The opinion
ACCEPTED
03-14-00390-CV
3711863
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
1/9/2015 11:54:29 AM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
NO. 03-14-00390-CV
____________________________________________________________
FILED IN
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 3rd COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS
AT AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/9/2015 11:54:29 AM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
____________________________________________________________
Clerk
CHARLES P. AKIN, D.D.S.,
Appellant
v.
TEXAS STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS,
Appellee
____________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 200th Judicial District Court
Of Travis County, Texas
The Honorable Orlinda Naranjo Presiding
____________________________________________________________
APPELLANT CHARLES P. AKIN, D.D.S.’S REPLY BRIEF
____________________________________________________________
Mark J. Hanna
State Bar No. 08919500
Robert M. Anderton
State Bar No. 00795223
900 Congress Avenue, Suite 250
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 477-6200
Facsimile: (512) 477-1188
Jon M. Smith
State Bar No. 18630750
3305 Northland Drive, Suite 500
Austin, Texas 78731
Telephone: (512) 371-1006
Facsimile: (512) 476-6685
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appellant Charles P. Akin, D.D.S.’s Reply Brief – Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ………………………………………………………3
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL……………………………………..5
REFERENCE TO THE PARTIES AND RECORD ……………………………6
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT……………………………………………...7
ARGUMENT ………………………………………………………………………7
CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………….12
PRAYER …………………………………………………………………………13
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ……………………………………………14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ………………………………………………….14
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appellant Charles P. Akin, D.D.S.’s Reply Brief – Page 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES PAGE
Chalifoux v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners,
No. 03-05-00320-CV, 2006 WL 3196461
(Tex. App.—Austin 2006, pet. denied)(mem.Op.) ………………………...7,11
Dental Examiners v. Neeley, 574 S.W.2d 244, 245
(Tex. App.—Austin 1978, no writ)……………………………………………..12
Kittman v. State Board of Pharmacy of Texas,
607 S.W.2d 26, 29 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1980, no writ)………………………..12
Korndorffer v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners,
460 S.W.2d 879 (Tex. 1970)…………………………………………………...12
Texas State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs v. McClellan,
307 S.W.2d 317, 320 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston 1957,
writ ref’d n.r.e.)……………………………………………………………….11,12
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appellant Charles P. Akin, D.D.S.’s Reply Brief – Page 3
NO. 03-14-00390-CV
____________________________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AUSTIN, TEXAS
____________________________________________________________
CHARLES P. AKIN, D.D.S.,
Appellant
v.
TEXAS STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS,
Appellee
____________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 200th Judicial District Court
Of Travis County, Texas
The Honorable Orlinda Naranjo Presiding
____________________________________________________________
APPELLANT CHARLES P. AKIN, D.D.S.’S REPLY BRIEF
____________________________________________________________
Mark J. Hanna
State Bar No. 08919500
Robert M. Anderton
State Bar No. 00795223
900 Congress Avenue, Suite 250
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 477-6200
Facsimile: (512) 477-1188
Jon M. Smith
State Bar No. 18630750
3305 Northland Drive, Suite 500
Austin, Texas 78731
Telephone: (512) 371-1006
Facsimile: (512) 476-6685
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appellant Charles P. Akin, D.D.S.’s Reply Brief – Page 4
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Appellant: Charles P. Akin, D.D.S.
Appellant’s Counsel: Robert M. Anderton
State Bar No. 00795223
Mark J. Hanna
State Bar No. 08919500
900 Congress Avenue, Suite 250
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 477-6200
Facsimile: (512) 477-1188
Jon M. Smith
State Bar No. 18630750
3305 Northland Drive
Suite 500
Austin, Texas 78731
Telephone: (512) 371-1006
Facsimile: (512) 476-6685
Appellee: Texas State Board of Dental Examiners
Appellee’s Counsel: Mr. Harold J. Liller
State Bar No. 24029689
Assistant Attorney General
Administrative Law Division
Office of the Texas Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Telephone: (512) 475-4300
Facsimile: (512) 320-0167
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appellant Charles P. Akin, D.D.S.’s Reply Brief – Page 5
REFERENCE TO THE PARTIES
Appellant will refer to Appellant, Charles P. Akin, D.D.S., as “Dr. Akin”
and Appellee, the Texas State Board of Dental Examiners, as “the Board.”
REFERENCE TO THE RECORD
Reference Meaning
A.R. Administrative Record Tab ___
C.R. Clerk’s Record at page ___
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appellant Charles P. Akin, D.D.S.’s Reply Brief – Page 6
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE THIRD COURT OF
APPEALS:
Appellant, Charles P. Akin, D.D.S., files this reply brief and would
show as follows:
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The purpose of this brief is to address two specific issues raised in
the Board’s brief: (1) The Board’s misstatement of the facts about the
relationship between Dr. Akin wearing a nametag and accepting and
depositing checks; and (2) The Board’s misplaced reliance on the
Chalifoux1 case. As the remaining issues have been thoroughly briefed in
Dr. Akin’s original brief, this reply brief will be limited to those two issues.
ARGUMENT
The Board incorrectly claims in its brief that Dr. Akin accepted and
deposited checks from patients while wearing a nametag stating that he
was a dentist. The Board also improperly relies on the Chalifoux case to
support its position that it was correct to withhold Dr. Akin’s dental license.
As the following paragraphs illustrate, both of these positions are flawed.
1Chalifoux v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, No. 03-05-00320-CV, 2006 WL 3196461 (Tex.
App.—Austin 2006, pet. denied)(mem. Op.).
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appellant Charles P. Akin, D.D.S.’s Reply Brief – Page 7
There is No Evidence that Dr. Akin Accepted Checks While Wearing a
Nametag
On page 3 of its brief, the Board states as follows:
Upon his release from prison, Appellant began working at
various dental offices, and, at some point, he began wearing a
nametag evidencing that he was “DDS, Retired.” Appellant’s
representations clearly had a direct or indirect effect on his
public perception. While working at a dental office and wearing
this nametag, Appellant accepted and deposited checks from
patients for dental services into his personal account.
This statement is contrary to the testimony given at the hearing in this
case. Dr. Akin testified that he helped manage the office at the Denture
Shop in Dripping Springs. (AR 12, 18:2-7; 56:22-58:3) He further testified
that while working there he was visited by a dental investigator and he was
wearing the nametag that stated, “Charles P. Akin, Office Manager, D.D.S.
Retired.” (AR 12, 18:8-16; 41:9-25) The only evidence about Dr. Akin
wearing a nametag is that he did so in the Dripping Springs Denture Shop
office. There is no evidence that he wore the nametag at any other
location.
There is evidence of another Denture Shop location on Burnet Road.
(AR 12, 17:8-10) The corporate documents offered as exhibits by the
Board show that Charles P. Akin, D.D.S., P.C. obtained an assumed name
certificate for the name “Denture Shop.” (AR 11, RX 2) It also indicates
that on May 16, 1997 the registered office of the professional corporation
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appellant Charles P. Akin, D.D.S.’s Reply Brief – Page 8
was changed from 1600 West 35th Street to 5020 Burnet Road. (AR 11, RX
2) The complaint upon which the Board relies to support its claim that Dr.
Akin improperly accepted a check references dental work performed at
5020 Burnet Road. (AR 11, RX 5) Dr. Akin’s testimony regarding the
acceptance of the check references the Burnet Road office. (AR 12, 30:17-
32:22; AR 11, RX4) All of the evidence regarding the acceptance of
checks relates to the Burnet Road office. There is no evidence regarding
any checks submitted at the Dripping Springs location.
Wayne Langham distinguished between the Burnet Road and
Dripping Springs locations in his testimony. (AR 12, 73:12-74:5) But when
Dr. Akin attempted to clarify between the Burnet Road and Dripping
Springs offices, counsel for the Board attempted to cloud the issue.
Q: Isn’t that what you just said, you told people you were D.D.S.
and retired and you had a badge that said you were D.D.S.
retired?
A: Are we talking about Dr. Herron on Burnet Road, or are we
talking about Dripping Springs?
Q: I’m talking about you Dr. Akin. It’s all about you today.
A: Okay.
(AR 12, 62:8-15)
Q: But the patient wrote a check to you, for Dr. Akin, did she
not?
A: You’re kind of jumping from one office to the other.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appellant Charles P. Akin, D.D.S.’s Reply Brief – Page 9
Q: I’m trying to get you to nail down –
A: What patient?
Q: Ms. Fisher.
A: Ms. Fisher. Well, I think –
Q: Wrote a check to you, for Dr. Akin, did she not?
A: We’ve already been through that. And, yes, ma’am, there
was a check.
Q: And you were – you wear a badge calling yourself a
D.D.S.—
A: I did not wear a badge at that time.
Q: But you did later?
A: A couple years later, I guess, or a year and a half. I don’t
know what the date is when I got the badge.
(AR 12, 64:10-65:3)
Interestingly, the Administrative Law Judge was able to distinguish
between the wearing of the nametag in the Dripping Springs office and the
issue with the checks at the Burnet Road office. (AR 17, pp. 4-7) There is
nothing in the ALJ’s decision to indicate that one issue is related to the
other.
The Board’s statement that “While working at a dental office and
wearing this nametag, Appellant accepted and deposited checks..” is an
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appellant Charles P. Akin, D.D.S.’s Reply Brief – Page 10
incorrect statement of fact and is an attempt to mislead the court. Because
this statement is false, the Board’s argument that Dr. Akin’s wearing the
nametag convinced patients to write checks to him fails.
The Board’s Reliance on the Chalifoux case is Misplaced
On page 14 of its brief the Board cites the unpublished Chalifoux
case for the proposition that the Board is not required to comply with
criminal standards. But that quote from the Chalifoux case misses the
point.
The Texas Medical Board filed a formal complaint against Dr.
Chalifoux claiming that his treatment of 13 patients fell below the accepted
standard of care and constituted unprofessional or dishonorable conduct.
Chalifoux at 4. The ALJ found that Dr. Chalifoux’s treatment of three of the
patients was substandard and the Board revoked his license. Id. at 10.
On appeal, Dr. Chalifoux cited the McClellan2 case for the proposition
that a formal complaint by the Medical Board must have the certainty of a
criminal indictment. Id. at 17. The court disagreed stating that the Board’s
complaint had been sufficiently detailed to put Dr. Chalifoux on notice of the
substance of the claim. Id. at 17-18. The Chalifoux case is not applicable
to this case.
2 Texas State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs v. McClellan, 307 S.W.2d 317, 320 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston 1957, writ
ref’d n.r.e.)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appellant Charles P. Akin, D.D.S.’s Reply Brief – Page 11
Dr. Akin does not complain in this case that the Board’s complaint
against him was not sufficiently detailed to put him on notice of its basis.
Instead, Dr. Akin has cited the McClellan, Korndorffer 3 , Kittman 4 and
Neeley5 cases for the proposition that the Board must prove its allegations
in order to support the penalty that it proposes. Dr. Akin has fully analyzed
each of these published opinions in his first brief and they still support the
position that while the Board has presented piecemeal evidence of the
violations that it claims, it has not presented evidence in support of each
element of the violations that it claims. There is evidence that Dr. Akin
wore a nametag, but no information that it misled anyone. There is
evidence that Dr. Akin accepted and deposited two checks, but not
evidence that he did so in exchange for any dental services. Because of
this lack of evidence, the Board’s complaints fail.
CONCLUSION
The Board has misstated the facts attempting to relate Dr. Akin’s
wearing of the nametag with his receipt of checks. It has also
misinterpreted the law relating to its duty to prove its complaints against Dr.
3 Korndorffer v. Texas State Board of Medical Examiners, 460 S.W.2d 879 (Tex. 1970)
4 Kittman v. State Board of Pharmacy of Texas, 607 S.W.2d 26, 29 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1980, no writ)
5 Dental Examiners v. Neeley, 574 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Tex. App.—Austin 1978, no writ)
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appellant Charles P. Akin, D.D.S.’s Reply Brief – Page 12
Akin. As a result, the Trial Court erred when it affirmed the Board’s
decision not to license Dr. Akin.
PRAYER
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, Appellant prays that this Court
reverse the trial court’s final judgment, reverse the decision of the Board,
and order that Appellant’s application for licensure be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF HANNA & ANDERTON
By:_____________________________
Mark J. Hanna
State Bar No. 08919500
Robert M. Anderton
State Bar No. 00795223
900 Congress Avenue, Suite 250
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 477-6200
Facsimile: (512) 477-1188
Jon M. Smith
State Bar No. 18630750
3305 Northland Drive, Suite 500
Austin, Texas 78731
Telephone: (512) 371-1006
Facsimile: (512) 476-6685
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appellant Charles P. Akin, D.D.S.’s Reply Brief – Page 13
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I, Mark J. Hanna, do hereby certify that the Appellant’s Brief contains
2,004 words, according to the word count of the computer program used to
prepare it, in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3).
________________________________
MARK J. HANNA
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mark J. Hanna, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was delivered to all attorneys of record as listed below
via facsimile on January 9, 2015.
Mr. Harold J. Liller
Assistant Attorney General
Administrative Law Division
Post Office Box 12548
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Via Facsimile (512) 320-0167
________________________________
MARK J. HANNA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Appellant Charles P. Akin, D.D.S.’s Reply Brief – Page 14