ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Supreme Court of Alaska (2024)
Holly Merrill
In Lookhart v. State, Division of Corps., Business, & Professional Licensing, Board of Dental Examiners, 548 P.3d 1094 (Alaska 2024), the supreme court held that the Board of Dental Examiners did not abuse its discretion when it revoked a dentist’s license after the dentist had been convicted on forty-six felony and misdemeanor charges related to his practice. (Id. at 1096–97). Lookhart overcharged Medicaid by over $1.6 million, stole $412,500 from a business partner, and committed a series of “egregious” violations of the standard-of-care. (Id. at 1096). Among other violations, Lookhart unnecessarily and recklessly sedated patients, leading to two near deaths. (Id.). He also extracted a tooth while on a hoverboard and sent a video of the incident to family and friends without the patient’s consent. (Id.). Lookhart appealed the Board’s decision, arguing first that AS 08.01.075(f) only allows revocation under two limited circumstances, both of which he argued did not apply. (Id. at 1098–99). The court rejected this interpretation and held that the Board has “significant discretion” to tailor sanctions to new fact situations to “deter future misconduct and restore public trust.” (Id. at 1099). It further noted that Lookhart’s interpretation ran counter to the statutory scheme because it would render superfluous language in the statute providing fourteen conditions for revocation. (Id.). Second, Lookhart argued that the Board’s decision did not comport with its statutory requirement to “seek consistency” in disciplinary sanctions. (Id. at 1098, 1100). The court held that prior cases were incomparable because Lookhart’s malfeasance was unprecedented in its scope and severity. (Id. at 1100). Affirming the superior court’s decision, the supreme court held that revocation of a dentist’s license was not an abuse of the Board’s discretion when there was no comparable caselaw and when the dentist’s misconduct was wide-ranging and severe. (Id. at 1101).
