Has the Department of Health abandoned the appearance of fairness?

Recently I appeared in front of a judge who heard matters for the Washington State Department of Health.  This judge had summarily suspended the license of a therapist accused of sleeping with a patient.  The therapist was now asking the court to reconsider that decision, which had been made when he wasn’t present.  Most people would say that it was fair enough to suspend the license while the allegations received a full hearing.  The thing was that the therapist had surrendered his license five months before.  That did not stop the judge from upholding her prior decision to suspend a license the therapist no longer had. Interesting decision.The therapist felt that he should have another judge preside at his trial.  After all, the rules say that a judge may be recused because of bias or for any other reason that courts allow.  Courts allow the recusal of judges for the first time for any reason.  So the therapist asked the judge to recuse herself because courts allow that.  However, the judge said she was not biased and therefore she would not step aside.  Another interesting decision.Why would a judge refuse to recuse herself, and in so doing ignore well established rules?  It certainly suggested an inordinate interest in the case.  Or, perhaps, the judge resented the request and flexed her muscles.  Either way, it certainly raises issues of impartiality and does not appear fair.  The appearance of fairness is an important principle in these hearings.  That clearly no longer exists.