Paul v. Board of Professional Discipline

11 Citing cases

  1. Swett v. St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center

    136 Idaho 74 (Idaho 2001)   Cited 5 times
    In Swett v. St. Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr., 136 Idaho 74, 29 P.3d 385 (2001), this Court considered whether the Commission could make an attorney fee award under I.C. ยง 72-804 based on a percentage of the benefits awarded to the employee.

    Procedural due process requires that a party be provided with an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Paul v. Board of Professional Discipline of the Idaho State Board of Medicine, 134 Idaho 838, 11 P.3d 34 (2000). "[D]ue process is not a concept rigidly applied to every adversarial confrontation, but instead is a flexible concept calling for such procedural protections as are warranted by the situation."

  2. S. Valley Ground Water Dist. v. The Idaho Dep't of Water Res.

    548 P.3d 734 (Idaho 2024)   Cited 1 times

    [42] "Due process is not a concept rigidly applied to every adversarial confrontation, but instead is a flexible concept calling for such procedural protections as are warranted by the situation." Halvorson v. N. Latah Cnty. Highway Disi, 151 Idaho 196, 204, 254 P.3d 497, 505 (2011) (citing Paul v. Bd. of Prof'l Discipline of Idaho State Bd. of Med., 134 Idaho 838, 843, 11 P.3d 34, 39 (2000)). See also In re SUBA Case No. 29576 Subcase No. 37-00864, 164 Idaho 241, 251, 429 P.3d 129, 139 (2018) (quoting Aberdeen-Spring-field Canal Co. v. Peiper, 133 Idaho 82, 91, 982 P.2d 917, 926 (1999) (due process "is a flexible concept calling for such procedural protections as are warranted by the particular situation")).Time was of the essence and in-season administration of these water rights was warrantedโ€”curtailing out-of-priority water use after the irrigation season had passed would have been too little, too late.

  3. Erickson v. Idaho Bd. of Licensure of Prof'l Eng'rs & Prof'l Land Surveyors

    165 Idaho 644 (Idaho 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla of proof, but less than a preponderance. 134 Idaho 838, 840, 11 P.3d 34, 36 (2000) (internal citations omitted). Unlike the Boardโ€™s factual findings, this Court exercises free review over questions of law. Podsaid v. State Outfitters & Guides Licensing Bd., 159 Idaho 70, 73, 356 P.3d 363, 366 (2015).

  4. Erickson v. Idaho Bd. of Licensure of Prof'l Eng'rs

    Docket No. 45205 (Idaho May. 14, 2019)

    The agency's findings must be affirmed unless the findings are not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole or the findings are arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla of proof, but less than a preponderance. 134 Idaho 838, 840, 11 P.3d 34, 36 (2000) (internal citations omitted). Unlike the Board's factual findings, this Court exercises free review over questions of law.

  5. Doe v. Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare (In re Doe)

    155 Idaho 36 (Idaho 2013)   Cited 4 times

    "Procedural due process requires that a party be provided with an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Stuart v. State, 149 Idaho 35, 49, 232 P.3d 813, 827 (2010) (quoting Paul v. Bd. of Prof'l Discipline of Idaho State Bd. of Med., 134 Idaho 838, 843, 11 P.3d 34, 39 (2000) ). We have already made clear that "[p]arental rights are a fundamental liberty interest, constitutionally protected by the Fourteenth Amendment."

  6. Peckham v. Idaho State Bd. of Dentistry

    154 Idaho 846 (Idaho 2013)   Cited 3 times

    And, while the Board may use its expertise to reach factual findings based on evidence in the record, that expertise cannot serve as a substitute for necessary evidence. See Paul v. Bd. of Prof'l Discipline of Idaho State Bd. of Med., 134 Idaho 838, 842, 11 P.3d 34, 38 (2000). V. ANALYSIS

  7. Halvorson v. North Latah County Highway District

    254 P.3d 497 (Idaho 2011)   Cited 13 times
    Explaining that section 40-2312 "prescribes a fifty-foot width to all highways and makes no distinction between highways established by prescription and highways laid out by the Highway District."

    Due process is not a concept rigidly applied to every adversarial confrontation, but instead is a flexible concept calling for such procedural protections as are warranted by the situation. Paul v. Bd. of Prof'l Discipline of Idaho State Bd. of Med., 134 Idaho 838, 843, 11 P.3d 34, 39 (2000) (internal citations and quotations omitted). This Court has previously found that, in cases of the establishment of a public highway, where a landowner has the opportunity to contest the establishment of a public highway, due process has been afforded.

  8. Stuart v. State

    149 Idaho 35 (Idaho 2010)   Cited 33 times   2 Legal Analyses

    "Procedural due process requires that a party be provided with an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Paul v. Bd. of Prof I Discipline of Idaho State Bd. of Med., 134 Idaho 838, 843, 11 P.3d 34, 39 (2000). Where a petitioner is represented by the same counsel at trial and in initial post-conviction proceedings, there is simply no way for a petitioner to raise claims of ineffective assistance.

  9. Haw v. Idaho State Board of Medicine

    140 Idaho 152 (Idaho 2004)   Cited 6 times

    In its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and final order, the Board included a requirement that Dr. Haw pay the costs and attorney fees incurred by the Board in the sum of $116,067.05. Due process applies to the award of costs and attorney fees. Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc., 529 U.S. 460, 120 S.Ct. 1579, 146 L.Ed.2d 530 (2000). Due process includes the right to be fairly notified of the issues to be considered, Pearl v. Board of Prof'l Discipline of the Idaho State Bd. of Med., 137 Idaho 107, 44 P.3d 1162 (2002), and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, Paul v. Board of Prof'l Discipline of the Idaho State Bd. of Med., 134 Idaho 838, 11 P.3d 34 (2000). Idaho Code ยง 54-1806A(9)(e) provides that if the Board finds grounds for disciplining a physician, the Board may issue its order "[a]ssessing costs and attorney's fees against the respondent physician for any investigation and/or administrative proceeding."

  10. Laurino v. Board of Professional Discipline

    137 Idaho 596 (Idaho 2002)   Cited 4 times

    The Court will defer to the agency's findings of fact unless those findings are clearly erroneous. Paul v. Board of Professional Discipline, 134 Idaho 838, 11 P.3d 34 (2000), citing Ferguson v. Board of County Commissioners for Ada County, 110 Idaho 785, 719 P.2d 1223 (1986). Neither the district court nor this Court on appeal may substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence presented in the record.