# Connolly v. State of Maine, Bd. Of Soc. Work Licensure > Superior Court of Maine · May 8, 2003 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10807787 ## Case - **Court:** Superior Court of Maine - **Decided:** May 8, 2003 - **Precedential status:** Unpublished - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Judges:** Joyce A. Wheeler - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10807787 ## Opinion text RAE PL SPN bed ve Se STATE OF MAINE gw LISRARY - SUPERIOR COURT re PENOBSCOT, SS. CIVIL DIVISION DOCKET NO. AP-02,14 | JUN LL 2m03 AWM Peal~ 5/8/3002 CAROL CONNOLLY, ) . Petitioner ) FILED & ENTERED ORDER | SUPERIOR COURT ) MAY O08 2003 STATE OF MAINE, BOARD OF ) SOCIAL WORK LICENSURE, _ ) PENOBSCOT COUNTY Respondent ) - Pending before the Court is Carol Connolly’s (the “Petitioner’) appeal from the Board of Social Work Licensure’ (the “Board”) decision on to impose a civil penalty and counseling requirements. For the following reasons the Court denies the Petitioner’s appeal. Background On April 10, 2000, the Board issued a decision that found the Petitioner had twice violated Principle 1.07(b) of the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers.* The Board ordered the Petitioner to pay a $250.00 fine for each violation and further ordered her to undergo remedial consultation every two weeks for a period of one year. On appeal the Law Court, found that substantial evidence in the record supported a the Board issued its Decision and Order on Remand and vacated the $250.00 fine for the unsubstantiated violation. The Board retained the $250.00 fine for the remaining violation and ordered the Petitioner to complete her full term of consultation. * Principle 1.07(b) provides that, “social workers may disclose confidential information when appropriate with valid consent from a client or a person legally authorized to consent on behalf of a client.” The Petitioner claims that the Board abused its discretion, was biased against her, and further that the sanctions are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Law Court has already ruled that the underlying violation is supported by substantial evidence and therefore the Court sees no reason to revisit that issue. After finding a rule violation the Board may, “Impose conditions of probation upon an applicant, license or registrant. Probation may run for such time period as the bureau, office, board or commission determines appropriate. Probation may include conditions...the bureau, office, board or commission determines appropriate.” 10 MLR.S.A. §8003(5)(A-1)(4), and may, “Impose civil penalties of up to $1,500.00 for each violation...” 10 M.R.S.A. §8003(5)(A-1)(3). The sanction in question, certainly not the harshest the Board could have imposed, was within the Board’s discretion. The Board’s decision in this matter reveals that the Board considered “its original decision, the Supreme Judicial Court opinion and written arguments submitted by the parties,” and imposed the sanction because of the Petitioner’s “disclosure of information about a client’s treatment in an August 3, 1998 letter “To Whom it May Concern.” However, the Petitioner refers to various comments Board members made during the hearing on remand, and suggests that those comments indicate bias. The transcript of the hearing on remand is part of the record, however the Court will not “inquire into the mental processes of an administrative decision maker” unless a petitioner is able to establish a prima facie showing of misconduct. Rvan v. Town of Camden, 582 A.2d 973, 975 (Me. 1990). The record before this Court does not support such a showing. The violation is supported by substantial evidence in the record and the sanction the Board imposed is statutorily provided for. Although Board members made comments expressing their frustration and at times questioned their legal authority, the record does not support the conclusion that Board members relied on anything other than evidence in the record when they imposed the sanction.2 The Board’s formal decision specifically States that the Board imposed the sanction because of the Petitioner’s disclosure of information. THE DOCKET ENTRY IS: The Petitioner’s appeal is hereby denied. The clerk is ordered to incorporate this decision into the docket by reference. } in vfigl _ Wi 8 2@s [L pe U pe Superior Court * For example, a judge’s statements during a judicial proceeding will not constitute bias unless they demonstrate a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Rinehart v. Schubel, 2002 ME 53, (13, 794 A.2d 73. Courts have held that “expressions of impatience, dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger" do not constitute bias or prejudice. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1157, 127 LEdda 474 (1994). Date Filed __ 6/27/02 Penobscot Docket No. AP-2002-14 County Action Rule 80C Appeal ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE ANDREW M. MEAD CAROL CONNOLLY vs. STATE OF ‘MAINE’ BOARD OF SOCIAL WORK LICENS Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant’s Attorney Gilbert & Greif Department of the Attorney General P.O Box 2339 6 State House Station ‘Bangor ME 04402-2339 Augusta ME 04333-0006 BY: Arthur J. Greif, Esq. BY: Judith M. Peters, AAG. Date of Entry 6/27/02 Petition for Appellate Review of Final Agency Action filed. Exhibit A : attached, 7/11/02 Appearance and Statement of Position pursuant to 5 MRSA §11005 filed by Judith M Peters, AAG on behalf: off. the: Respondent Maine State. Board of Socia Worker Licensure. 7/25/02 Administrative Record filed by Respondent. 7/26/02 Notice and Briefing Schedule 80C Appeal of Final Agency Actions forwarded to attorneys of record. 8/05/02 Motion for Enlargement of Time to file Respondent's Brief filed. 8/21/02 Volume 2 of the Administrative Record filed by State of Maine. 8/30/02 Petitioner's Motion for Enlargement of the Briefing Schedule Until Such Time as the Complete Record is Filed filed. (Exhibit A, B, & C attached) 9/4/02 File presented to Justice Mead for review. 9/5/02 File returned by Justice Mead, order issued. 9/5/02 For good cause shown, the briefing schedule in this matter is enlarged such that petitioner's brief is to be filed within 40 days of the filing of the complete record with this court from the Maine District Court in Augusta, and respondent's brief is to be filed within 30 days of the filing of petitioner's brief. (Mead, J.) (order signed 9/4/02) Copy forwarded to all attorneys of record. 10/18/02 Received from the Maine District Court, District Seven, Div. Southern Kennebec, Augusta, ME. the complete record docketed as AUG-AD-00~212, including Administrative Record Volumn I and II to supplement the record. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10807787. Public record. Not legal advice.