HARRY HUGHES, Governor

173

The introductory language of subsection (a) and
the introductory phrase of subsection (b)(1) of
this section conform to the Administrative
Procedure Act, which provides a right of judicial
review of any "final decision" of an agency in a
"contested case". A situation is a contested
case if a party has a right to a hearing (see the
Administrative Procedure Act definition of
"contested case" in Art. 41, § 244 of the Code).

As to the application of subsections (a) and (b)
of this section, the Board of Review has general
jurisdiction over the final decisions of the
Board under this subtitle. Therefore, for some
actions, a decision of the Board of Review is a
prerequisite to judicial review. Subsection (a)
of this section reflects that general procedure.
The Board of Review, however, does not have
jurisdiction over any disciplinary action taken
by the Board. Consequently, subsection (b) of
this section expressly provides for direct
judicial review for a person aggrieved under §
4-314 of this subtitle.

The new language in this section better
coordinates the combined requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act and the laws
regarding the Board of Review. These provisions
apply in any event. No substantive change is
intended.

In subsection (b) of this section, the references
in present Art. 32, § 13 to the review being de
novo and to either party having the right to
elect a jury trial are deleted. Under Department
of Natural Resources v. Linchester Sand & Gravel
Corp., 274 Md. 211 (1975), these provisions are
unconstitutional because they violate Art. 8 of
the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

4-319. INJUNCTIVE ACTIONS.

(A) IN GENERAL.

AN ACTION MAY BE MAINTAINED IN THE NAME OF THIS STATE
OR THE BOARD TO ENJOIN:

(1)  UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF DENTISTRY;

(2)  CONDUCT THAT IS A GROUND FOR DISCIPLINARY
ACTION UNDER § 4-314(A) OF THIS SUBTITLE;

(3)  CONDUCT THAT VIOLATES ANY PROHIBITION IN
SUBTITLE 4 OF THIS TITLE, WHICH RELATES TO DENTAL LABORATORY
WORK; OR