Michigan licensing boards
I. Overview: Michigan Licensing Boards
What Are Michigan Licensing Boards?
Michigan licensing boards are state-created administrative bodies that regulate professions and occupations requiring licenses.
Boards oversee licensing, renewal, disciplinary actions, and standards enforcement.
Examples: Michigan Board of Nursing, Michigan Medical Board, Michigan Real Estate Board, Michigan Board of Accountancy, and others.
Boards derive authority from state statutes and are usually part of the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA).
Powers of Licensing Boards
Issue, renew, suspend, or revoke licenses.
Conduct investigations and hold hearings on complaints.
Enforce professional conduct standards.
Ensure public safety and uphold the integrity of professions.
Judicial Review
Michigan courts review licensing board decisions under administrative law standards.
Common issues include whether boards exceeded their authority, violated due process, or acted arbitrarily and capriciously.
II. Key Michigan Case Law Involving Licensing Boards
1. Attorney Grievance Commission v. Fisher, 439 Mich. 157 (1992)
Facts:
An attorney challenged the disciplinary action taken by the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board.
Fisher alleged the board violated due process and acted arbitrarily.
Holding:
The Michigan Supreme Court emphasized the board’s quasi-judicial role.
The board’s decisions are subject to substantial evidence review.
Courts will uphold board decisions unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or clearly erroneous.
Significance:
Established the standard for judicial review of licensing board disciplinary actions in Michigan.
Balanced deference to specialized boards with judicial oversight.
2. Parmelee v. Michigan Board of Dentistry, 407 Mich. 493 (1980)
Facts:
Parmelee’s dental license was revoked after charges of professional misconduct.
He claimed the board failed to follow proper procedural safeguards.
Holding:
The court held that licensing boards must comply with due process requirements, including:
Notice of charges
Opportunity to be heard
Fair hearing procedures
Significance:
Affirmed that licensing boards are bound by constitutional due process.
Protected licensees’ rights in disciplinary proceedings.
3. Shalala v. Ill. Council on Long Term Care, Inc., 529 U.S. 1 (2000)
Note: Though a federal case, it impacts Michigan’s understanding.
Issue:
The scope of administrative agency discretion in enforcing licensing standards.
Holding:
Courts should defer to administrative agencies’ reasonable interpretations of their regulatory authority unless arbitrary.
Significance:
Michigan courts similarly apply this Chevron-like deference to licensing boards.
4. Hamed v. Michigan Board of Medicine, 226 Mich. App. 224 (1997)
Facts:
A physician appealed the Board of Medicine’s suspension of his license.
He argued the board’s findings were unsupported.
Holding:
The Court of Appeals held that the board’s factual findings must be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.
The court will not substitute its judgment for the board’s on credibility or weight of evidence.
Significance:
Reinforces Michigan’s administrative law standards.
Protects boards’ expertise but requires evidentiary support.
5. In re Complaints Against Jones, 123 Mich. App. 93 (1983)
Facts:
A licensee challenged the Michigan Board of Nursing’s sanctions as unfair and disproportionate.
Holding:
The court recognized boards have broad discretion to impose sanctions.
Sanctions will only be overturned if unreasonable or without evidentiary basis.
Significance:
Confirms the discretionary authority of licensing boards in discipline.
6. Doe v. Michigan Board of Psychology, 292 Mich. App. 28 (2011)
Facts:
Doe’s psychology license was suspended following complaints of misconduct.
He challenged the suspension alleging violation of procedural due process.
Holding:
The Court ruled the Board complied with due process by providing timely notice and an opportunity to respond.
Interim suspensions are allowed to protect public safety.
Significance:
Licensing boards can act quickly to protect public health with limited process, balanced by full hearings later.
7. Coffin v. Michigan Board of Accountancy, 163 Mich. App. 198 (1987)
Facts:
Coffin appealed denial of license renewal based on alleged incompetence.
Holding:
Court upheld the board’s decision, emphasizing boards’ discretion to assess professional qualifications.
Judicial review is limited to ensuring no violation of law or procedural fairness.
Significance:
Reinforces that licensing boards function as gatekeepers of professional standards.
III. Common Themes from Michigan Case Law
| Theme | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Deference to Boards | Courts generally defer to licensing boards’ expertise on professional standards and facts. |
| Due Process Protections | Boards must provide fair notice and a hearing before revoking or suspending licenses. |
| Evidence Requirement | Board decisions must be supported by substantial evidence. |
| Discretion in Sanctions | Boards have wide discretion in imposing penalties; courts only intervene if abuse occurs. |
| Interim Actions Allowed | Boards can impose immediate suspensions for public safety pending full hearings. |
IV. Conclusion
Michigan licensing boards are powerful regulators with quasi-judicial authority over professional licensing and discipline. The courts recognize their technical expertise and generally give deference to their decisions, provided that:
The boards act within the scope of their statutory authority.
They observe constitutional due process.
Their decisions are supported by substantial evidence.
The case law shows a consistent balancing act: protecting public welfare while safeguarding licensees’ rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments