OAH Docket No. 4-0900-11201-2

 

 

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

 

FOR THE MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH

 

 

In the Matter of the Request for a Set Aside of the Disqualification of Daryl Fields, Petitioner

RECOMMENDATION ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION

 

            This matter was initiated by the Minnesota Department of Health (hereinafter the “Department”) by a Notice of and Order for Hearing, dated June 10, 1997, which was duly served upon the Petitioner, Daryl Fields (hereinafter the “Mr. Fields”).  The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether the Commissioner of Health (hereinafter “Commissioner”) should set aside Mr. Fields’ disqualification from positions allowing direct contact with persons receiving services from programs licensed by the Department and by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (hereinafter “DHS”).  Subsequently, the Department moved for summary disposition on the grounds that no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to this proceeding and that, as a matter of law, the Department is entitled to prevail on the merits of the issue of whether it should set aside Mr. Fields’ disqualification.  Despite requests that Mr. Fields either respond to the Department’s motion for summary disposition or withdraw his appeal, Mr. Fields has done neither.

 

            The above-entitled matter is, therefore, before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge on the Department’s for summary disposition.  Mary L. Stanislav, Assistant Attorney General, Suite 500, 525 Park Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55103-2106, appeared on behalf of the Department.  Daryl Fields, 6200 - 78th Avenue North, #103, Brooklyn Park, MN  55443, appeared pro se.  The record closed on this motion on February 12, 1998, upon receipt of the Department’s notification to the Administrative Law Judge of Mr. Fields’ refusal to take action on requests that he respond to the Department’s motion for summary disposition or withdraw his appeal.

 

            Based upon all of the records, files, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED :

 

            (1)       That the Department’s Motion for Summary Disposition be GRANTED; and

 

            (2)       That the Commissioner of Health enter an Order directing that Mr. Fields’ disqualification stand and dismissing his petition to set it aside.

 

Dated this _____ day of March, 1998.

 

 

 

                                                                        ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­________________________________

                                                                        BRUCE H. JOHNSON

                                                                        Administrative Law Judge

 

 

MEMORANDUM

 

The Department’s Burden

 

            In considering motions for summary disposition in administrative contested case proceedings, administrative law judges look to the standards developed in district court practice for considering motions for summary judgment.  See Minn. Rules, pt. 1400.6600 (1997)[1].  Like summary judgment, summary disposition is appropriate “where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.”  Minn. Rules, pt. 1400.5500(K); compare Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03; Sauter v. Sauter, 70 N.W.2d 351, 353 (Minn. 1955); Theile v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 583 (Minn. 1988).  In a motion for summary disposition made by the party having the burden of proof, the initial burden is on the moving party to show facts that establish a prima facie case and to assert that no material issues of fact remain for hearing.  Id.  Once the moving party has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the non-moving party.  Minnesota Mutual Fire and Casualty Company v. Retrum, 456 N.W.2d 719, 723 (Minn. App. 1990).  To successfully resist a motion for summary disposition where a prima facie case has been established, the non-moving party must show that there are specific facts in dispute which have a bearing on the outcome of the case.  Hunt v. IBM Mid America Employees Federal, 384 N.W.2d 853, 855 (Minn. 1986).  General averments are not enough to meet the non-moving party’s burden under Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.05.  Id.; Carlisle v. City of Minneapolis, 437 N.W.2d 712, 715 (Minn. App. 1988).

 

            Here, Mr. Fields has not come forward to dispute any of the facts that form the basis for the Department’s position.  The Department, on the other hand, has submitted reliable evidence to support the existence of those facts, and those facts will be taken as true for purposes of the Department’s motion for summary disposition.

 

 

Underlying Facts

 

            The affidavits and documentary evidence submitted by the Department established the following uncontroverted facts:

 

            Mr. Fields was employed as a public employee and member of the direct care staff at the Minnesota Veterans Home - Minneapolis (hereinafter “Veterans Home”).  During his employment, the Veterans Home initiated a background investigation of Mr. Fields, as required by Minn. Stat. § 144.057 (1996)[2].  On October 24, 1996, DHS notified Mr. Fields that a report from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (hereinafter “BCA”) indicated that he had been arrested on May 22, 1996, on felony drug charges.  Because the BCA report did not reveal the disposition of the arrest, Mr. Fields was required to submit official documentation of the disposition of the arrest within 30 days after receipt of the October 24, 1996, notification.  Mr. Fields failed to submit the required information.  Because of that failure, the Department notified both Mr. Field and the Veterans Home on February 6, 1997, that he was disqualified from being employed in a position allowing direct contact with persons receiving services from programs licensed by the Department and DHS, which included his position at the Veterans Home.

 

            On March 3 and 10, 1997, DHS received information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that Mr. Fields had pleaded guilty to a felony drug charge on February 11, 1997 in Dakota County District Court.  According to the official records of that Court, Mr. Fields pleaded guilty to controlled substance crime in the second degree, which is a felony.  Minn. Stat. § 152.022.  He was sentenced to 270 days in the Dakota County Jail, placed on probation for 20 years, and fined $6,025.00.

 

            By letter dated March 12, 1997, the Department indicated to Mr. Fields that he could request reconsideration of his disqualification by completing a questionnaire and submitting it to the Department.  The Department received such a request and questionnaire from Mr. Fields on March 24, 1997.  By letter dated March 31, 1997, and addressed to both Mr. Fields and the Veterans Home, the Department denied his request for reconsideration and prohibited him from providing direct contact services for residents at the Veterans Home because of the recency of his criminal offense and the lack of evidence of rehabilitation.  It is the Department’s disqualification which Mr. Fields, by letter dated April 30, 1997, seeks to set aside by initiating this contested case proceeding pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 245A.04, subd. 3c.

 

 

Applicable Law

 

            In order to protect the health, safety, and rights of children and adults served by programs and facilities licensed by the Department, Minn. Stat. § 245.04, subd. 3, empowers the Commissioner to adopt licensure rules setting out the procedures for conducting background studies and for ordering the disqualification of individuals who provide direct care to those children and adults.  Minn. R. 9543.3070, subp. 1(A)(60) provides that the Department must disqualify an individual from programs serving those children and adults if that individual has been convicted of controlled substance crime in the second degree in violation of Minn. Stat. § 152.022.  Even a guilty plea to a felony drug charge that may not ultimately result in a judgment of conviction is sufficient to support disqualification under that rule.  Dozier v. Commissioner of Human Services, 547 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. App. 1996).  Here, there actually was a judgment of conviction for the felony drug charge.  (Exhibit 7 attached to the Affidavit of Darren Dejong)

 

            An individual’s disqualification may be set aside upon a showing that the information relied upon by the Department was incorrect or that he or she does not pose a risk of harm to persons served by a licensed program.  Minn. Stat. § 245A.04, sub, 3b, and Minn. R. 9543.3080, subp. 3.  The burden is on the licensed individual to show that he or she does not pose a risk of such harm.  Minn. R. 9543.3080, subp. 1(B).  In determining whether or not an individual does pose that risk,

 

the commissioner shall consider the consequences of the event or events that lead to disqualification, whether there is more than one disqualifying event, the vulnerability of the victim at the time of the event, the time elapsed without a repeat of the same or similar event, documentation of successful completion by the individual studied of training or rehabilitation pertinent to the event, and any other information relevant to reconsideration.  In reviewing a disqualification under this section, the commissioner shall give preeminent weight to the safety of each person to be served by the license holder or applicant over the interests of the license holder or applicant.

 

Minn. Stat. § 245A.04, subd. 3b(b).  Here, Mr. Fields submitted a completed questionnaire containing information supporting his belief that he did not pose a risk of harm to children and adults served by programs licensed by the Department.  (Exhibit 6 attached to the Affidavit of Linda Sutherland (hereinafter “Exhibit 6”))  Nevertheless, the Department declined to set aside Mr. Fields’ disqualification after determining that he did, in fact, pose such risk because of the recency of his offense and lack of evidence of his rehabilitation.  (Exhibit 4 attached to the Affidavit of Linda Sutherland)

 

            The Department’s conclusion and decision were based on credible evidence in the administrative record that less than ten months had elapsed since the date of Mr. Fields’ arrest.  Moreover, Mr. Fields’ account of his arrest was wholly inconsistent with the accounts of the undercover police officers who observed, interacted with, and arrested him on the charges that resulted in his conviction.  Mr. Fields considered his offense to have been a “victimless crime.”  (Exhibit 6)  The Administrative Law Judge also notes from Exhibit 6 that even after pleading guilty and being convicted of his offense, Mr. Fields still continued to deny responsibility for any wrongdoing on his part.  This failure to accept responsibility for the consequences of his actions is significant and relevant to the question of whether he poses a risk of harm to children and adults served by programs licensed by the Department.  Evidence that an offense was recent and lack of evidence of rehabilitation constitute substantial evidence in the record sufficient to support a decision by the Department not to set aside a disqualification.  Dozier, supra, 547 N.W.2d at 396.

 

            In view of the foregoing and after viewing the evidence submitted by the Department in the light most favorable to Mr. Fields, he has failed, as a matter of law, to prove that he did not pose a risk to persons served by programs licensed by the Department.  It is for these reasons that the Department’s motion for summary disposition should be granted and that Mr. Fields’ petition to set aside his disqualification should be dismissed.

 

 

B. H. J.