1977-04-07_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352

Home Browse Search

telling him of his "opportunity to submit written data, views, and arguments with respect to such facts or conduct. " In addition to detailing the specific charges, including the underlying factual basis thereof, the notice also told Dixon that he could appear with or without counsel, present evidence, produce witnesses, cross- examine witnesses, and have subpoenas issued. Thus the prerequisites of the statute were met. Colorado State Board of Medical Examiners v. Palma=, 157 Colo. 40, 400 P.2d 914 (1965) . We also disagree with Dixon' s contention that, because he did not receive notice of the time and place of the hearing at which the Board considered the hearing officer 's opinion, its action violated the mandates of § 24-4-105 (15) , C.R.S. 1973 . That section of the A.P.A. provides : "For the purpose of review by the agency of the initial decision of the hearing officer upon appeal or upon the agency's own motion, the , record shall include all matters constituting the record upon which the decision of the hear- ing officer was based, the rulings upon the pro- posed findings and conclusions, the initial deci- sion of the hearing officer, and any exceptions and briefs filed. The agency may permit oral argument. " (emphasis supplied) The statute does not require that notice of the time and place of the agency review be given. Moreover, it expressly makes discretionary with the Board the presentation of oral argument. Similarly there is no constitutional requirement that the Board personally hear Dixon or other witnesses, Mildner V. Gulotta, 405 F.Supp. 182 (E.D.N.Y. 1975) , aff 'd, U.S. , 96 S.Ct. 1489, 47 L.Ed.2d 751 (1976) . While Dixon was present with counsel at the proceedings before the hearing officer, he did not testify. After the first hearing before the district court which resulted in a remand of the -4-