Sapienza v. Board of Psychology CA3
The Board of Psychology (the Board) revoked appellant M. Melanie Sapienza’s license to practice psychology based on violations of Business and Professions Code section 2960, subdivisions (h), (j) and (n). Sapienza petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate, seeking an order requiring the Board to set aside its decision. The court entered judgment denying the petition based in part on the presumption of regularity because Sapienza failed to provide it with a complete administrative record. On appeal, Sapienza purports to challenge: (1) the superior court’s rejection of her claim regarding the admissibility of patient C.G.’s testimony and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence to support various findings in the Board’s statement of decision. A sufficiency of the evidence claim is unavailable on a partial record, and Sapienza’s assertion that the admission of C.G.’s testimony was prejudicially erroneous is also unavailing for this reason, among others. Accordingly,
Comments on Sapienza v. Board of Psychology CA3