The opinion
MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2016 ME 104
Docket: Ken-15-339
Argued: April 7, 2016
Decided: July 12, 2016
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and
HUMPHREY, JJ.
MARC G. MOSHER
v.
STATE HARNESS RACING COMMISSION
HUMPHREY, J.
[¶1] Marc Mosher appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court
(Kennebec County, Mullen, J.) affirming the denial by the State Harness Racing
Commission of his application for licensure as a driver/trainer for horse harness
racing in Maine. The Commission denied his application based on its conclusion
that the reciprocal disciplinary action provision of the harness racing licensing
statute, 8 M.R.S. § 283 (2015), prohibited the issuance of a Maine license because
he had previously been denied a license in New York, despite the fact that New
York had subsequently rescinded that license denial. We conclude that the
Commission erred, vacate the judgment, and remand for further proceedings.
2
I. BACKGROUND
[¶2] The following facts are undisputed. On April 11, 2014, Mosher
applied to the Commission to renew his driver/trainer license.1 On his application,
Mosher indicated that he had been suspended or barred by a racing authority in
New York. In a letter dated May 28, 2014, the Commission informed Mosher that
it was preliminarily denying his application because he had previously submitted
an application to the New York State Racing and Wagering Board that had been
denied in 2011. The Maine Commission quoted title 8 M.R.S. § 283, which
provides:
Reciprocal disciplinary action
The department [of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry] shall
obtain current listings from other jurisdictions of persons in harness
racing occupations regulated by the commission who have been
refused a license or who have had their license revoked or suspended.
The commission shall refuse to license or shall suspend the license of
any person who has been refused a license or who has had that
person’s license revoked or suspended in another jurisdiction until
notification from the jurisdiction that refused to license or suspended
or revoked the license of the person that the person is again eligible
for licensing in that jurisdiction.2
1
The record does not disclose what types of licenses are issued by the State Harness Racing
Commission or provide any information as to the technical differences between or among the various
licenses.
2
The Commission also quoted Chapter 17, Section 21, of the Harness Racing Rules, Penalties of
Other Jurisdictions Enforced, which states, “All penalties imposed by any Racing Commission in any
racing jurisdiction shall be recognized and enforced by this Commission unless application is made for a
hearing before this Commission wherein the applicant must show cause as to why such penalty should not
be enforced against him/her in this state.”
3
[¶3] On June 4, 2014, Mosher’s counsel sent the Commission a letter asking
it to reconsider the preliminary denial and enclosing a letter to Mosher from the
New York State Gaming Commission, the successor agency to the New York State
Racing and Wagering Board, dated March 25, 2014, which states:
Your appeal of the New York State Gaming Commission’s
denial on December 16, 2011 of your New York 2011 groom license
application has been pending for a substantial time, as you know. An
appeal hearing has been scheduled, adjourned, rescheduled and
cancelled on multiple occasions.
The Commission has determined, in light of this and the
lengthy passage of time since you last applied to participate in New
York racing, simply to rescind its license denial and to dismiss your
appeal.
Please be advised that this administrative action . . . shall not
prevent the Commission from taking action against you for any
misconduct subsequent to such license denial, and does not infer or
imply the future outcome with respect to any newly filed occupational
license application.
(Emphasis added.)
[¶4] In a letter dated July 7, 2014, the Maine Commission again
preliminarily denied Mosher’s application, citing section 283. Mosher appealed
the preliminary denial and requested a hearing before the Commission.
[¶5] On August 14, 2014, the Commission met in public session to hold a
hearing on Mosher’s application, pursuant to 8 M.R.S. § 279-A (2015) and
Chapter 21 of the Commission rules. The Commission’s Executive Director
testified that, upon receiving Mosher’s application and following normal
4
procedures, he consulted the website of the United States Trotting Association and
learned that New York had denied Mosher’s application for a groom’s license.
The Commission also proffered, and the hearing officer admitted, exhibits showing
that Mosher applied for a groom’s license in New York in 2011 and that his
application was denied. Mosher testified that his appeal of this decision led to a
protracted appeal process and, eventually, the March 25, 2014, letter rescinding the
license denial and dismissing the appeal.
[¶6] Mosher also testified to the following. His license as a driver/trainer
was suspended in New York for two years in 2001 after he failed to report the
death of a horse. He never re-applied as a driver/trainer in New York. In 2004, he
became licensed as a groom in New York. In 2006, he was caught improperly
transferring medication from a veterinarian to a trainer and was convicted of a
misdemeanor. His groom’s license was not suspended based on this incident, but
he did not renew the license in New York. He applied for re-licensure as a groom
in 2011.3 Despite this testimony, the Commission’s deliberations focused on the
2011 license denial rather than on any other aspects of Mosher’s character or
licensing history.
3
Neither Mosher nor the Commission presented any evidence concerning the standards and
procedures governing licensure and suspension of grooms and driver/trainers in New York.
5
[¶7] The quorum of Commissioners in attendance unanimously voted to
deny Mosher’s application. In an order dated August 29, 2014, the Commission
found (1) that Mosher “was refused licensing by the State of New York,” and
(2) that he “did not introduce evidence sufficient to demonstrate that he is or was
eligible for licensing in the State of New York subsequent to their
December 16, 2011 refusal to license him.” The Commission stated, “Once
refused a license an applicant must affirmatively show that they are or were
subsequently eligible to be licensed by the entity that refused to license them,”
even if the license refusal subsequently “went away.” Therefore, the Commission
concluded, “[b]ased on the New York State license refusal and the insufficiency of
evidence showing that [Mosher] has been found eligible to be licensed in the State
of New York, licensing under [§ 283] is not permissible.” Mosher filed a timely
appeal with the Superior Court pursuant to Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 80C,
and the court upheld the Commission’s decision. Mosher timely appealed to us.
II. DISCUSSION
[¶8] We review the Commission’s decision directly, without deference to
the Superior Court’s ruling. See Anderson v. Me. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys.,
2009 ME 134, ¶ 2, 985 A.2d 501. “In interpreting a statute, our single goal is to
give effect to the Legislature’s intent in enacting the statute.” Dickau v. Vt. Mut.
Ins. Co., 2014 ME 158, ¶ 19, 107 A.3d 621. Although we ordinarily defer to an
6
agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers, see Passadumkeag Mountain
Friends v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 2014 ME 116, ¶ 12, 102 A.3d 1181, we must always
consider whether a given interpretation is consistent with the legislative intent and
avoids absurd, illogical, or inconsistent results, see FPL Energy Me. Hydro LLC v.
Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 2007 ME 97, ¶ 12, 926 A.2d 1197.
[¶9] Section 283’s plain language, as well as the legislative history,
indicates the Legislature’s intent that the Commission treat an applicant similarly
to how he or she has been treated by other jurisdictions. See Black’s Law
Dictionary 1461 (10th ed. 2014) (defining “reciprocal” as “1. Directed by each
toward the other or others; MUTUAL . . . 3. Corresponding; equivalent”); see also
Testimony of Catharine Damren, Maine Association of Agricultural Fairs, on L.D.
622 before the Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and
Forestry (Mar. 21, 2013) (stating that “[t]hose persons who are suspended or
barred from participation [in harness racing] by another jurisdiction should not be
licensed to participate in Maine until such time as all suspensions and revocations
are cleared or served to the satisfaction of the jurisdiction where the suspension or
revocation was issued”).
[¶10] The Commission acknowledged the March 25, 2014, letter and did
not dispute that the New York Commission’s decision to rescind its license denial
7
meant that the “license refusal went away.”4 In this light, the Commission’s
interpretation that the licensing statute requires it to deny a license application
based on a license denial in another jurisdiction that has been subsequently
rescinded is contrary to the legislative intent of ensuring that an applicant is treated
similarly in all jurisdictions.
[¶11] Because the Commission appears to have relied entirely on New
York’s rescinded denial, which we have determined cannot form the basis for its
licensing decision, we must vacate the decision and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
The entry is:
Judgment vacated. Remanded to the Superior
Court with instructions to vacate the Commission’s
decision and remand to the Commission for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On the briefs:
William H. Childs, Esq., Childs, Rundlett, Fifield & Altshuler,
LLC, Portland, for appellant Marc G. Mosher
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Ronald O. Guay, Asst.
Atty. Gen., Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for
appellee State Harness Racing Commission
4
Because we discern no functional difference between a “license refusal” and a “license denial” in the
present context, we use the terms interchangeably, as did the parties.
8
At oral argument:
William H. Childs, Esq., for appellant Marc G. Mosher
Ronald O. Guay, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee State Harness
Racing Commission
Kennebec County Superior Court docket number AP-2014-69
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY