holding that while administrative agencies are not bound by strict rules of evidence, they "should not act upon evidence which is not admissible, competent, or probative of the facts which it is to determine"
How later courts described this case
- holding that while administrative agencies are not bound by strict rules of evidence, they "should not act upon evidence which is not admissible, competent, or probative of the facts which it is to determine"
- finding that, although hearsay evidence was not properly authenticated by custodian, the board could still consider the evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Wilson, J.,
dissenting. In my view, Assignment of Error No. 2 should be overruled.
The appellant’s conduct may be viola-tive of a rule of the State Dental Board or “of any laws pertaining to the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene,” R.C. 4715.30, or be guilty of “grossly immoral conduct.”
There being some evidence that the appellant would not treat the patient unless the patient signed a release of liability, I do not think the trial court’s finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
I would affirm.