Alabama Board of Examiners in Psychology v. C. Fletcher Hamilton, PhD

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 09/27/2013 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2120032 Alabama Board o f Examiners i n Psychology v. C. F l e t c h e r Hamilton, PhD Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (CV-11-1183) DONALDSON, J u d g e . The Board") ("the Alabama appeals circuit Board o f Examiners i n P s y c h o l o g y ("the a j u d g m e n t o f t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t c o u r t " ) dated Court S e p t e m b e r 6, 2 0 1 2 , i n w h i c h t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t r e v e r s e d a d e c i s i o n o f t h e Board t o s a n c t i o n Dr. 2120032 C. Fletcher Hamilton, a licensed psychologist in Jefferson County, f o r e n t e r i n g i n t o a s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a p a t i e n t in 1982, 1975. i n v i o l a t i o n o f §§ The 34-26-3 and c i r c u i t court "reversed and 34-36-46, A l a . Code set a s i d e " the Board's d e c i s i o n , c i t i n g t h e r u l e o f r e p o s e and t h e d o c t r i n e o f as grounds, reasons and remanded t h e action herein, reverse stated j u d g m e n t , and we we O c t o b e r 2010, L.M. inappropriate romantic simultaneously providing treatment. January and the 1994 her 2011, For circuit of the the court's Board. History a complaint with the Board H a m i l t o n had e n g a g e d i n an relationship 26, Board. Procedural filed 1 a l l e g i n g t h a t b e t w e e n 1982 On the r e n d e r judgment i n f a v o r F a c t u a l B a c k g r o u n d and In to laches with her therapeutic the Board while psychological filed a formal a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t H a m i l t o n a l l e g i n g t h a t he v i o l a t e d §§ 34-26-3 and 34-26-46, A l a . Code 1975, in L.M., sexual contact defense i n the administrative 1 using with a patient. As by a part engaging of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e proceeding conducted before law judge ("ALJ") pursuant to T h i s c o u r t g r a n t e d a motion to r e f e r to the o n l y her i n i t i a l s . 2 the had his an Alabama complainant 2120032 Administrative Ala. his Procedures Act Code 1975, ("AAPA"), Hamilton asserted answer t o t h e B o a r d ' s c o m p l a i n t and a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . by the the ALJ prior to the § 41-22-1 e t doctrine of seq., laches in the r u l e of repose i n B o t h d e f e n s e s were r e j e c t e d commencement o f the administrative hearing. At 2011, the the including administrative ALJ L.M. and held on testimony received hearing from various Hamilton. The record May 25 reveals and 26, witnesses, that L.M. s o u g h t p s y c h o l o g i c a l t r e a t m e n t f r o m H a m i l t o n i n A p r i l 1982 for myriad issues and L.M. commenced Hamilton of that p h y s i c a l contact during exchanged t i m e s between 1982 and 1982 a l l of professional and cards, and her the first letters, 1994. L.M. activities, personal few in between H a m i l t o n sessions. and pictures also which L.M. at various kept a calendar she interactions with and detailed Hamilton. in her The c o r r e s p o n d e n c e and t h e c a l e n d a r were a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e a t the hearing. T e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h a t most o f H a m i l t o n ' s p r o f e s s i o n a l records June 1982 c o n c e r n i n g h i s t r e a t m e n t o f L.M.'s b e t w e e n A p r i l had b e e n d e s t r o y e d and i n the r e g u l a r course of b u s i n e s s 3 2120032 i n F e b r u a r y 2010. However, t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t H a m i l t o n ' s office r e t a i n e d the "face completed during f o r m L.M. sheets," that period. completed or p a t i e n t - i n t a k e On t h e b o t t o m o f t h e i n t a k e in April 1982, w h i c h was a d m i t t e d evidence at the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e hearing, a handwritten had forms, b e e n made t o i n d i c a t e t h a t Hamilton last into notation saw L.M. as a p a t i e n t on o r a r o u n d June 18, 1982. On S e p t e m b e r 2, 2 0 1 1 , t h e A L J r e n d e r e d findings and relationship recommendations. between L.M. The ALJ and H a m i l t o n detailed written found that h a d become the romantic a f t e r June 18, 1982, t h e d a t e H a m i l t o n l a s t b i l l e d L.M. as a patient. The ALJ also discontinuation found of b i l l i n g that Hamilton, despite for his services, continued the to p r o v i d e L.M. w i t h t h e r a p e u t i c a d v i c e t h r o u g h S e p t e m b e r 1982 on matters f o r which treatment. she h a d initially sought The A L J u l t i m a t e l y c o n c l u d e d psychological that "the greater w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e [ d ] t h a t some s e x u a l p h y s i c a l contact occurred during the course of the therapeutic r e l a t i o n s h i p i n 1982" a n d t h a t t h e c o e x i s t i n g t h e r a p e u t i c and r o m a n t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s e n d e d sometime i n S e p t e m b e r 1982. ALJ determined that "the preponderance 4 of the The evidence 2120032 demonstrate[d] that Hamilton crossed the e t h i c a l p r o f e s s i o n a l boundaries the regarding sexual summer a n d e a r l y f a l l intimacies with o f 1982." a client during The A L J f o u n d , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t e i t h e r a romantic or a therapeutic stating that corroborated L.M.'s r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d b e y o n d 1982, "account b y any o t h e r of those credible events source. a c c o u n t s were c o n t r a d i c t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e , own l e t t e r s t o Hamilton. Therefore, i s not In fact, her p a r t i c u l a r l y her ... t h e e v i d e n c e failed to demonstrate that Hamilton v i o l a t e d the P r o f e s s i o n a l E t h i c a l S t a n d a r d s o f C a r e f r o m O c t o b e r 1982 t h r o u g h June 1994." The A L J u l t i m a t e l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t H a m i l t o n had engaged i n an i n a p p r o p r i a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h L.M. i n v i o l a t i o n o f §§ 34-26-3 beginning a n d 34-26-46, i n June A l a . Code 1975, d u r i n g 1982 a n d e n d i n g the i n September recommended t h a t t h e B o a r d i m p o s e s a n c t i o n s i n c l u d i n g p l a c i n g h i m on p r o b a t i o n a r y against status period 1982, a n d Hamilton, f o r a six-month p e r i o d a n d t e m p o r a r i l y s u s p e n d i n g h i s l i c e n s e , c o n d i t i o n e d on his reimbursement expenses action. to associated the Board with of prosecuting one-half the the Board's administrative On S e p t e m b e r 22, 2 0 1 1 , t h e B o a r d i s s u e d a f i n a l 5 order 2120032 accepting ALJ's the ALJ's f i n d i n g s and i m p l e m e n t i n g , recommendations additional sanctions of sanctions. beyond those The not only action, associated but also suspending h i s l i c e n s e , with prosecuting on h i s s e e k i n g new female clients until r e c e i v e d the Board's approval; the ALJ, conditioned of one-half the the administrative treatment with approved by the B o a r d ; p l a c i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s any by imposed s t a t u s f o r a one- on h i s r e i m b u r s e m e n t t o t h e B o a r d expenses Board recommended i n c l u d i n g a p l a c i n g H a m i l t o n on p r o b a t i o n a r y year p e r i o d ; temporarily i n part, the a therapist on h i s a c c e p t i n g he h a d c o m p l e t e d therapy and and r e q u i r i n g him t o n o t i f y a l l of h i s e x i s t i n g c l i e n t s o f the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n . On September 26, 2011, H a m i l t o n f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l with order the Board to appeal Hamilton f i l e d court pursuant t o § 41-22-20, A l a . Code the Board's a petition decision forjudicial on September 27, 2 0 1 1 . court a p e t i t i o n preliminary sanctions. He a l s o to the c i r c u i t review filed imposition court. i n the c i r c u i t i n the f o r a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g order i n j u n c t i o n or to stay 1975, i n circuit and f o r a of the Board's On O c t o b e r 19, 2 0 1 1 , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n t o s t a y and e n j o i n e d enforcement o f t h e Board's 6 order. 2120032 On November 8, 2 0 1 1 , H a m i l t o n f i l e d a motion i n the c i r c u i t c o u r t r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e o r d e r o f t h e B o a r d be r e v e r s e d a n d vacated. Hamilton based h i s motion, i n p a r t , on t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e B o a r d ' s a c t i o n was b a r r e d b y t h e r u l e o f r e p o s e . circuit court subsequently The h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e a p p e a l , b u t no a d d i t i o n a l t e s t i m o n y was t a k e n . On September 6, 2012, t h e circuit c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment r e v e r s i n g t h e Board's final order, holding i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "To impose s a n c t i o n s b a s e d on a l l e g e d a c t s t h a t o c c u r r e d more t h a n 28 y e a r s ago i s b a r r e d b y t h e r u l e o f r e p o s e a n d / o r t h e d o c t r i n e o f [ l a c h e s ] . ... " B a s e d upon t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e Board i s r e v e r s e d and s e t a s i d e . T h i s case i s REMANDED t o t h e A l a b a m a B o a r d o f E x a m i n e r s i n Psychology." The c i r c u i t c o u r t c i t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g cases i n support o f i t s judgment: 758 Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ; Ex p a r t e G i b b s , I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d 542 So. 2d 927 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; C h r i s t Hosp. & Med. C t r . v . Human R i g h t s Comm'n, 271 I l l . App. 3d 133, 648 N.E. 2d 2 0 1 , 207 I l l . Dec. 745 ( 1 9 9 5 ) ; Board of F i r e & P o l i c e Comm'rs, G r a n i t e C i t y , 478, 288 N.E. 2d 49 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ; 500, 494 A . 2 d 270 and Appeal (1985). 7 Mank v . 7 I l l . App. 3d of Plantier, 126 N.H. 2120032 The 2012. Board filed On a p p e a l , an a p p e a l to this the Board a s s e r t s court that, although proceedings present under case; the doctrine t h e AAPA, and (3) of the c i r c u i t laches the rule of court; applies i t i s not a p p l i c a b l e that 4, (1) t h a t H a m i l t o n d i d n o t p r o p e r l y r a i s e the defense of laches before (2) on O c t o b e r repose to i n the i s not a p p l i c a b l e t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n s commenced b y t h e S t a t e o f Alabama. This of N u r s i n g , the Board court g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n o f t h e Alabama Board t h e A l a b a m a B o a r d o f S o c i a l Work E x a m i n e r s , a n d of Dental amici curiae. Examiners o f Alabama t o f i l e briefs as O r a l arguments o f t h e p a r t i e s and o f t h e a m i c i c u r i a e were h e a r d on A u g u s t 15, 2013. Standard o f Review "Our standard c i r c u i t court: of review mirrors that of the "'"Judicial review o f an a g e n c y ' s administrative decision i s limited to determining whether the decision is s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , whether 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 whether i t s actions were within i t s statutory and constitutional powers. J u d i c i a l r e v i e w i s a l s o l i m i t e d by t h e presumption of correctness which attaches to a decision by an administrative agency."' 8 2120032 "Ex 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 1010, 1012 ( A l a . 2001) ( q u o t i n g A l a b a m a M e d i c a i d A g e n c y v. Peoples, 549 So. 2d 504, 506 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1989))." A l a b a m a Bd. o f N u r s i n g v. W i l l i a m s , 941 So. 2d 990, 995 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) . S e c t i o n 34-26-48, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s , in part: "Any a c t i o n o f , o r r u l i n g o r o r d e r made o r e n t e r e d b y t h e [ B ] o a r d ... recommending s u s p e n s i o n o r r e v o c a t i o n o f a c e r t i f i c a t e o r l i c e n s e s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o r e v i e w by t h e c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e i n t h e same manner and s u b j e c t t o t h e same p o w e r s and c o n d i t i o n s as now p r o v i d e d by l a w i n r e g a r d t o rulings, orders, and findings of other quasi-judicial bodies in Alabama, where not otherwise s p e c i f i c a l l y provided." J u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e - a g e n c y a c t i o n s i s l i m i t e d by § 41-22-20(k), A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h s t a t e s : " ( k ) E x c e p t where j u d i c i a l r e v i e w i s by t r i a l de novo, t h e a g e n c y o r d e r s h a l l be t a k e n as p r i m a f a c i e just and reasonable and the court shall not s u b s t i t u t e i t s j u d g m e n t f o r t h a t o f t h e a g e n c y as t o t h e w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e on q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t , e x c e p t where o t h e r w i s e a u t h o r i z e d b y s t a t u t e . The c o u r t may a f f i r m t h e a g e n c y a c t i o n o r remand t h e case t o the agency f o r t a k i n g a d d i t i o n a l t e s t i m o n y and e v i d e n c e o r f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . The c o u r t may r e v e r s e o r m o d i f y t h e d e c i s i o n o r g r a n t o t h e r ap p r o p r i a t e r e l i e f f r o m t h e a g e n c y a c t i o n , e q u i t a b l e or l e g a l , i n c l u d i n g d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f , i f the c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e a g e n c y a c t i o n i s due t o be s e t a s i d e or m o d i f i e d under standards s e t f o r t h i n appeal or r e v i e w s t a t u t e s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h a t agency or i f substantial r i g h t s o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r have b e e n 9 2120032 p r e j u d i c e d because the agency more o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : a c t i o n i s any one or "(1) I n v i o l a t i o n o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o r statutory provisions; "(2) In excess of a u t h o r i t y of t h e agency; "(3) I n agency r u l e ; violation the statutory any pertinent of "(4) Made upon u n l a w f u l procedure; "(5) A f f e c t e d error by other of law; "(6) C l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s i n v i e w o f t h e reliable, probative, and substantial e v i d e n c e on t h e w h o l e r e c o r d ; o r "(7) Unreasonable, arbitrary, or c a p r i c i o u s , o r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an abuse o f discretion or a clearly unwarranted e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n . " Analysis I. F a i l u r e to Raise the Issue Circuit The the Board doctrine first of contends laches as a o f L a c h e s on A p p e a l t o t h e Court that Hamilton f a i l e d defense to raise i n h i s appeal to c i r c u i t court; thus, the Board argues, the c i r c u i t court n o t have p r o p e r l y order. relied on laches to overturn the In s u p p o r t of t h i s argument, the B o a r d c i t e s v. A l a b a m a B o a r d o f Massage T h e r a p y , 10 963 So. 2d 640 the could Board's Knoblett (Ala. Civ. 2120032 App. 2007). appeals In court Knoblett, will this consider court only noted those that "'"[a]n issues properly d e l i n e a t e d as s u c h , and no m a t t e r w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d on appeal unless 2d at 647 Dist., 864 Braxton v. p r e s e n t e d and argued i n b r i e f . " ' " n.3 ( q u o t i n g T u c k e r v. C u l l m a n - J e f f e r s o n So. 2d 317, Stewart, 319 So. 539 (Ala. 2d 2003), 284, 286 argument a s s e r t e d i n K n o b l e t t to raise failure an issue in a i n the circuit in (Ala. Civ. before turn App. i n v o l v e d the brief f o r r e v i e w o f an 1988)). The f a i l u r e of a p a r t y this a p p e a l o f an court, not administrative requires a party administrative determination the c i r c u i t c o u r t to a s s e r t i n the p e t i t i o n " [ t ] h e grounds which relief is sought." the court. S e c t i o n 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( h ) ( 4 ) , A l a . C o u r t 1975, petitioning So. C n t y s . Gas quoting t o r a i s e a d e f e n s e i n an determination 963 Without mentioning either in on the d o c t r i n e of l a c h e s or the r u l e of repose, Hamilton e s s e n t i a l l y asserted to be i n h i s p e t i t i o n t h a t t h e B o a r d ' s f i n a l o r d e r was reversed under the standards set forth in § due 41-22- 20(k)(1)-(7). It doctrine i s evident of laches from the as a record defense 11 that in Hamilton the raised the administrative 2120032 proceeding before Hamilton's the reliance ALJ. upon laches a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h e a r i n g was abandon that Hamilton's administrative extensively. of the In for applicability a the was apprised of defense a before the A t no t i m e d i d H a m i l t o n the summary Board's judgment briefed the foregoing, we of the response filed issue hold in of was to the laches t h a t the defense of l a c h e s b e f o r e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t and, this as fact, proceeding B a s e d on Board conducted. defense. motion The issue properly consequently, i s properly before court. II. Applicability of the Defense of T h i s c o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y r e c o g n i z e d laches is instances applicable where t h e to Laches t h a t the d o c t r i n e administrative legislature has not proceedings defined limitation f o r commencing s u c h p r o c e e d i n g s . A l a b a m a Bd. o f C h i r o p r a c t i c E x a m ' r s , 647 C i v . App. 1994)("Where t h e r e applicable whether the question of to the action i s no administrative s h o u l d be laches." Appeal 12 of Chafian v. See 2d 759, proceeding, by of time in a period s t a t u t o r y time barred (citing So. of the 762 limitation issue depends on Plantier, (Ala. 123 of the N.H. 2120032 500, 494 A. 2d 270 Law § 321 (1985), (1962))). and 2 Am. J u r . 2d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Our supreme c o u r t has d e f i n e d laches as "neglect t o a s s e r t a r i g h t or a c l a i m t h a t , taken together with a lapse of time and other circumstances causing disadvantage or p r e j u d i c e to t h e a d v e r s e p a r t y , o p e r a t e s as a b a r . See B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 787 ( 5 t h e d . 1979) . L a c h e s i s an equitable doctrine designed to prevent unfairness to a d e f e n d a n t ... due t o a p l a i n t i f f ' s ... d e l a y i n filing suit, i n t h e a b s e n c e o f an appropriate s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s . E q u a l Employment O p p o r t u n i t y C o m m i s s i o n v. D r e s s e r I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . , 668 F.2d 1199 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1982) . I t i s b a s e d on t h e p u b l i c p o l i c y d i s c o u r a g i n g s t a l e demands and i s n o t b a s e d upon mere l a p s e of time. It i s principally a q u e s t i o n o f t h e i n e q u i t y o f p e r m i t t i n g a c l a i m t o be e n f o r c e d where some change i n c o n d i t i o n h a s t a k e n p l a c e t h a t w o u l d make t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e c l a i m u n j u s t . D a v i s v. A l a b a m a Power Co., 383 F. Supp. 880 (N.D. A l a . 1 9 7 4 ) , a f f i r m e d , 542 F.2d 650 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 6 ) , a f f i r m e d , 431 U.S. 581, 97 S. C t . 2002, 52 L. Ed. 2d 595 (1977). I t i s designed to prevent u n f a i r n e s s c a u s e d by a p a r t y ' s d e l a y i n a s s e r t i n g a c l a i m o r b y h i s f a i l u r e t o do s o m e t h i n g t h a t e q u i t y w o u l d have r e q u i r e d h i m t o do. Sims v. L e w i s , 374 So. 2d 298 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. O l i n C o r p . , 606 F. Supp. 1301 (N.D. A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; G o l i g h t l y v. G o l i g h t l y , 474 So. 2d 1150 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 5 ) . " Ex p a r t e Grubbs, 542 So. 2d 927, 928-29 party a s s e r t i n g laches delay was u n r e a s o n a b l e and t h a t p r e j u d i c e delay." Chafian, bears the burden of p r o v i n g 647 So. 2d a t 762. the d o c t r i n e of laches, include 13 "The that the r e s u l t e d from the "Classic undue p r e j u d i c e , f o r p u r p o s e s o f d e t e r m i n i n g of ( A l a . 1989). elements of the a p p l i c a b i l i t y the u n a v a i l a b i l i t y of 2120032 witnesses, changed records." personnel, and t h e l o s s G r u b b s , 542 So. 2d a t 929 ( c i t i n g Opportunity of pertinent E q u a l Employment C o m m i s s i o n v. D r e s s e r I n d u s . , I n c . , 668 F.2d 1199 (11th C i r . 1982)). For the equitable doctrine of laches t o b a r an a c t i o n , t h e e v i d e n c e must show t h a t a d e l a y h a s c a u s e d s u c h prejudice or d i s a d v a n t a g e t o a p a r t y t h a t p e r m i t t i n g t h e p r o c e e d i n g s t o continue w o u l d be f u n d a m e n t a l l y u n f a i r . In the present case, H a m i l t o n h a s a s s e r t e d two s p e c i f i c e x a m p l e s o f p r e j u d i c e he claims t o have suffered L.M.'s a l l e g a t i o n s . records First, i n presenting he c o n t e n d s a defense that p e r t a i n i n g t o L.M. h a d b e e n d e s t r o y e d that against h i s treatment i n the regular c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s a n d c o u l d n o t be u t i l i z e d i n h i s d e f e n s e t o the Board's a c t i o n . Second, H a m i l t o n contends t h a t the ALJ f o u n d L.M. t o be an u n r e l i a b l e w i t n e s s c o n c e r n i n g t h e e v e n t s o c c u r r i n g b e t w e e n 1983 a n d 1994, should have found L.M.'s and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e A L J testimony t o have u n r e l i a b l e concerning the events o c c u r r i n g After a review of the record, been equally i n 1982. and taking into c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e arguments o f t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e i r b r i e f s and in oral arguments, we conclude 14 that Hamilton failed to 2120032 s u f f i c i e n t l y e s t a b l i s h that p r e j u d i c e or disadvantage r e s u l t e d from the l a p s e o f time such t h a t the defense o f l a c h e s have b a r r e d t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . destroyed, laches alone, i s not A showing t h a t records sufficient. must a l s o p r o v e t o t h e t r i e r the p e r t i n e n t records 230, 241 ( A l a . 2004). standard. Although there circuit court Hamilton f o r L.M. L.M. that asserting of f a c t that the l a c k of The e v i d e n c e h e r e does n o t meet the f a c t that relationship with party S a l t e r v. H a m i t e r , 887 So. 2d established were d e s t r o y e d i s no s p e c i f i c s h o w i n g o f disproved have been renders the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e t o be d i f f i c u l t i f n o t i m p o s s i b l e . treatment records The should that how t h o s e r e c o r d s Hamilton asserted could of t h e i r professional review of the record, assisted the trier on a p p e a l t o t h e have provided and t h a t could relationship. the destroyed of fact and e n d B a s e d upon i n determining those issues. t h a t he billed 1982. for services around 15 our documents w o u l d n o t have Hamilton t e s t i f i e d at the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e hearing L.M. have inappropriate t h e y c o u l d have h e l p e d h i m t o e s t a b l i s h t h e b e g i n n i n g dates 2010, b e t w e e n h i m and L.M. d e t a i l s concerning the contacts records of h i s i n February he h a d e n g a g e d i n an the missing most that June 18, last The 2120032 undestroyed admitted that records, into i . e . , the "face evidence, the formal, also in-office support sheets," which Hamilton's counseling sessions were contention e n d e d on o r a r o u n d June 18, 1982. T h a t c o n t e n t i o n i s n o t a t odds w i t h t h e ALJ's determination. However, t h e A L J f o u n d t h a t , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t he s t o p p e d b i l l i n g continued the to provide summer a n d f a l l L.M. on June 18, 1982, H a m i l t o n L.M. w i t h t h e r a p e u t i c a d v i c e throughout o f 1982, i n c l u d i n g a d v i c e on m a t t e r s f o r w h i c h she h a d s o u g h t p s y c h o l o g i c a l t r e a t m e n t . B a s e d on t h e record before us, Hamilton's treatment records provided finding, information to dispute that w o u l d have o n l y p r o v i d e d d e t a i l s c o n c e r n i n g June 1982 t i m e frame. c o u l d n o t have because only the A p r i l to The f i n d i n g s o f t h e A L J e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e m i s c o n d u c t upon w h i c h s a n c t i o n s were b a s e d b e t w e e n June 18 a n d September 1982. there 18. because the formal Thus, the destroyed treatment treatment records any b a s i s romantic r e l a t i o n s h i p or a therapeutic summer and e a r l y fall records sessions provided the to disprove during this e n d e d on June would the existence n o t have of e i t h e r a r e l a t i o n s h i p between o f 1982, d u r i n g 16 occurred Testimony i n d i c a t e s t h a t w o u l d n o t have b e e n any t r e a t m e n t period, they which, the ALJ 2120032 determined, H a m i l t o n had engaged i n a r o m a n t i c with while L.M. continuing to relationship provide her therapeutic treatment r e c o r d s were n o t services. Although available, most o f H a m i l t o n ' s the record i s replete memorializing 1982. the i n t e r a c t i o n That documentation written correspondence with between other documentation Hamilton a n d L.M. i n i n c l u d e s L.M.'s c a l e n d a r , as w e l l as between Hamilton a n d L.M., some o f w h i c h i s i n H a m i l t o n ' s own h a n d w r i t i n g . A l t h o u g h some o f t h a t documentation may have been unfavorable to Hamilton i n the s e n s e t h a t t h e A L J m i g h t have r e l i e d upon i t t o d e t e r m i n e that a that romantic relationship documentation prejudiced by undercuts a lack of records. existence of The v o l u m i n o u s written i n t h e r e c o r d l e a d s us t o c o n c l u d e i t was n o t " ' t o o l a t e controversy.'" the any argument t h a t H a m i l t o n h a s been e v i d e n c e t h a t does e x i s t that existed, to ascertain the merits of the Meeks v. Meeks, 251 A l a . 435, 437, 37 So. 2d 914, 916 ( 1 9 4 8 ) ( q u o t i n g 30 C.J.S. E q u i t y § 119, p. 5 4 3 ) . The o t h e r e x a m p l e o f p r e j u d i c e H a m i l t o n r a i s e s on a p p e a l is t h a t L.M. was an u n r e l i a b l e w i t n e s s . The A L J q u e s t i o n e d L.M.'s a c c o u n t o f t h e e v e n t s o c c u r r i n g s u b s e q u e n t 17 t o 1982, a n d 2120032 it i s a p p a r e n t from t h e recommendations and f i n d i n g s t h a t t h e ALJ weighed the evidence concerning these a l l e g e d i n t e r a c t i o n s b e t w e e n H a m i l t o n a n d L.M. a n d c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e w e i g h t o f t h e evidence matters. d i d not support L.M.'s allegations as L i k e w i s e , t h e A L J weighed t h e evidence to these concerning t h e a l l e g a t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o e v e n t s o c c u r r i n g i n 1982, a n d she found L.M.'s evidence. account Further, t o be credible the record does Hamilton's destroyed assessment o f L.M.'s c r e d i b i l i t y . this matter, records would and s u p p o r t e d by t h e n o t show any o f have affected As t h e t r i e r t h e A L J had " ' t h e advantage how the ALJ's of fact i n of observing the w i t n e s s e s ' demeanor a n d h a [ d ] a s u p e r i o r o p p o r t u n i t y t o a s s e s s their credibility, [and, t h e r e f o r e , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ] c a n n o t a l t e r t h e [ALJ's d e c i s i o n ] u n l e s s i t i s so u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e as t o be c l e a r l y a n d p a l p a b l y w r o n g . ' " Ex p a r t e Fann, 810 So. 2d 631, 636 ( A l a . 2001) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e D W W , 717 . . . So. 2d 793, 795 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ) . "'[The a p p e l l a t e court i s not] allowed t o r e w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e . T h i s [ i s s u e ] ... t u r n s on t h e [ t r i e r o f f a c t ' s ] p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e . The [ t r i e r o f f a c t ] i s i n t h e b e t t e r position to evaluate the c r e d i b i l i t y of the w i t n e s s e s ... a n d t h e [ t r i e r o f f a c t ] i s i n t h e b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o c o n s i d e r a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e , as 18 2120032 w e l l as t h e many i n f e r e n c e s that evidence '" t h a t may be drawn from Ex p a r t e P a t r o n a s , 693 So. 2d 473, 475 ( A l a . 1997) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B r y o w s k y , 676 So. 2d 1322, findings are e n t i t l e d 1326 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ) . t o deference, court nor t h i s court i s authorized as to the findings of and n e i t h e r judgment f o r t h a t evidence on authorized Williams, the c i r c u i t t o s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment t h e A L J on this 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( k ) , A l a . Code 1975 ("the c o u r t its The A L J ' s issue. See s h a l l not s u b s t i t u t e o f t h e a g e n c y as t o t h e w e i g h t o f t h e questions of fact, except where otherwise b y s t a t u t e " ) ; s e e a l s o A l a b a m a Bd. o f N u r s i n g 941 So. 2d a t 999 ("In no e v e n t i s a r e v i e w i n g 'authorized § t o reweigh the evidence v. court or t o s u b s t i t u t e i t s d e c i s i o n s as t o t h e w e i g h t a n d c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e e v i d e n c e f o r those o f t h e agency.'" 2d 407, 416-17 credibility (quoting ( A l a . 2004))). Ex p a r t e The Williamson, A L J weighed 907 So. L.M.'s as a w i t n e s s as t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f m i s c o n d u c t b e t w e e n 1982 a n d 1994 a n d a p p l i e d h e r j u d g m e n t Although laches accordingly. i s an a v a i l a b l e d e f e n s e a n d c o u l d form t h e b a s i s o f a r e v e r s a l o f an a g e n c y ' s d e c i s i o n u n d e r § 41-2220(k)(7), A l a . Code 1975, on the ground that t h e agency d e c i s i o n i s " u n r e a s o n a b l e , " t h e r e c o r d h e r e f a i l s t o show how 19 2120032 any d e l a y i n L.M.'s r e p o r t i n g the a l l e g a t i o n s prejudice or a c t u a l disadvantage t o Hamilton. and consistent with the deference we caused actual Consequently, must afford to the B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e o f l a c h e s does not support p r o v i d i n g Hamilton r e l i e f from t h e Board's final order. III. In Board's i t s judgment, disciplinary repose. The R u l e o f Repose the c i r c u i t order based, applicability of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e proceedings appears court also i n part, the rule reversed the on t h e r u l e of repose to t o be a q u e s t i o n o f f i r s t impression. "'The common-law r u l e o f r e p o s e , w h i c h 1 a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , R e c t o r v. B e t t e r i s an H o u s e s , I n c . , 820 So. 2d 75, 78 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , " b a r s a c t i o n s t h a t have n o t b e e n commenced w i t h i n 20 y e a r s f r o m t h e t i m e t h e y c o u l d have b e e n commenced." T i e r c e v. E l l i s , 624 So. 2d 553, 554 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . The r u l e o f repose " i s n o t a f f e c t e d by t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e s i t u a t i o n , by p e r s o n a l d i s a b i l i t i e s , o r b y w h e t h e r p r e j u d i c e has r e s u l t e d o r e v i d e n c e [has been] o b s c u r e d . " B o s h e l l v . K e i t h , 418 So. 2d 89, 91 ( A l a . 1982). "Lack o f n o t i c e i s not s u f f i c i e n t t o avert the a p p l i c a t i o n of the [rule of r e p o s e ] . " B a l l e n g e r v. L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e Ins. Co., 271 A l a . 318, 322, 123 So. 2d 166, 169 ( 1 9 6 0 ) ; a c c o r d Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d 758, 764 20 of 2120032 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , and Ex p a r t e L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co., 858 So. 2d 950, 957-59 ( A l a . 2003) ( J o h n s t o n e , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . " [ T ] h e o n l y element of the r u l e of repose i s t i m e . " B o s h e l l , 418 So. 2d a t 9 1 . ' " Snider v. American So. of Morgan, General 2d 807, repose 812 113 So. Life 3d 643, 650 (Ala. & A c c i d e n t I n s . Co. (Ala. 2004)). The v. Underwood, 88 6 applicability does n o t h i n g e on t h e d e n i a l o f any p r o c e d u r a l due-process rights; absolute stale bar against 2012)(quoting r a t h e r the claims, of the s u b s t a n t i v e or rule the and s e r v e s as only doctrine prejudice of laches, or disadvantage which based requires on the an an element necessary f o r i t s a p p l i c a t i o n i s the passage of time. the rule Unlike analysis circumstances of of the c a s e , and w h i c h m i g h t a p p l y t o i n v a l i d a t e an a g e n c y ' s d e c i s i o n under § 41-22-20(k)(7), A l a . Code s e r v e s as an a b s o l u t e b a r t o any The AAPA sets out a 1975, a c r e a t u r e of review limited, on of common l a w statutorily and administrative-agency and a c o u r t may specifically listed rule of repose proceedings. a p p l i c a b l e t o s t a t e a g e n c i e s and b o a r d s . is the not a created The r u l e of statute. decisions process is repose Judicial extremely r e v e r s e an a g e n c y d e c i s i o n b a s e d o n l y grounds. 21 Courts are authorized to 2120032 grant "appropriate legal," 20(k), for only i f s p e c i f i c grounds are A l a . Code 1975. reversal of " [ a ] f f e c t e d by Code r e l i e f from the agency a c t i o n , e q u i t a b l e 1975. support we reversal moreover, the the and do of of not the find the the to i n i t i a t e d by laws g o v e r n i n g the against is Ala. intent the to a Board. Board, the to rule of support a licensee; n o t b e e n c o d i f i e d as p a r t a p p l i e d any the apply sufficient administrative not grounds decision legislative failure r u l e o f r e p o s e has 41-22- § 41-22-20(k)(5), any law" § of the i f the agency d e c i s i o n l e g i s l a t u r e has complaints is law." " e r r o r of an t h a t one decision AAPA f o r a p p l i c a t i o n t o fact, to agency argument t h a t r e p o s e amounts t o an court's recognize other error But the an We established. or proceedings. of In limitations period In e n a c t i n g the AAPA l e g i s l a t u r e could have imposed a l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d , i n c l u d i n g the r u l e of repose, t o a p p l y t o c o m p l a i n t s i n i t i a t e d by the Board, but i t d i d not so. "The f u n d a m e n t a l r u l e o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t o a s c e r t a i n and g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n e n a c t i n g t h e s t a t u t e . Words u s e d i n a s t a t u t e must be given their natural, plain, o r d i n a r y , and commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g , and where p l a i n language i s used a c o u r t i s bound t o i n t e r p r e t t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s . I f t h e language of the s t a t u t e i s unambiguous, then t h e r e 22 do 2120032 i s no room f o r j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d t h e c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must be g i v e n effect." IMED C o r p . v. S y s t e m s Eng'g A s s o c s . C o r p . , 602 So. 2d 344, 346 (Ala. 1992). Perhaps the l e g i s l a t u r e reasoned that administrative a g e n c i e s s h o u l d have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o p r o s e c u t e c l a i m s their licensees occurred. Commission As regardless we stated o f Alabama, o f when i n Ex the a l l e g e d parte misconduct Medical 13 So. 3d 397, 410 against Licensure ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) : "The s t a t e h a s n o t o n l y a s t r o n g i n t e r e s t , b u t an obligation, to protect the health, s a f e t y , and w e l f a r e o f i t s c i t i z e n s . The s t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t i s f a r s u p e r i o r t o t h e r i g h t o f any i n d i v i d u a l t o p r a c t i c e h i s p r o f e s s i o n , e s p e c i a l l y when i n c o m p e t e n c y o r misconduct i n t h e p r a c t i c e o f t h a t p r o f e s s i o n can threaten l i f e i t s e l f . " Our supreme c o u r t h a s p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t when t h e s t a t e h a s an interest in correcting a public wrong, rules of p r e s c r i p t i o n , s u c h as t h e r u l e o f r e p o s e , a r e n o t a v a i l a b l e t o bar the Mercantile state from correcting that wrong. See Folmar Co. v. Town o f L u v e r n e , 203 A l a . 363, 364, 83 So. 107, 108 ( 1 9 1 9 ) ( " I t such a p u b l i c wrong i s because that no r i g h t c a n be p r e d i c a t e d o f neither 23 rules of p r e s c r i p t i o n nor 2120032 statutes of injunctive l i m i t a t i o n s are process, highway."). 447 So. dicta 2d overcome I n Brown v. 145, that 148 the a the offending may have a the of status rule of that i s designed to protect we application the the rule of a public Monroeville, meritorious repose, against stated in argument as well as that rule of r e j e c t i o n of repose implicate any law statutory basis for i s no repose in the See administrative § s t a t u t e , and administrative the of the proceedings rights, does n o t amount t o an 41-22-20(k)(5), H a m i l t o n c a n n o t r e l y on the Board's applicability c o n s t i t u t i o n a l due-process v i o l a t i o n o f any law." in the the a v i o l a t i o n of a s e t t i n g u n l e s s or u n t i l the l e g i s l a t u r e d i r e c t s o t h e r w i s e . hold to public. conclude that there of in supreme c o u r t d o c t r i n e o f l a c h e s , when i t s e e k s t o end Thus, preserve, F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank o f ( A l a . 1983), our state defense a v a i l a b l e to Ala. Code 1975. We common-law does is not not a "error of Therefore, r u l e of repose to defend against complaint. Conclusion A c o u r t may only i f the s e t a s i d e an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y ' s d e c i s i o n record establishes 24 one of the specific grounds 2120032 l i s t e d i n § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( k ) , A l a . Code 1975. We a r e n o t p e r m i t t e d t o s u b s t i t u t e our judgment f o r t h a t of the Board, o f w h e t h e r we w o u l d have made t h e same d e c i s i o n . regardless Because the r e c o r d does n o t s u p p o r t a h o l d i n g t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e o f l a c h e s was s u f f i c i e n t l y e s t a b l i s h e d t o o v e r t u r n t h e B o a r d ' s and because administrative the rule of repose proceedings, the circuit is decision, inapplicable to c o u r t ' s judgment i n t h i s m a t t e r must be r e v e r s e d . REVERSED AND JUDGMENT RENDERED. Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s . P i t t m a n , J . , c o n c u r s i n p a r t and c o n c u r s i n t h e result, w i t h w r i t i n g , w h i c h Thomas, J . , j o i n s . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t w r i t i n g . 25 2120032 PITTMAN, result. I Judge, concur judgment, concurring i n part i n the r e s u l t and I concur and to reverse the c i r c u i t i n t h e main opinion extent that i t concludes that a f a i l u r e agency to apply appropriate case the common-law i s not concurring i n the an except to the o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e rule "error court's of of repose in an law" that can be c o r r e c t e d v i a r e v e r s a l o f t h e agency's d e c i s i o n i n a j u d i c i a l r e v i e w p r o c e e d i n g u n d e r t h e a u t h o r i t y o f A l a . Code 1975, § 4 1 22-20(k)(5). I am p e r s u a d e d that reversal i n this p r o p e r , h o w e v e r , b a s e d upon t h e a p p a r e n t a l t e r n a t i v e suggested should, i n t h e main i n certain opinion that agencies case i s rationale of the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , be e n t i t l e d state to avoid any e f f e c t t h a t t h e r u l e o f r e p o s e m i g h t o t h e r w i s e have when s u c h a g e n c i e s a r e s e e k i n g t o address v i o l a t i o n s o f laws d e s i g n e d t o protect case, the p u b l i c welfare, those agencies and e s p e c i a l l y when, as i n t h i s act i n a prompt manner r e c e i v i n g n o t i c e of a v i o l a t i o n of those laws. Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s . 26 upon first

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.