CHARLESTON — The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals sided with the West Virginia Board of Dentistry and ruled that it complied with all statutory extension provisions and denied his request for a writ of prohibition.
The Supreme Court found that the board complied with the statutory extension provisions, and the extended period had not expired when Dr. Jose Ravelo filed his petition.
The Supreme Court also determined that Ravelo's concerns did not justify bypassing the regular disciplinary process and that he had other adequate means of relief, such as judicial review of the board's final decision.
The court denied Ravelo's request for a writ of prohibition, concluding that his due process rights had not been violated and that the case did not present issues of first impression regarding statutory or constitutional interpretations.
Chief Justice Tim Armstead authored the majority opinion. Justice Beth Walker recused herself from the decision and Judge Gregory L. Howard Jr. listened in her pace. Justice Haley Bunn concurred and authored a concurring opinion. Justice Bill Wooton and Howard dissented.
Ravelo was seeking a writ of prohibition to stop the West Virginia Board of Dentistry from continuing its investigation and potential disciplinary action regarding his treatment of a patient, F.S., in 2021.
Ravelo argued the board exceeded the statutory time limit for resolving disciplinary actions and violated his due process rights.
Ravelo, a board-certified oral surgeon, treated the 74-year-old patient, who was on Plavix, which is a blood thinner, and during the surgery to treat an infection, Ravelo did not instruct F.S. to stop taking Plavix.
Post-surgery, F.S. experienced severe complications, including significant swelling and bleeding, leading to a nine-day hospital stay with five days on a ventilator.
Ravelo self-reported the incident to the board, although he did not believe it met the criteria of a "life-threatening occurrence" or "serious injury" as per the West Virginia Code.
The board reviewed the case and expressed concerns about Ravelo's failure to consult F.S.'s physician and to advise stopping Plavix before surgery.
The board suspected that Ravelo's actions may have violated the standard of care and Ravelo responded with supporting evidence, including medical literature and an expert report defending his decision.
The board's investigation continued beyond the initial statutory time frame, but an extension was agreed upon, extending the deadline to July 20, 2024. Ravelo filed for a writ of prohibition in July 2023, arguing that the board's prolonged investigation was unlawful and prejudicial.
The court found that the board complied with the statutory extension provisions, and the extended period had not expired when Ravelo filed his petition.
Bunn wrote in her concurring opinion that while she agreed with the majority on the facts that the West Virginia Board of Dentistry did not violate statutory time limits or Ravelo’s constitutional due process rights in this case, she wanted to write separately regarding potential due process violations if the Board, acting as both judge and complainant, repeatedly extends deadlines.
This practice, she writes, could unreasonably delay proceedings and infringe on constitutional rights, despite compliance with statutory timelines.
"While I agree with the majority that the facts of this case do not rise to a violation of Dr. Ravelo’s constitutional due process rights, the Board must be reminded that it cannot grant extension after extension to a complainant, especially when it is itself the complainant, nor can it give unreasonably lengthy extensions," Bunn wrote.
Wooton dissented and Howard joined him in the dissenting opinion. In their dissent, the pair noted that the board's delay in concluding the case, extending the statutory 18-month period to over three years, violated due process.
The board's actions—initiating an investigation without a complaint, slow-walking the process and granting itself extensions—breach statutory requirements and cause prejudice to Ravelo, affecting his professional and emotional well-being, the judges noted.
The judges wrote that extraordinary relief is warranted in this case because of the board's actions and because of that, they dissent.
Ravelo was represented by Edward C. Martin of Flaherty Sensabaugh Bonasso in Charleston and Justin C. Withrow and Paul M. Flannery of Flannery Georgalis in Cleveland, Ohio.
The West Virginia Board of Dentistry was represented by Attorney General Patrick Morrisey Solicitor General Lindsay See and Assistant Attorney General Joanne Vella.
Attorneys for the petitioner declined to comment on the decision.
Attorneys for the respondent did not respond to requests for comment.
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 23-431
