Reciprocity Applicant with an Expunged DUI and a Jurisprudence Gap
Dr. Alan Reyes graduated from a CCE-accredited chiropractic college in 2015 and has held an active Alabama license since 2016 with no disciplinary actions. He moved to Atlanta and applied for Georgia licensure by reciprocity. On his Georgia application, the question asks: 'Have you ever been convicted of a crime other than a minor traffic offense?' Dr. Reyes answers 'No.' In fact, in 2015 he was convicted of DUI (first offense), completed a diversion program, and later obtained an expungement under Alabama law. He passed NBCE Parts I–IV but has not taken the Georgia jurisprudence examination. The Board's licensing analyst notes the discrepancy after a background check and schedules an informal interview. Dr. Reyes says he thought expungement meant he could answer 'No' and that the DUI was 'a long time ago.' He has letters of recommendation and 2,000 hours of continuing education.
1. Is Dr. Reyes eligible for licensure by reciprocity? Identify the requirements at issue.
Read the worked answer
Reciprocity or licensure by endorsement is not automatic. The applicant must generally show an active, unrestricted license in another state whose requirements are substantially equivalent to Georgia's, graduation from an accredited chiropractic college, passage of the required national examinations, and any additional examination or interview the Board requires. Dr. Reyes appears to meet the education and NBCE requirements, and his Alabama license is active and clean. The open issues are the Georgia jurisprudence examination and the Board's character-and-fitness review. The Board may require the jurisprudence exam before or after issuing a license, but it cannot simply ignore the requirement. Eligibility therefore turns on completion of the exam and satisfactory resolution of the application discrepancy. The Board has discretion to grant, condition, or deny the license based on the whole record, but it must apply consistent standards and cannot act arbitrarily.
2. How should the Board treat the expunged DUI and the 'No' answer?
Read the worked answer
The Board should separate the underlying 2015 DUI from the accuracy of the application. A single old first-offense DUI, standing alone, is unlikely to permanently disqualify an otherwise qualified applicant, especially with evidence of rehabilitation and a clean practice record. But the application question is broad: it asks about convictions, not only unexpunged convictions. Even where a record has been expunged, a licensing board may lawfully ask about the underlying conduct, and answering 'No' can be treated as a lack of candor. Candor is directly relevant to fitness to practice because licensees must deal honestly with patients, insurers, and the Board. The Board should give Dr. Reyes a chance to explain the expungement advice he received, produce the court records, and show rehabilitation. If the Board finds intentional misrepresentation, it may deny or impose conditions; if it finds a good-faith misunderstanding, it may proceed with licensure after the jurisprudence exam.
3. What process and standards apply if the Board proposes to deny his application?
Read the worked answer
A denial of an initial license application is an agency action that must follow due process. The Board should give Dr. Reyes written notice of the specific grounds, a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel, the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses, and the opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses. The Board must base its decision on the record and apply the statutory qualifications and Board rules, not on unstated suspicion. The standard is whether the applicant has shown the required education, examination performance, good moral character, and fitness. If the Board denies the application, it should issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, and Dr. Reyes may seek judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. Because the DUI is old and the expungement explanation is plausible, the Board should consider whether a condition or probationary license would protect the public without unnecessarily excluding an otherwise qualified applicant.