 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Standards Commission v. Valentine8/27/2004
] was returning to the school after running an errand when a student nearly crashed into car. The student was driving without permission during school hours, with several other student passengers. [Valentine], shaken and scared at having almost been hit, got out of his car and yelled at the student regarding his driving. He took the student's keys and told him to meet him at his teacher's office. [Valentine] told the student "if you had hit me, I would have whipped your ass." [Valentine] never made any aggressive motions or moves towards the student.
In addition to these facts, Valentine testified that, at the time of the altercations, he was having emotional anger problems resulting in outbursts. He then sought out both medication and counseling to prevent the recurrence of these "quick temper outburst ." Valentine admitted that these outbursts created a serious problem.
After setting forth its findings of fact, the ALJ concluded: OSAH Rule 616-1-2.07 (1) provides that the referring agency shall bear the burden of persuasion and going forward with the evidence in this matter. Additionally, the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. OSAH Rule 616-1-2-.21 (4). In this proceeding, the PSC has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that [Valentine] has violated its Code of Ethics. Ga. Bd. of Dentistry v. Pence. The PSC has met this burden.
Based on certain mitigating factors, however, including family difficulties and Valentine's show of remorse, the ALJ then reduced Valentine's suspension to five days with credit for the five days he had previously served in connection with his earlier reprimand.
The ALJ's decision was subsequently sent to the PSC for review and a hearing prior to entering its final decision on Valentine's case. At this hearing, Valentine did not challenge and explicitly accepted the ALJ's finding that he had violated the PSC's Code of Ethics, and he argued that the PSC should uphold the ALJ's decision "as appropriate and just under the facts and circumstances of this case."
After arguments from the parties which, given Valentine's admission that he violated the Code of Ethics, were limited to punishment issues, the PSC decided to accept and adopt the ALJ's findings of fact. The PSC also accepted the ALJ's conclusions of law, except that it found that Valentine had not shown true remorse. Accepting other mitigating factors found by the ALJ, however, the PSC reduced its initial recommendation and suspended Valentine's teaching certificate for a period of six months rather than a year.
Valentine next appealed the PSC's final decision to the superior court pursuant to OCGA § 50-13-19. In Valentine's petition to the superior court for judicial review, once again, he did not challenge the finding by either the ALJ or the PSC that he violated the Code of Ethics. To the contrary, he admitted that his behavior had been unprofessional. His main argument was simply that the PSC had punished him too severely and that the ALJ's decision and punishment in his case should be affirmed.
In his brief supporting his petition to the superior court, Valentine summarized his position as follows:
[Valentine] requests that the Final Decision of a six-month suspension by the be reversed for the following reasons:
1) the Final Decision is made upon unlawful procedure; 2) the agency's Final Decision violated the due process rights of [Valentine] in that a harsher sanction was instituted without legitimate affirmative findings; 3) the agency's decision is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable probative and substantial evidence on the whole record that supports the Initi
Page 1 2 3 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|