O.C.G.A. § 50-13-18 (2019)
Procedure upon grant, denial, renewal, revocation, suspension, annulment, or withdrawal of licenses
(a) When the grant, denial, or renewal of a license is required by law to be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing, Code Section 50-13-13 shall apply. (b) When a licensee has made timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license or for a new license with reference to any activity of a continuing nature, the existing license does not expire until the application has been finally determined by the agency and, in case the application is denied or the terms of the new license limited, until the last day for seeking review of the agency order or at a later date fixed by order of the reviewing court. (c) No revocation, suspension, annulment, or withdrawal of any license is lawful unless, prior to the institution of agency proceedings, the agency has sent notice, by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery to the licensee, of individual facts or conduct which warrant the intended action and the licensee has been given an opportunity to show compliance with all lawful requirements for the retention of the license except where: (1) The agency finds that the public health, safety, or welfare imperatively requires emergency action and incorporates a finding to that effect in its order, in which case summary suspension of a license may be ordered pending proceedings for revocation or other action, which proceeding shall be promptly instituted and determined; or (2) The agency’s order is expressly required, by a judgment or a statute, to be made without the right to a hearing or continuance of any type.
(d)(1) In contested cases which could result in the revocation, suspension, or limitation of a license, when a licensee makes a general or specific request for exculpatory, favorable, or arguably favorable information that is relative to pending allegations concerning a license, an agency must furnish the requested information, indicate that no such information exists, or refuse to furnish the information requested prior to a hearing. An agency shall not be required to release information which is made confidential by state or federal law, until such requested information has been determined to be exculpatory, favorable, or arguably favorable pursuant to the in camera procedure specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection. (2) Once an agency has furnished exculpatory, favorable, or arguably favorable information, has indicated that no such information exists, or has refused to furnish such information, the licensee may request a prehearing in camera inspection of the remainder of the investigative file by the person or persons presiding over the hearing. Such person or persons shall furnish the licensee with all material that would aid in the licensee’s defense that is exculpatory, favorable, or arguably favorable. Such person or persons shall seal a copy of the entire investigative file in order to preserve it in the event of an appeal.
History
Ga. L. 1964, p. 338, § 19; Ga. L. 1965, p. 283, § 17; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 50; Ga. L. 1991, p. 1400, § 1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1589, § 3.
Annotations
Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2000, p. 1589, § 16, not codified by the General Assem-
bly, provides that the amendment to this Code section is applicable with respect to notices delivered on or after July 1, 2000. Law reviews. - For annual survey of administrative law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (2005).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Correction of nonwillful violation prior to hearing. - This section may well foreclose revocation in any proceeding initiated by the Board of Examiners in Optometry when the respondent demonstrates correction of a nonwillful violation of board rules before the time of the hearing. Wall v. American Optometric Ass’n, 379 F. Supp. 175 (N.D. Ga.), aff ’d, 419 U.S. 888, 95 S. Ct. 166, 42 L. Ed. 2d 134 (1974). Function of an agency’s finding pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-13-18(c)(1) that emergency action is required, unlike that of a notice, is not to inform the licensee of charges and define issues in a later proceeding. Everett v. Georgia Bd. of Dentistry, 264 Ga. 14, 441 S.E.2d 66 (1994).
Hearing and determination required before revocation of license. - Just as there can be no massive seizure of allegedly obscene materials for destruction without a prior adversary type hearing and determination of obscenity, there can be no valid revocation of a business license for having exhibited an obscene film without such prior hearing and determination. 106 Forsyth Corp. v. Bishop, 362 F. Supp. 1389 (M.D. Ga. 1972), aff ’d, 482 F.2d 280 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1044, 95 S. Ct. 2660, 45 L. Ed. 2d 696 (1975). Intent of this section is to give a licensee a hearing, and an opportunity to be heard when the licensee can demonstrate that at the time of the alleged
violation the licensee was in full compliance with the law. Hinson v. Georgia State Bd. of Dental Exmrs., 135 Ga. App. 488, 218 S.E.2d 162 (1975). Application. - Healthcare provider did not show that the state community health department committed an error of law in issuing a cease and desist letter directing the healthcare provider to stop operating the provider’s diagnostic imaging center until the healthcare provider obtained a certificate of need; the letter of nonreviewability the healthcare provider cited was not a form of permission required by law and, thus, the revocation of the letter, which triggered the need for the certificate of need, was not subject to the notice requirements of O.C.G.A. § 50-13-18(c). N. Atlanta Scan Assocs. v. Dep’t of Cmty. Health, 277 Ga. App. 583, 627 S.E.2d 67 (2006). Under this section, licensee is not entitled to two hearings. Hinson v. Georgia State Bd. of Dental Exmrs., 135 Ga. App. 488, 218 S.E.2d 162 (1975). Service on office secretary. - When process was served, at local office of association, upon an office secretary who had never been an officer or official member of the association, and who was not otherwise an agent or officer designated for service of process, the service of process
was legally insufficient. Masters v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n Int’l, 144 Ga. App. 350, 241 S.E.2d 38 (1977). Essential to notify driver that license suspended. - Actual or legal notice to the defendant that license has been suspended is an essential element of driving after one’s license has been suspended. Barrett v. State, 173 Ga. App. 452, 326 S.E.2d 816 (1985). Due process did not require a hearing prior to the summary suspension when the board did make the requisite finding under O.C.G.A. § 50-13-18(c)(1), which was supported by the arrest warrant for sexual offenses committed against children and the alleged occurrence of the crimes at the same location when appellant practiced dentistry; furthermore, the proceeding to revoke appellant’s license, with its accompanying procedural protections, was simultaneously instituted. Everett v. Georgia Bd. of Dentistry, 264 Ga. 14, 441 S.E.2d 66 (1994). Cited in Hicks v. Georgia State Bd. of Pharmacy, 553 F. Supp. 314 (N.D. Ga. 1982); City Council v. Crump, 251 Ga. 594, 308 S.E.2d 180 (1983); Hale v. State, 188 Ga. App. 524, 373 S.E.2d 250 (1988); Penaranda v. Cato, 740 F. Supp. 1578 (S.D. Ga. 1990); Quigg v. Ga. Prof ’l Stds. Comm’n, 344 Ga. App. 142, 809 S.E.2d 267 (2017).
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Monetary compliance by one with history of noncompliance. - Administrative agency may proceed to revoke license of licensee in conformity with the law and the fact that the licensee shows at the agency’s proceedings that the licensee is momentarily complying with all lawful requirements for the retention of a license would be immaterial; the real question to be resolved by the agency’s proceedings would be whether the licensee had been in noncompliance with all lawful requirements for the retention of the license at the time that the licensee is alleged to have been in noncompliance with such requirements. 1965-66 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 65-73. O.C.G.A. § 50-13-18 concerns compliance with requirements at time of alleged noncompliance. - Opportunity
to show compliance referred to by this section is the opportunity to show compliance with lawful requirements at the time the licensee is alleged to have been in noncompliance, and does not refer to a compliance at the time of a licensee receiving notice, or at the time of the institution of agency proceedings to revoke the license. 1965-66 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 65-73. Distinctions between denials of applications for new or existing license. - Applicant would have no course of appeal should the applicant initially be denied a license for a school or an instructor’s permit; however, the denial of an existing license would require a different result since when the state confers a license to engage in a profession, trade, or occupation not inherently inimical to the public welfare, such license becomes a
valuable right which cannot be denied or abridged except after due notice and a fair
and impartial hearing before an unbiased tribunal. 1968 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 68-278.
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Licenses and Permits, § 56 et seq. C.J.S. - 53 C.J.S., Licenses, § 58 et seq. U.L.A. - Model State Administrative Procedure Acts (1961 and 1981), 15 U.L.A.
ALR. - Constitutionality of license statute or ordinance as affected by delegation of authority as to amount of bond of licensee, 107 A.L.R. 1506.