ALJDEC - Licensing

24F-202200205-DEN · Board of Dental Examiners · 2024-05-02

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of

Lawrence P. Rudolph, DMD,

Holder of License No. D008145

For the Practice of Dentistry

In the State of Arizona

No. 24F-[number redacted]-DEN

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: April 12, 2024

APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Seamus Monaghan appeared on behalf of the Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners (“Board”). Respondent failed to appear.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Amy M. Haley

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: State’s exhibits 1 through 16 were admitted.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDING OF FACT

Lawrence P. Rudolph, D.M.D., (“Respondent”) is the holder of License No. D008145 issued by the Board to practice dentistry in the State of Arizona. Respondent’s license was initially issued on February 7, 2011, and was set to expire on February 28, 2023. Respondent’s license is in suspended status as he was noticed of the complaint on August 11, 2022 before his license expired.

On December 22, 2021, a criminal complaint was filed against the Respondent in Colorado United States District Court. The complaint alleged that Respondent had murdered his wife in a foreign country on October 11, 2016, and thereafter defrauded insurance companies related to the death of his wife.

Respondent failed to notify the Board of the criminal charges against him within ten (10) days, as required by A.R.S. § 32-3208(A).

On January 5, 2022, Respondent was indicted by a Grand Jury on the following charges related to the death of his wife on October 11, 2016:

Count 1 (Foreign Murder): Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22), “willfully, deliberatively, maliciously, and with premeditation and malice, aforethought, unlawfully killed Bianca Rudolph. All violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1119 and 1111.

Count 2 (Mail Fraud and Aiding and Abetting): Intentionally devised a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain, by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, money and property, to wit a total of approximately $4,877,744.93 in U.S. currency from several life insurance companies. All violations of Title 18 United States Code, Sections 1341 and 2.

Respondent pled not guilty to all charges in the indictment.

On August 1, 2022, after both parties put on their case-in-chief, a jury of his peers found the Respondent guilty of Counts 1 and 2.

On August 21, 2023, Respondent was sentenced to a “Total Term of Life Imprisonment.” Respondent was also sentenced to pay restitution, fines, and assessments in the total amount of $6,877,944.93.

The Board determined that the facts and conduct described above, including murder and fraud, constituted a danger to the health, welfare or safety of the public, in addition to being a violation of the Board’s statutes.

On or about October 13, 2023, the Board held a meeting, in executive session, wherein the Board members were advised that Respondent was convicted and sentenced to prison. The Board moved the matter to a formal interview.

On or about December 1, 2023, the Board issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing to Respondent alleging that he had engaged in unprofessional conduct in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1263(A)(1), specifically A.R.S. § 32-1201.01(14); A.R.S. § 32-1263(A)(2); and A.R.S. §§ 32-3208(A) and (D).

A virtual hearing in this matter was held via Google Meet by the Office of Administrative Hearings on April 12, 2024. It is believed that Respondent is currently housed at FCI Englewood Federal Correction Institution in Littleton, Colorado. Respondent did not appear via Google Meet either personally or through an attorney, and did not contact the Office of Administrative Hearings to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence at the hearing to defend his license.

In response to the Board’s invitation to participate in an interview, Respondent sent an email that he requested be submitted on his behalf for the Board’s consideration at the administrative hearing. In it, Respondent recounted the day his wife was shot and maintained his innocence, advising that he had appealed his case to the 10th Federal District Court. He further asked the Tribunal to consider a suspension of his license instead of revocation until his appeal ruling was received.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Board possesses subject matter and personal jurisdiction over Respondent pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1201 et seq.

The Board has the burden of proof in this matter. The standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”

A preponderance of the evidence is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Respondent was advised in writing of the pending investigation in this matter prior to the expiration of his license. As such, his license did not expire on February 28, 2023, as scheduled, pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-3202.

The uncontroverted evidence presented at hearing established that Respondent was convicted of premeditated murder and insurance fraud. Therefore, the Board established that Respondent committed unprofessional conduct as defined by A.R.S. § 32-1201.01(14) and A.R.S. § 32-1263(A)(2).

The uncontroverted evidence at hearing established that Respondent failed to disclose his criminal charges to the Board within ten working days. Therefore, the Board established that Respondent committed unprofessional conduct as defined by A.R.S. § 32-3208(A) and (D).

Such conduct is grounds for discipline under A.R.S. § 32-1263(A).

At hearing, the Board requested revocation of Respondent’s license.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Respondent’s License No. D008145 shall be revoked on the effective date of the Order entered by the Board.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, May 2, 2024.

/s/ Amy M. Haley

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Ryan Edmonson,

Board of Dental Examiners

By: OAH Staff