Administrative Hearing Commission

Editor:
Richard Maseles, Esquire

Real estate appraiser entitled to probation-free certification because she was currently entitled to certification, due to her improved work product.  Blaylock v. Missouri Real Estate Appraisers Comm’n, No. 12-1254 RA (Mo. AHC, July 23, 2013), Winn, C. 

As part of her application for certification as a residential real estate appraiser, Blaylock submitted two appraisal reports for review.  The MREAC found errors in her appraisals, and granted her application for certification on a probated basis because the reports did not satisfy the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (“USPAP”). Blaylock appealed MREACs decision. 

Decision:
Blaylock was issued a license free from probation.  The commission held that Blaylock’s performance on the two submitted appraisals constituted grounds for denial (or probation) of licensure. However, the commission exercised its discretion and granted her a certification free from probation, because Blaylock had, since the time of the two submitted appraisals, completed almost 200 more appraisals, had taken additional classes in USPAP standards, and her later appraisals reflected that she had improved. Further, some of MREAC’s probationary terms, such as ones regarding drug law violations and allowing unannounced visits from MREAC representatives, were inapplicable.


Nurse’s action for attorney’s fees for successful defense against disciplinary action was not awarded, because discipline case was substantially justified. Jackson v. State Bd. of Nursing, No. 12-1849 AF (Mo. AHC, Aug. 1, 2013), Dandamudi, C.

Jackson administered a drug to a patient sublingually even though she noticed a discharge coming from the patient’s mouth.  Previously, the board had sought to discipline Jackson’s license, but the commission found in Jackson’s favor.  Then, Jackson brought this action for attorney’s fees.

Decision:
Jackson was not entitled to attorney’s fees and expenses.  The commission held that the Board was substantially justified in bringing its action against Jackson.  Several witnesses, as well as Jackson, made consistent statements that Jackson had failed to remove fluids from the patient’s mouth before administering medication sublingually. That testimony constituted a clearly reasonable basis for pursuing discipline against Jackson in the underlying case.