## Facts

- Dr. Floro A. Guerrero, a physician, faced state professional-discipline charges for alleged misconduct.
- A New Jersey Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted the evidentiary hearing, received testimony, and issued a written decision with findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- Guerrero, through counsel, filed written exceptions to the ALJ’s findings and conclusions and submitted excerpts of the hearing transcript.
- The New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners reviewed the ALJ decision, Guerrero’s exceptions, and the referenced transcript excerpts.
- The Board adopted the ALJ’s decision in full as to liability, but altered the recommended sanction.
- Guerrero challenged the procedure on the ground that the Board, as the final decision-maker, did not itself hear live testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether New Jersey’s administrative procedure permitting an ALJ to take evidence and make recommended findings, with the Board deciding on the written record, violates procedural due process because the Board did not personally hear the witnesses.
2. Whether that statutory scheme denies equal protection to a physician subject to discipline.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Guerrero’s requested stay of the state administrative proceedings.
- The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the State of New Jersey and the Board.
- The court held that the ALJ-first process with final Board review on the record did not violate due process.
- The court also rejected the equal protection challenge, finding no constitutional defect in the statutory scheme.

## Legal Principles

- Procedural due process in administrative adjudication does not require the ultimate decision-maker to personally hear live testimony if the decision is based on a considered review of the record and legal arguments.
- A state may assign evidentiary hearings to ALJs and reserve final decision-making authority to the agency, provided parties can present evidence and arguments and the agency reviews the record before deciding.
- An equal protection challenge to a generally applicable administrative procedure is not sustained absent a suspect classification or infringement of a fundamental right; rational administrative objectives may justify the structure.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that New Jersey’s use of ALJs to conduct hearings, followed by final Board action based on the written record and party exceptions, satisfies due process and does not deny equal protection, even though the Board did not itself hear witness testimony.


Guerrero v. New Jersey, 643 F.2d 148 (3d Cir. 1981)