 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
SINGH v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & ADD. SERV.5/6/1997
The defendant department of public health and addiction services (department) appeals from the judgment of the trial court, sustaining the plaintiff's appeal from a declaratory ruling issued by the defendant, denying the plaintiff's application for licensure as a veterinarian in this state. On appeal, the department claims that the trial court improperly (1) remanded the case for a hearing on the issue of disparate treatment, and (2) found that the law required a hearing to be held on a petition for declaratory relief. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts are not in dispute. In 1985, the plaintiff received a bachelor's degree in veterinary science and animal husbandry from Punjab Agricultural University, located in Punjab, India . In November, 1992, he applied to the department for a license to practice veterinary medicine in Connecticut. The department denied the plaintiff's application for a license because he had not graduated with a degree of doctor of veterinary medicine or its equivalent, as required by General Statutes § 20-198. The department further stated that the plaintiff was not eligible to sit for the licensure examination and, even if he qualified for the waiver of the examination requirement, he would not be eligible for licensure due to his educational deficiency.
In May, 1994, the plaintiff requested a declaratory ruling on his eligibility for licensure. The plaintiff also requested that the commissioner of the department (commissioner) hold a hearing in accordance with General Statutes § 4-176 (e)(2) and (g) to permit the
plaintiff to present evidence on the issue of disparate treatment of identical applicants. The commissioner declined to hold a hearing and issued a declaratory ruling on October 15, 1994. The commissioner ruled that the degree the plaintiff received from Punjab Agricultural University did not satisfy the requirement in General Statutes § 20-198 that an applicant possess a doctor of veterinary medicine awarded by an accredited United States university or its equivalent. The commissioner found the plaintiff's degree to be the equivalent of a bachelor's degree, not a doctorate. Therefore, the commissioner concluded, the plaintiff was not eligible for licensure in Connecticut. The commissioner did not address the issue of disparate treatment in its memorandum of decision.
On appeal to the trial court, the plaintiff argued that the commissioner improperly (1) found that he failed to satisfy the requirements of § 20-198, and (2) abused its discretion by denying his request for a hearing. The trial court sustained the plaintiff's appeal and remanded the case to the commissioner to conduct a hearing. This appeal followed.
I
Our standards of review concerning administrative appeals are statutorily mandated: "` he court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The court shall affirm the decision of the agency unless the court finds that substantial rights of the person appealing have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.' General Statutes § 4-183 (j)." Slimp v. Dept. of Liquor Control, 239 Conn. 599, 604, 687 A.2d 123 (1996).
With these prin
Page 1 2 3 Connecticut Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|