{
  "id": 8359034,
  "name": "S. BERT KING, JAMES WISELY v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF SANITARIAN EXAMINERS; JAMES P. ADAMS, WILLIAM MCQUEEN v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF SANITARIAN EXAMINERS",
  "name_abbreviation": "King v. North Carolina State Board of Sanitarian Examiners",
  "decision_date": "1986-08-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 8510SC1113; No. 8510SC1114",
  "first_page": "409",
  "last_page": "413",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "82 N.C. App. 409"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "293 S.E. 2d 687",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N.C. App. 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524624
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/58/0260-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 373,
    "char_count": 10258,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.784,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3944546573950837
    },
    "sha256": "d328948a6e1e428218aacc99f21c8f589099a397d9ef0c6d4f694c805b78e475",
    "simhash": "1:76d35383e6116fe0",
    "word_count": 1563
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:29:18.916973+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Wells and Whichard concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "S. BERT KING, JAMES WISELY v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF SANITARIAN EXAMINERS JAMES P. ADAMS, WILLIAM MCQUEEN v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF SANITARIAN EXAMINERS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "COZORT, Judge.\nPursuant to Rule 40 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, we consolidate these two cases on appeal because they involve common questions of law.\nRespondent, North Carolina State Board of Sanitarian Examiners, appeals the superior court\u2019s reversal and remand of its decisions denying petitioners certification as registered sanitarians. We affirm.\nAll petitioners applied for certification as registered sanitarians under G.S. 90A-61(a). Petitioner King was employed as a water treatment plant consultant with the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services, Local Services Section. Petitioner Wisely was employed as an Environmental Engineering Technician II with the Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services, Environmental Health Section, Water Supply Branch. Petitioners Adams and McQueen were employed as Environmental Engineers I with the Department of Human Resources, Division of Health Services, Environmental Health Section, Water Supply Branch. After hearings before the North Carolina State Board of Sanitarian Examiners (hereinafter the \u201cBoard\u201d) all petitioners were denied certification as registered sanitarians.\nPursuant to G.S. 150A-45 petitioners sought judicial review of the Board\u2019s decisions denying them certification as registered sanitarians. The matter came on for hearing in superior court, and the court reversed and remanded the Board\u2019s decisions because the Board had acted under a misapprehension of the law when it denied petitioners certification as registered sanitarians on the ground that \u201cpetitioners were not engaged in the broad range of environmental health functions, indicative of a sanitarian, on October 1, 1982.\u201d The Board then appealed to this Court.\nBy its assignments of error, the Board contends that the superior court (1) misconstrued a certain finding of fact in the Board\u2019s decisions, and (2) exceeded its scope of review pursuant to G.S. 150A-51 in both reversing and remanding the Board\u2019s decisions.\nG.S. Chapter 90A, Article 4, entitled \u201cRegistrations [sic] of Sanitarians\u201d (G.S. 90A-50, et seq.) was rewritten effective 1 October 1982 and requires mandatory registration for sanitarians. Sanitarian is defined by G.S. 90A-5K4):\n\u201cSanitarian\u201d is a public health professional qualified by education in the arts and sciences, specialized training, and acceptable environmental health field experience to effectively plan, organize, manage, execute and evaluate one or more of the many diverse elements comprising the field of environmental health.\nG.S. 90A-61(a) contains a grandfather clause which provides that \u201c[a]ny person who submits to the Board under oath evidence that such person was practicing as a sanitarian (as defined in G.S. 90A-5K4) of this Article)... in the State of North Carolina on October 1, 1982, shall be certified as a registered sanitarian.\u201d\nIn denying the petitioners certification as registered sanitarians the Board found, in finding of fact B5, of each decision, that \u201c[t]he petitioners were not engaged in the broad range of environmental health functions, indicative of a sanitarian, on October 1, 1982.\u201d In reversing the Board and remanding the actions to the Board, the superior court ruled in each case \u201c[t]hat based on a review of the record, the briefs filed in this matter and arguments of counsel, the Court determines that the Board denied the petitioners licensure on the basis that they were not engaged in the \u2018broad range\u2019 of environmental health functions.\u201d The court further ruled \u201c[t]hat North Carolina law does not require applicants for certification as a sanitarian to be engaged in a \u2018broad range\u2019 of environmental health functions,\u201d and \u201cthe Board was without authority to require applicants to be engaged in a \u2018broad range\u2019 of environmental health functions.\u201d The Board excepts to these rulings.\nIn Adams\u2019 and McQueen\u2019s cases the Board argues that,\nthe Findings of Fact clearly established that the petitioners were denied certification as registered sanitarians under the grandfather provisions of G.S. 90A-61(a) because they were practicing as environmental engineers on October 1, 1982. The Superior Court\u2019s determination that the petitioners were denied licensure because they \u201cwere not engaged in the \u2018broad range\u2019 of environmental health functions\u201d . . . misconstrues Finding of Fact B5 and ignores the import of the other Findings of Fact. The basis of the Board\u2019s decision was the Findings of Facts that petitioners \u201cwere engaged in the practice of environmental engineering\u201d and that the job specifications and descriptions \u201caccurately reflect(ed) the essential engineering functions of the work performed by the petitioners.\u201d\nIn King\u2019s and Wisely\u2019s case the Board argues that\nthe Findings of Fact clearly established that the petitioners were denied certification as registered sanitarians under the grandfather provisions of G.S. 90A-61(a) because they were practicing as assistants to environmental engineers on October 1, 1982. The Superior Court\u2019s determination that the petitioners were denied licensure because they \u201cwere not engaged in the \u2018broad range\u2019 of environmental health functions\u201d . . . misconstrues Finding of Fact B5 and ignores the import of the other Findings of Fact. The basis of the Board\u2019s decision was the Findings of Facts that petitioners \u201cwere functioning as assistants to and were supervised by environmental engineers\u201d and that the job specifications and descriptions \u201caccurately reflect(ed) the essential engineering (or water treatment plant consultant) functions of the work performed by the petitioners.\u201d\nWe disagree with the Board and agree with the superior court that the Board\u2019s decision to deny petitioners certification as registered sanitarians was based on its findings that \u201cpetitioners were not engaged in the broad range of environmental health functions, indicative of a sanitarian, on October 1, 1982\u201d and as such its decision was affected by an error of law.\nG.S. 90A-5K4) does not require that a person be engaged in a \u201cbroad range of environmental health functions.\u201d Rather, the statute plainly requires that in order to be certified as a registered sanitarian one must be \u201ca public health professional qualified . . . to effectively plan, organize, manage, execute and evaluate one or more of the many diverse elements comprising the field of environmental health.\u201d (Emphasis added.) We affirm the superior court\u2019s rulings that the Board\u2019s denial of petitioners\u2019 request for certification as registered sanitarians was based on its finding of fact B5; that G.S. 90A-5K4) does not require that one be engaged in a broad range of environmental health functions; and, that the Board\u2019s decisions were affected by an error of law.\nNext the Board contends that the superior court erred in both reversing and remanding the Board\u2019s decisions. We find this argument to be erroneous.\nG.S. 150A-51 sets out the superior court\u2019s scope of review of the Board\u2019s decisions. In conducting this review G.S. 150A-51 allows the superior court to affirm the Board\u2019s decision or remand the case for further proceedings. This power is not defined. Harrell v. Wilson County Schools, 58 N.C. App. 260, 293 S.E. 2d 687 (1982). Under G.S. 150A-51 the power to reverse the Board\u2019s decision is defined. A reversal is allowed if substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the agency\u2019s findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are affected by an error of law. G.S. 150A-5K4).\nHere the court determined that the substantial rights of the petitioners had been prejudiced because the agency\u2019s decisions were affected by an error of law. The court reversed the Board\u2019s decisions denying petitioners certification as registered sanitarians and remanded the case to the Board \u201cfor further proceedings not inconsistent with this ruling and the laws of the State of North Carolina.\u201d The Board\u2019s finding that \u201cpetitioners were not engaged in the broad range of environmental health functions\u201d did not justify its conclusion that the petitioners were not practicing as sanitarians and its decisions to deny petitioners certification as registered sanitarians. A reversal was proper in this case because the Board\u2019s decisions to deny petitioners certification as registered sanitarians because they \u201cwere not engaged in the broad range of environmental health functions\u201d was affected by an error of law. A remand is necessary so that the Board can make its decisions in accordance with the correct legal standard.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Wells and Whichard concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "COZORT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg by Assistant Attorneys General Robert R. Reilly and Sarah C. Young for respondent appellant.",
      "Patrice Solberg for petitioner appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "S. BERT KING, JAMES WISELY v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF SANITARIAN EXAMINERS JAMES P. ADAMS, WILLIAM MCQUEEN v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF SANITARIAN EXAMINERS\nNo. 8510SC1113\nNo. 8510SC1114\n(Filed 5 August 1986)\n1. Health \u00a7 1\u2014 sanitarians \u2014 registration improperly denied\nThe superior court correctly ruled that the State Board of Sanitarian Examiners\u2019 denial of petitioners\u2019 requests for certification as registered sanitarians was affected by an error of law where the Board\u2019s denial was based on a finding that petitioners were not engaged in a broad range of environmental health functions indicative of a sanitarian on 1 October 1982, the effective date of a grandfather clause for sanitarian registration, and N.C.G.S. \u00a7 90A-5H4) does not require that one be engaged in a broad range of environmental health functions. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 90-61(a).\n2. Administrative Law \u00a7 8\u2014 reversal and remand of board decision \u2014 proper\nThe superior court did not err by both reversing and remanding decisions of the State Board of Sanitarian Examiners to deny petitioners certification as registered sanitarians where reversal was proper because the Board\u2019s decisions were affected by an error of law and remand was necessary so that the Board could make its decisions in accordance with the correct legal standard. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150A-5K4).\nAPPEALS by respondent appellants from Read, Judge. Judgments entered 18 September 1985 in Superior Court, WAKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 February 1986.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg by Assistant Attorneys General Robert R. Reilly and Sarah C. Young for respondent appellant.\nPatrice Solberg for petitioner appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0409-01",
  "first_page_order": 437,
  "last_page_order": 441
}
