Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs in case of In the Matter of the Suspension or Revocation of Chiropractic License Number DC-000924-L, issued March 13, 1959, to William P. Flickinger, D.C., dated January 7, 1982.
Bradley Krosnoff, with him Arthur A. Kusic, Kusic and Lappas, P.C., for petitioner.
Kenneth E. Brody, with him Michael J. McCaney, Jr., Assistant Counsel, and David F. Phifer, Chief Counsel, for respondents.
Judges Rogers, Blatt and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
The petitioner, a chiropractor, has petitioned us to review the revocation of his professional license by the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) under Section 16(4) of the Chiropractic Registration Act of 1951, Act of August 10, 1951, P.L. 1182, as amended, 63 P.S. § 616(4) which provides:
The board, by a majority vote thereof, may refuse to grant and may suspend or revoke a license or a registration to any applicant for the following reasons:
(4) Gross incompetency, negligence or misconduct in carrying on of such profession.
The petitioner was charged with committing "gross misconduct in carrying on his profession by sexually harassing his fellow employees and those employed by him as well as taking sexual liberties with his patients, some of whom were children, and his staff, through a repeated and continued course of conduct."
The petitioner was licensed as a chiropractor in 1959. On July 5, 1978, he began working at the Herd Chiropractic Clinic in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. A complaint was filed with the Commissioner of Professional and Occupational Affairs by another chiropractor at Herd describing incidents involving the petitioner and his patients and other Herd employees occurring in the fall of 1978 and early 1979. Other persons, both employees and patients, also filed complaints against the petitioner making similar allegations.
As noted, the Board after hearings revoked the petitioner's license.
The petitioner presents four issues: 1) whether the Board's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence; 2) whether the Board improperly admitted into evidence and relied on the testimony of staff employees concerning events outside of the doctor-patient relationship; 3) whether the Board was biased, resulting in a denial of a fair hearing; and, 4) whether the petitioner's ...