opinion notes that the State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts granted Finch a hearing before issuing its order denying him the right to take the examination for licensure prescribed in Section 334.040, supra. At this hearing, Finch introduced evidence of his rehabilitation commensurate with that outlined in the majority opinion. Finch’s previous conviction was never disputed and he was fully aware that it was the “roadblock” to his licensure by the board. In my opinion, the Board afforded procedural due process to Finch, particularly so when measured by the standard expressed by Mr. Justice Goldberg (joined by Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Stewart) in his concurring opinion in Willner v. Committee on Character and Fitness, 373 U.S. 96, 83 S.Ct. 1175, 10 L.Ed.2d 224 (<HOLDING>) wherein at pp. 107, 108, at p. 1182 of 83
holding that amenability hearings must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment holding that the facts did not measure up to the standard expressed for determining procedural due process holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court holding failure to raise issue of improper measure of damages in trial court waived review of complaints that proper measure of damages was not submitted to jury and that plaintiff failed to present evidence on the proper measure holding that in a proceeding to terminate parental rights the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof violates the due process clause and that due process requires at least a clear and convincing evidence standard