t o f f i c e was c l o s e d . 4 He c l a i m e d t h a t he h a d 2100589 n o t s e e n t h e s t a t e m e n t o f c h a r g e s a g a i n s t h i m u n t i l t h e day the of hearing. Board records indicate i t had that sent on to December 2009, the home a d d r e s s was certified letter returned. On December 9, 2009, t h e B o a r d ' s a t t o r n e y t h e n o t i c e t o t h e a t t o r n e y who August 2009 h e a r i n g , who, Conner's 8, had represented i n turn, Conner v i a e l e c t r o n i c m a i l forwarded ("e-mail"). At the forwarded Conner a t the notice December the to 16, 2009, h e a r i n g , C o n n e r c l a i m e d t h a t he had n o t r e c e i v e d t h a t e¬ mail. On December 11, 2009, C o n n e r ' s a t t o r n e y moved t o t h e December 16, continue 2009, h e a r i n g on t h e g r o u n d t h a t C o n n e r had not been p r o p e r l y s e r v e d w i t h n o t i c e of the h e a r i n g or of the c h a r g e s a g a i n s t him. the facts mail. the surrounding The The i t s attempt to serve forth C o n n e r by certified h e a r i n g o f f i c e r denied the motion to c o n t i n u e , h e a r i n g went f o r w a r d Conner Board responded, s e t t i n g was present at mentioned, as scheduled the hearing, at the on December 16, but present. As C o n n e r was found g u i l t y of making f a l s e statements A u g u s t 2009 h e a r i n g . 5 conclusion without of the and 2009. counsel hearing, during the 2100589 Conner appealed t h e Board's decision to the c i r c u i t c o u r t , w h i c h u p h e l d t h e B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n . He t h e n a p p e a l e d t o this court. " ' " J u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f an a g e n c y ' s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n i s l i m i t e d t o d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e decision i s supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence, w h e t h e r t h e a g e n c y ' s a c t i o n s were r e a s o n a b l e , a n d w h e t h e r i t s a c t i o n s were w i t h i n i t s s t a t u t o r y a n d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l powers. J u d i c i a l review i s a l s o l i m i t e d by t h e presumption o f correctness which attaches t o a d e c i s i o n b y an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency."'" Ex p a r t e M e d i c a l L i c e n s u r e Comm'n o f A l a b a m a , 897 So. 2d 1093, 1097 ( A l a . 2004) ( q u o t i n g E x p a r t e A l a b a m a Bd. o f N u r s i n g , 835 So. 2d 1 0 1 0 , 1012 Medicaid App. (Ala. 2001), Agency v. Peoples, 1989)); quoting 549 So. 2 d 504, see a l s o § 41-22-20(k), i n turn Alabama 506 ( A l a . C i v . A l a . Code 1975. Review of the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s c o n c l u s i o n s o f law o r a p p l i c a t i o n o f law to the facts i s de novo. Medical A l a b a m a v . H e r r e r a , 918 So. 2 d 918, State Civ. Dep't o f Human Res. App. 1 9 9 4 ) . court's judgment this as t o an a g e n c y ' s without a presumption Comm'n o f 926 ( A l a . C i v . App. v . Funk, Furthermore, Licensure 2005); 651 So. 2d 12, 16 ( A l a . court reviews a circuit administrative decision o f c o r r e c t n e s s because the c i r c u i t court i s i n no b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o r e v i e w t h e a g e n c y ' s d e c i s i o n t h a n 6 2100589 is this court. C i v . App. AAPA"), 662 So. 2d 258, 261 ( A l a . 1994). Conner provision C l a r k v. F a n c h e r , relies on § 41-22-12(a), A l a . Code o f t h e Alabama A d m i n i s t r a t i v e § 41-22-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, a P r o c e d u r e A c t ("the 1975, and § 34-23-34, A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h g o v e r n s t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e d t o r e v o k e o r suspend the l i c e n s e of a pharmacist, t o support h i s c o n t e n t i o n that the Board d i d not t i m e l y charges against Section serve him w i t h him and o f t h e h e a r i n g notice of the date. 41-22-12(a) p r o v i d e s : " I n a c o n t e s t e d c a s e , a l l p a r t i e s s h a l l be a f f o r d e d an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r h e a r i n g a f t e r r e a s o n a b l e n o t i c e i n w r i t i n g d e l i v e r e d e i t h e r b y p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e as in civil actions or by c e r t i f i e d m a i l , return receipt requested. However, an a g e n c y may p r o v i d e by r u l e f o r t h e d e l i v e r y o f s u c h n o t i c e b y o t h e r means, i n c l u d i n g , where permitted by e x i s t i n g s t a t u t e , d e l i v e r y by f i r s t class mail, postage p r e p a i d , t o be e f f e c t i v e upon t h e d e p o s i t o f t h e n o t i c e i n the m a i l . D e l i v e r y of the n o t i c e r e f e r r e d t o i n t h i s s u b s e c t i o n s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e commencement of t h e c o n t e s t e d case p r o c e e d i n g . " Section 34-23-34 provides: "No a c t i o n t o r e v o k e o r s u s p e n d t h e l i c e n s e o f any p h a r m a c i s t o r t h e p e r m i t t o o p e r a t e any p h a r m a c y i n t h i s s t a t e s h a l l be t a k e n u n t i l t h e l i c e n s e e o r h o l d e r o f such p e r m i t has been f u r n i s h e d a s t a t e m e n t i n w r i t i n g of the charges against him or h e r t o g e t h e r w i t h a n o t i c e o f t h e t i m e and p l a c e o f h e a r i n g . The s t a t e m e n t o f c h a r g e s a n d n o t i c e s h a l l 7 2100589 be s e r v e d upon s u c h a p e r s o n a t l e a s t 30 days b e f o r e the d a t e f i x e d f o r the h e a r i n g , e i t h e r p e r s o n a l l y or by r e g i s t e r e d o r c e r t i f i e d m a i l s e n t t o h i s o r h e r l a s t known p o s t - o f f i c e a d d r e s s . The b u r d e n o f p r o o f s h a l l be on t h e b o a r d . " Conner p o i n t s out t h a t , p u r s u a n t t o the Alabama R u l e s of Civil Procedure, service by certified s e r v i c e the Board attempted i n t h i s "from the date addressee's receipt." of agent delivery as to named c a s e was t h a t he on d i d n o t have a t l e a s t of complete the or the return He n o t e s t h a t t h e n e v e r s i g n e d ; t h u s , he t h e r e was no v a l i d s e r v i c e i n t h i s c a s e . argues method addressee signature R u l e 4 ( i ) ( 2 ) ( C ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. return receipt i n this the c a s e , i s deemed the e v i d e n c e d by mail, says, A d d i t i o n a l l y , Conner 30 d a y s ' n o t i c e of the h e a r i n g o r o f t h e c h a r g e s a g a i n s t h i m ; t h e r e f o r e , he s a y s , t h e Board failed Because t o comply he was with t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 34-23-34. not served w i t h the n o t i c e , Conner s a y s , the B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n o f December 30, 2009, must be o v e r t u r n e d and the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d i n i t s r e f u s a l t o do In response, the Board argues that so. to set aside the B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n on t h e g r o u n d a s s e r t e d by C o n n e r w o u l d be t o allow Conner to benefit from avoiding service. When c o n s i d e r i n g s e r v i c e i n g e n e r a l , A l a b a m a a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s have 8 2100589 r e c o g n i z e d t h a t " t h e r e t u r n o f c e r t i f i e d m a i l ' u n c l a i m e d ' does not i n and process of itself s o as t o j u s t i f y or by p u b l i c a t i o n . " (Ala. constitute 1988). avoidance s e r v i c e of process of service by o r d i n a r y of mail W i s e v . S i e g e l , 527 So. 2d 1281, 1281 However, n e i t h e r t h e AAPA n o r § 34-23-34 allow f o r s e r v i c e by o r d i n a r y m a i l o r by p u b l i c a t i o n . Indeed, both provisions or require service by certified mail personal service. The most c l o s e l y a n a l o g o u s A l a b a m a c a s e o u r r e s e a r c h h a s revealed 1996) i s Asam v . A l a b a m a S t a t e B a r , 675 So. 2d 866 (superseded R. D i s c . (Ala. b y r u l e on o t h e r g r o u n d s , R u l e 5.1. ( d ) , A l a . P . ) , i n w h i c h o u r supreme court held that, despite Asam's c o n t e n t i o n t h a t s h e h a d b e e n d e n i e d due p r o c e s s b e c a u s e she had not been properly d i s c i p l i n a r y proceedings served with notice of against her, the evidence i n d i c a t e d t h a t Asam h a d , i n f a c t , b e e n p r o v i d e d w i t h s u f f i c i e n t notice of the d i s c i p l i n a r y proceedings a g a i n s t h e r . The c o u r t that had the Alabama State the Bar mailed notice of noted the d i s c i p l i n a r y h e a r i n g t o Asam's home a n d t o h e r o f f i c e b o t h b y r e g u l a r f i r s t - c l a s s m a i l and by c e r t i f i e d m a i l . the certified-mail r e c e i p t s f o r the notices 9 Even though of the hearing 2100589 were r e t u r n e d t o t h e B a r i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e n o t i c e s h a d b e e n unclaimed, the sufficient noting supreme notice that "[t]he court determined of the d i s c i p l i n a r y record that hearing Asam had against her, makes i t c l e a r t h a t , despite her a s s e r t i o n s t o t h e c o n t r a r y , Asam h a d s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e o f t h e d i s c i p l i n a r y hearing i n v o l v i n g the complaints a g a i n s t h e r , and t h e r e c o r d makes i t c l e a r t h a t h e r c o n d u c t showed a p a t t e r n o f avoiding service of process." Asam, 675 So. 2d a t 872. We n o t e t h a t i n Asam t h e T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y S h e r i f f ' s D e p a r t m e n t had p r e v i o u s l y served the Asam w i t h t h e summons a n d c o m p l a i n t i n action. In support o f i t s c o n t e n t i o n , t h e B o a r d c i t e s Marcus v. Ambach, 136 A.D.2d 778, 523 N.Y.S.2d 241 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , which case. a r e more c l o s e l y on p o i n t with those M a r c u s was a p o d i a t r i s t who c h a l l e n g e d the facts of i n the instant the revocation o f h i s l i c e n s e t o p r a c t i c e p o d i a t r y a f t e r he was f o u n d of p r o f e s s i o n a l misconduct. a p p e a l was h i s c o n t e n t i o n guilty Among t h e g r o u n d s f o r M a r c u s ' s t h a t he h a d b e e n d e n i e d due p r o c e s s b e c a u s e , he s a i d , he h a d n o t been n o t i f i e d o f t h e d a t e f o r h i s hearing. I d . , 136 A.D.2d a t 779, 523 N.Y.S.2d a t 242. 10 2100589 According statement hearing t o t h e o p i n i o n , Marcus had been s e r v e d w i t h a of the charges date. attorney provided. on record of the was and sent by c e r t i f i e d t o Marcus Notice mail over a t the address 15 d a y s , b u t t h e l e t t e r as " u n c l a i m e d " case. I d . , 136 A.D.2d Marcus d i d not appear to the review a t 778-79, at the At of the t o Marcus's he The USPS a t t e m p t e d t o d e l i v e r t h e c e r t i f i e d 3 occasions returned t h e h e a r i n g was c o n t i n u e d . hearing of him and a n o t i c e 136 A.D.2d a t 778, 523 N.Y.S.2d a t 2 4 1 . Marcus's request, rescheduled against had letter was e v e n t u a l l y committee h e a r i n g h i s 523 N.Y.S.2d a t 241-42. hearing, and he was not r e p r e s e n t e d by c o u n s e l . The r e v i e w c o m m i t t e e h e l d t h e h e a r i n g as Marcus's scheduled despite absence revocation of h i s p o d i a t r i s t l i c e n s e . accepted t h e recommendation. and recommended The r e l e v a n t a u t h o r i t y I d . , 136 A.D.2d a t 779, 523 N.Y.S.2d a t 242. I n r e s p o n s e t o M a r c u s ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t he h a d b e e n due process, process the denied t h e New Y o r k a p p e l l a t e c o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t due requires "'"notice reasonably circumstances, to apprise [one] o f t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e a c t i o n a n d ... an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t 11 c a l c u l a t e d , under a l l [one's] o b j e c t i o n s " ' 2100589 ( S i l v e r s t e i n v. M i n k i n , 401 N.E.2d 210 49 N.Y.2d 260, 2 6 3 [ , 425 N.Y.S.2d 88, (1980)], quoting M u l l a n e v. C e n t r a l Hanover [Bank &] T r u s t Co. , 339 U.S. 306, 3 1 4 [ , 70 S. C t . 652, 657, 94 L. Ed.2d 865 (1950)]." Marcus, 136 A.D.2d at 779, 523 N.Y.S.2d a t 242. The record New York had been court notified though Marcus c l a i m e d failed The to notify stated that Marcus's of the hearing, attorney of noting that t o have " f i r e d " t h a t a t t o r n e y , the review committee of that even he h a d development. c o u r t went on t o s t a t e t h a t " n o t i c e was s e n t t o [ M a r c u s ] a t h i s r e g i s t e r e d address, w h i c h he must keep c u r r e n t p u r s u a n t t o E d u c a t i o n Law § 6502(5) a n d 8 NYCRR 5 9 . 8 ( c ) a n d ( f ) , p a r t i c u l a r l y when c h a r g e s o f m i s c o n d u c t a r e p e n d i n g ( s e e , M a t t e r o f S t e r n v . Ambach, 128 A.D.2d 232, 235-236, 516 N.Y.S. 2d 319 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ] ) . Significantly, [ M a r c u s ] v e r i f i e d t h a t he s t i l l r e s i d e d a t t h a t a d d r e s s when he commenced t h i s CPLR a r t i c l e 78 proceeding. Thus, i t was [ M a r c u s ' s ] i n a c t i o n i n c l a i m i n g h i s m a i l , not respondent's conduct, which denied him the h e a r i n g notice he claims was lacking." Marcus, 136 A.D. 2d a t 779, 523 N.Y.S. 2d a t 242 (emphasis added). We agree w i t h the r a t i o n a l e c o u r t s i n Asam a n d i n M a r c u s . expressed by t h e a p p e l l a t e I n t h i s c a s e , C o n n e r was w a r n e d d u r i n g t h e A u g u s t 2009 h e a r i n g t h a t i f an i n v e s t i g a t i o n l e d t o 12 2100589 e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he was that hearing, Within two of charges would of months statement of notice more making f a l s e statements warning, that to false s t a t e m e n t s and the Essentially, the C o n n e r was of the Board A u g u s t 2009 a c t i o n , aware t h a t a d d i t i o n a l c h a r g e s a r i s i n g f r o m h i s c o n d u c t i n t h a t a c t i o n w o u l d p o s s i b l y be f o r t h c o m i n g . t h e USPS n o t i f i c a t i o n s t o C o n n e r t h a t he had v i a c e r t i f i e d m a i l was December n o t i c e was at the 16, 2009, mailed certified Conner letter hearing, C o n n e r gave s e v e r a l whether the had reached USPS him notices or a n o t i c e t o an a c k n o w l e d g m e n t t h a t he had a doubt, t h a t he as had was conduct i n f a i l i n g the f a i l e d to discover case in Marcus, to r e t r i e v e the 13 that the the During h i s testimony his t e s t i m o n y r a n g e d f r o m a d e n i a l t h a t he had desk but received a l e t t e r acknowledged to the proper address. regarding Each of d e l i v e r e d more t h a n 30 d a y s b e f o r e hearing. December 16 versions him. address. Conner's the against the charges i n v o l v i n g the hearing levied sent present action i s a continuation and be during conflicting regarding residence. His ever received s u c h a n o t i c e on i t on i t was time. such his Without Conner's certified letter, the not own the 2100589 conduct o f the Board, process t h a t l e d t o t h e s u p p o s e d " l a c k " o f due o f w h i c h he now Pharmacy safety i s a p r o f e s s i o n whose and pharmacists complains. general cannot welfare be of allowed members the to deal with public. frustrate the Licensed the Board's p o l i c i n g powers, and endanger t h e h e a l t h and w e l f a r e o f t h e public, Under simply by r e f u s i n g t o r e t r i e v e the facts of t h i s case, we a certified conclude that the Board c a r r i e d o u t i t s o b l i g a t i o n t o n o t i f y Conner o f t h e of charges hearing a g a i n s t him and t h e date, scheduled to consider those time, letter. statement and p l a c e o f t h e charges. The supports a f i n d i n g t h a t i t was C o n n e r ' s c o n d u c t , Board's, that supposedly evidence and n o t t h e " d e p r i v e d " h i m o f due p r o c e s s i n t h i s case. Accordingly, t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l court the Board's d e c i s i o n i s a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED. Pittman, Bryan, Thomas, a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . 14 upholding

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.