Disciplinary action against a doctor for violating MCL 333.16221(a); Whether the disciplinary subcommittee’s (DSC) decision was arbitrary & capricious, or supported by competent, material, & substantial evidence; DSC discretion; Credibility determinations; Administrative law judge (ALJ)

The court held that the DSC’s decision to discipline respondent-doctor was not arbitrary and capricious, and was adequately supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence. The DSC found respondent was subject to disciplinary action under MCL 333.16221(a) based on her drug prescribing practices. On appeal, the court rejected respondent’s argument that the DSC’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, and was not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence. The “DSC identified ample evidence in the record supporting its decision. [It] accepted the ALJ’s findings of fact as ‘a reiteration and summary of the testimony and evidence presented at the administrative hearing,’ then specifically identified the facts supporting its decision that petitioner had established grounds for discipline under MCL 333.16221(a). That decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious, and the reasoning path of the DSC is apparent from its opinion and supported by specifically identified evidence.” The court also rejected respondent’s claim that the ALJ’s decision must be afforded great deference. She essentially argued “that the DSC should have made the same weight and credibility determinations regarding the evidence that the ALJ apparently did. The DSC, however, was not bound by the determinations of the ALJ and was within its discretion in determining whether a preponderance of the evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusions.” It also noted that it “will not reverse an administrative action by resolving a dispute regarding the credibility of the evidence.” Affirmed.