# Spray v. Board of Medical Examiners

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · April 20, 1981 · 51 Or. App. 773

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1113930

## Case

- **Full name:** SPRAY, Petitioner, v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** April 20, 1981
- **Citations:** 51 Or. App. 773; 627 P.2d 25; 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2445
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Gillette
- **Judges:** Gillette, Roberts, Campbell
- **Cited by:** 11 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/1113930

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that expert testimony determines the standard of conduct for unprofessional conduct and that, where expert witnesses disagree as to adequacy or appropriateness of treatment, the court reviews the board’s findings based on that testimony for substantial evidence

## Opinion text

*775
GILLETTE, P. J.
Both parties have petitioned for reconsideration of our decision in
Spray v. Bd. of Medical Examiners,
50 Or App 311 , 624 P2d 125 (1981). Rule 10.10, Rules of Appellate Procedure. The petition of petitioner Spray is denied. The petition of respondent Board of Medical Examiners (Board) is granted, and our former opinion is modified in the manner described below.
In our opinion in
Spray, 50
Or App at 326-329, we held that the Board’s meeting to decide Dr. Spray’s case should have been open to the public. That was error. ORS 192.690 provides, in pertinent part,
"(1) [The Open Meetings Law] shall not apply to
deliberations
* * * of state agencies conducting hearings on contested cases in accordance with the provisions of [the Administrative Procedures Act], the review of the Workers’ Compensation Board of similar hearings on contested cases, or to any judical proceeding.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Chir former opinion is modified accordingly. In all other respects, our former opinion is affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1113930. Public record. Not legal advice.