LILLIAN P. HOLCOMB, PH.D., Respondent-Appellant/Appellant,
STATE OF HAWAI'I, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY, Petitioner-Appellee/Appellee
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT (CIVIL NO. 08-1-423)
On the briefs:
Steven D. Strauss, for Respondent- Appellant/Appellant.
Patrick K. Kelly, Regulated' Industries Complaints Office, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, for Petitioner- Appellee/Appellee.
Nakamura, C.J., Fujise and Leonard, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Respondent-Appellant/Appellant Lillian P. Holcomb, Ph.D. (Holcomb), appeals from the order and judgment, which were entered on July 29, 2009 in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit (Circuit Court),  affirming the suspension of Holcomb's license to practice psychology by Petitioner-Appellee/Appellee State of Hawai'i, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Board of Psychology. Holcomb argues that the Circuit Court violated her due process right to a fundamentally fair hearing because it affirmed: (1) the hearings officer's denial of Holcomb's Motion to Compel Discovery and Produce Respondent's Treatment File; (2) the hearings officer's method of allowing unverified witness testimony; (3) the hearings officer's rejection of Holcomb's expert witness's testimony and the crediting of the testimony of the State's expert witness; and (4) the Board of Psychology's adoption of the hearings officer's findings and conclusions.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised, as well as the relevant statutory and case law, we resolve Holcomb's points of error as follows:
(1) The Circuit Court did not violate Holcomb's due process right to a fundamentally fair hearing by affirming the hearings officer's denial of Holcomb's Motion to Compel Discovery and Produce Respondent's Treatment File, which sought to obtain the complaining patient's full treatment record.
First, Holcomb relies on authorities that require the hearings officer to receive evidence. See, e.g., Desmond v. Admin. Dir. of the Courts, State of Hawai'i, 91 Hawai'i 212, 220, 982 P.2d 346, 354 (1998), overruled on other grounds, 90 Hawai'i 301, 978 P.2d 739 (1998). But these authorities do not, on their face, stand for the proposition that the hearings officer is obligated to gather evidence on behalf of the respondent.
Second, while the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) give the hearings officer in a psychologist license hearing the power to issue subpoenas and to rule on motions, see HAR § 16-201-17, they do not provide for a right to discovery similar to that available to a litigant in a civil suit. Although represented by counsel throughout the administrative proceedings, Holcomb did not request that the hearings officer issue a subpoena. Instead, Holcomb implicitly suggests that the motion to compel was the functional equivalent to a request for a subpoena but Holcomb provides no reasoning or authorities in support of this suggestion. Accordingly, Holcomb failed to avail herself of the procedures provided by the HAR for obtaining the complaining patient's full treatment record and, thus, waived any potential right to additional procedural protections related to her quest to obtain those records. See Dragan v. Connecticut Med. Examining Bd., 613 A.2d 739, 746 (Conn. 1992) (holding that a doctor waived his right of cross-examination in a medical licensing hearing because he did not request the board to subpoena the witness or move the board to strike the testimony on direct examination).
Similarly, given that she could have asked the hearings officer or the director to issue a subpoena, Holcomb's argument that the futility exception to the administrative exhaustion requirement applies is unpersuasive. See, e.g.. In re Doe Children, 105 Hawai'i 38, 60-61, 93 P.3d 1145, 1167-68 (2004) (rejecting a guardian ad litem's contention that the "futility exception" to the exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement applied where there was an administrative process that could have provided the minor with the sought remedy even though the guardian ad litem did not have standing to seek such
Furthermore, the statements of the hearings officer and the Board of Psychology regarding their respective roles in assessing the constitutionality of their own actions did not suggest that they acted arbitrarily or capriciously but, instead, merely noted that courts determine constitutional questions. See generally HOH Corp. v. Motor Vehicle Indus. Licensing Bd., 69 Haw. 135, 142, 736 P.2d 1271, 1275 (1987).
(2) The Circuit Court did not violate Holcomb's due process right to a fundamentally fair hearing by affirming the hearings officer's method of ...