Paulson v. Board of Medical Examiners

9 Citing cases

  1. Smoker v. Iowa Bd. of Med.

    834 N.W.2d 83 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Judicial review of a contested proceeding both in the district court and the appellate courts is to correct errors at law. Paulson v. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 592 N.W.2d 677, 678 (Iowa 1999). Our review is governed by the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act. SeeIowa Code ยง 17A.19(10) (2011).

  2. Smith v. Iowa Bd. of Med

    729 N.W.2d 822 (Iowa 2007)   Cited 17 times
    Finding board's dissemination of information about the denial of a physician's license was โ€œother agency actionโ€

    The Code defines a contested case as a proceeding "in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of a party are required by Constitution or statute to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing." Iowa Code ยง 17A.2(5); accord Brummer v. Iowa Dep't of Corr., 661 N.W.2d 167, 171-72 (Iowa 2003); Greenwood Manor v. Iowa Dep't of Pub. Health, 641 N.W.2d 823, 833-35 (Iowa 2002); Paulson v. Iowa Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 592 N.W.2d 677, 679 (Iowa 1999). Other agency action is action that is neither rulemaking nor a contested case.

  3. Delouis v. Iowa Bd. of Med.

    856 N.W.2d 3 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014)

    3(4) (โ€œA combined statement of charges and settlement agreement shall constitute the resolution of a contested case proceeding.โ€). Furthermore, in considering an informal settlement agreement with the Iowa Board of Medical Examiners, the Iowa Supreme Court found, โ€œOur review convinces us that this was a contested case proceeding that resulted in a settlement agreement.โ€ Paulson v. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 592 N.W.2d 677, 680 (Iowa 1999). The court continued, โ€œThe order that ensued from the board was a final decision in a contested case.

  4. Butt v. Iowa Bd. of Med.

    836 N.W.2d 152 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 3 times
    Applying statutory vagueness framework to administrative rule

    Judicial review of a contested proceeding both in the district court and the appellate courts is to correct errors at law. Paulson v. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 592 N.W.2d 677, 678 (Iowa 1999). Our review is governed by the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act.

  5. Doe v. Iowa Bd. of Med.

    815 N.W.2d 409 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012)

    We review the district court's dismissal of a petition for judicial review for correction of errors at law. Paulson v. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 592 N.W.2d 677, 678 (Iowa 1999). III. Claim Preclusion

  6. Doe v. Bd. of Med. Examiners

    764 N.W.2d 783 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009)

    We find no merit to Martin's present contention that the Board's ruling was not a contested case proceeding. See Purethane, 498 N.W.2d at 709 (noting that under agency rules a controversy regarding a dismissal of a protest of assessment is a "contested case" and a formal evidentiary hearing is provided); see also Paulson v. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 592 N.W.2d 677, 680 (Iowa 1997) (finding that where procedural rule called for a hearing, the order that issued was "a final decision in a contested case"). Iowa Admin. Code 653 r. 12.3(3) (2005) provides:

  7. Strickland v. Iowa Bd. of Medicine

    764 N.W.2d 559 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 14 times
    Indicating jurisdiction over a case is not acquired when a petition for judicial review is untimely

    We review the district court's dismissal of a petition for judicial review for correction of errors at law. Paulson v. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 592 N.W.2d 677, 678 (Iowa 1999). Our review in this case is governed by the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act. Iowa Code ยง 17A.19(10).

  8. Miulli v. Iowa Bd. of Medical Examiners

    683 N.W.2d 126 (Iowa Ct. App. 2004)

    With respect to agency adjudications, due process generally requires that a party be informed of the issues and has an opportunity to be heard. See Paulson v. Iowa Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 592 N.W.2d 677, 680 (Iowa 1999). Our supreme court has recognized four exceptions, where due process does not demand an administrative hearing, in cases involving: (1) no "life, liberty, or property" interests because no entitlement can be established; (2) an absence of relevant disputed facts; (3) emergency agency action; and (4) the use of inspections, examinations and testing to determine relevant facts.

  9. Univ. of Iowa Hosp. v. Waters

    No. 3-506 / 02-1017 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2003)

    Under due process principles, notice should inform a party of the issues involved in order to prevent surprise at the hearing and allow an opportunity to prepare. Paulson v. Board of Med. Examiners, 592 N.W.2d 677, 680 (Iowa 1999). A showing of prejudice is essential to establishing a due process violation because the touchstone of due process is "fundamental fairness."