Criminal Conviction – Professional License Suspensions and Mitigation Evidence

The Criminal History Record Information Act, 18 Pa. C.S. § 9124(c)(1) (CHIRA), requires Pennsylvania’s licensing boards consider criminal convictions disclosed on license applications or which take place after licensure as a reason to discipline active licensees. Different licensing boards apply CHIRA’s rules differently.

On February 28, 2018 Commonwealth Court decided Bentley vs. BPOA, — A.3d —- (2018).  This cases expounds on how a licensing board abuses its discretion when it disciplines a licensee for criminal conduct not related to their license. In 2013 and 2014, Cosmetologist Bentley was convicted in two separate cases of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, forgery, aggravated assault, escape, and attempting to allude the police. Wow.


Bentley reported the convictions to her Board, which issued a Rule to Show Cause seeking to discipline her license under CHIRA.  At the hearing, the Cosmetology Board prosecutor only presented the certified criminal conviction. This is the typical prosecutor practice.  No witness testified as to the underlying criminal conduct.

It is important to have competent counsel at this hearing.  Counsel should object to inadmissible portions of the certified conviction documents. Objections to hearsay statements in affidavits of probable cause eliminate statements of people not present at the hearing.  The licensee can not cross-examine that witness.   I always have these documents paired down and limited.  My client/licensee’s explanation of the criminal case is the only version of events. Consistent Nguyen v. BPOA, licensees are allowed to explain their role in any multi-defendant criminal case. They may explain a co-defendant’s greater role than their own.

During her hearing, through counsel, Bentley presented significant and appropriate mitigation evidence. Mitigation evidence included the delay of the prosecution versus the time of the criminal act; new and abundant family support; full and complete responsibility for the criminal act; the unique set of factors leading up to the criminal charges and her association with her then boyfriend and now co-defendant.  Most importantly, she described her rehabilitation while in state prison. This rehabilitation included anger management, employment/cosmetology training, and new religious faith. She presented reasonable and appropriate community reputation evidence. This evidence corroborated her claim of being rehabilitated, remorseful for her actions, and turning over a new leaf.


The hearing officer suspended Bentley’s license for the balance of her parole (probably not long). The Cosmetology Board, as all boards do, issued a notice of intent to review the hearing officer’s decision.  The Cosmetology Board rejected as modest Bentley’s mitigation evidence. The board suspended Bentley’s cosmetology license for three years based upon the criminal convictions. The Board rejected Bentley’s need for licensure to remain employed, her rehabilitation, and need to support herself.

Bentley appealed to the Commonwealth Court.  She claimed the Board abused its discretion when it rejected her mitigation evidence and suspended her license based solely on the criminal convictions.  Bentley alleged that the Board summarily ignored all of her uncontested mitigation evidence, which was not contradicted by any evidence the Commonwealth introduced in the certified criminal conviction. Bentley argued the suspension was manifestly unreasonable because the convictions bore no relation to the practice of cosmetology. Arguing the Board’s conduct capriciously disregarded her mitigation evidence absent explanation was an abuse of discretion.

On review the Commonwealth court agreed. Commonwealth Court defines capricious disregard as “when there is a willful and deliberate disregard of competent testimony and relevant evidence which one of ordinarily intelligence could not possibly have avoided in reaching a result. When strong evidence contradicts contrary evidence, the adjudicator must explain the basis for its determination.” Absent a proper explanation why the adjudicator is rejecting overwhelming critical evidence, the board abuses its discretion.

As with many of my cases the time delay between criminal event, conviction, and disciplinary action may be five or six years. I argue Board delay which allows the licensee to practice of their profession for three or four years renders mute any board allegation that there is an emergent basis for extensive discipline. Suspension or revocation is not warranted if the board took six years to do it.

Also, the Cosmetology Board licensing scheme does not authorize discipline for criminal convictions not related to the profession.   Imposing discipline based upon the convictions was an error of law.  Such also revealed ignorance of Bentley’s mitigation evidence.  The court found Bentley’s mitigation evidence unique and must be considered.
The Commonwealth Court held that the Board’s summary rejection and failure to consider it constitutes a capricious disregard of the evidence. Such is an abuse of discretion for which the Commonwealth Court rejects the board decision and sends the case back to the Cosmetology Board.

This case is an example of licensing boards tightening their belts and implementing a much stiffer enforcement environment. This appellate  decision, and several other recent cases, reveal licensing boards routinely abusing their discretion and ignoring the law that guides their decisions.  Non-law trained licensing board members shoot from the hip regarding the discipline that they want to impose upon their license fees. Many times, there is no legal basis for the discipline.

When licensees take an appeal, they have an appellate, independent, unbiased court review the nature and extent of imposed discipline.  The appellate court rejects this board’s arbitrary and capricious decision. Unfortunately this costs a lot of money. However, in many of my cases I see unfettered discretion punishing hard-working licensees that is far beyond both what is necessary and reasonable and what the licensing statutes allow.
Call me to discuss your case.  A criminal record should not be a bar to getting or keeping a license.
Jerry’s career took off.  So should yours.

GARLIC — NOBODY LIKES IT — The Case of Robert Garlick, Penn DOT, a DUI Investigation, and a Blood Test Refusal

On July 17, 2017 Robert Garlick was operating his motor vehicle in Erie County Pennsylvania.  A state Trooper investigating his 1 car accident, suspected Mr. Garlick of being under the influence of alcohol.  Garlick was arrested for suspicion of DUI.  At the barracks the Trooper read verbatim the warnings contained in the July 2016 revised Penn DOT DL-26B form.  This form provides the following warnings with regard to a chemical test of blood:

1. You are under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance in violation of Section 3802 of the Vehicle Code.

2. I am requesting that you submit to a chemical test of blood.

3. If you refuse to submit to the blood test, your operating privilege will be suspended for at least 12 months. If you previously refused a chemical test or were previously convicted of driving under the influence, you will be suspended for up to 18 months.

4. You have no right to speak with an attorney or anyone else before deciding whether to submit to testing. If you request to speak with an attorney or anyone else after being provided these warnings or you remain silent when asked to submit to a blood test, you will have refused the test.

I and many other attorneys have argued that this language in this DL-26B form fails to comply with the statutory version of §1547(b)(2) in effect at the time; that these drivers are not advised that refusing the chemical test would result in enhanced criminal penalties (i.e. the penalties provided in Section 3804(c)) as § 1547(b) requires. While there is no statutory or other requirement that the DL-26 form contain appropriate warnings, or that the form be read verbatim, it is nonetheless the duty of the police officer to inform the petitioner of the statutorily required warnings. In other words, if the police officer recites the appropriate warnings from memory without the use of any form at all that is perfectly acceptable under the law.  In this case, however, the Trooper confirmed that the only warnings he provided were those contained on the DL-26B Form which he read verbatim. Those warnings are not consistent with the law.

The law in effect in July of 2016 was 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1547.  Section 1547 of the Vehicle Code in effect on May 24, 2017, provides in pertinent part:

(a) General rule.—Any person who drives, operates or is in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle in this Commonwealth shall be deemed to have given consent to one or more chemical tests of breath or blood for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of blood or the presence of a controlled substance if a police Officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving, operating or in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle:

(1) in violation of section 1543(b)(1.1) (relating to driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked), 3802 (relating to driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance)….
* * *

(b) Suspension for refusal.—

(1) If any person placed under arrest for a violation of section 3802 is requested to submit to chemical testing and refuses to do so, the testing shall not be conducted but upon notice by the police officer, the [D]epartment shall suspend the operating privilege of the person as follows:
(i) Except as set forth in subparagraph (ii), for a period of 12 months.
* * *
(2) It shall be the duty of the police Officer to inform the person that:

(i) the person’s operating privilege will be suspended upon refusal to submit to chemical testing; and
(ii) if the person refuses to submit to chemical testing, upon conviction or plea for violating section 3802(a)(1), the person will be subject to the penalties provided in section 3804(c) (relating to penalties). 75 Pa. C.S. § 1547(a),(b).

On July 20, 2017, the governor approved Act 30 of 2017 which provides for an amendment to Section 1547(b)(2) removing the language requiring a police officer  to provide the warnings relating to enhanced criminal penalties for refusal. This amendment was not effective on the date of Garlick’s incident.  The fact that the legislature amended it is indicative of its acknowledgement that such an amendment was necessary to effectuate the change required of the warnings pursuant to Birchfield.

Drivers license attorneys and I argue PennDOT’s amended DL–26B form, created post-Birchfield, removes references to §3804 criminal penalties. This form is not consistent with the statutory framework of the motor vehicle code and not consistent with any legislative authority. Various courts have been confronted with post-Birchfield amended O’Connell warnings that do not contain the mandatory/ statutory language of § 1547(b)(2).  These cases do not address the illegality of the DL-26B form and the incorrect recitation of law to the motorists deemed refusing.

Mr. Garlick objected to amended DL 26B reading.  The Erie County Court of Common Pleas judge denied his legal argument.  On appeal to the Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial judge and found PennDOT correctly altered its DL-26B form after the Birchfield case.  As you recall, Birchfield v North Dakota, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2160, 195 L.Ed.2d 560 (2016), and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania jurisprudence interpreting it hold that 75 Pa.C.S.A. §1547(b) and Pennsylvania’s enhanced criminal penalties for refusing a chemical blood test are unconstitutional.

The complex criminal versus civil application of Birchfield, is born out in the case of Boseman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 157 A.3d 10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), and Gray v. Commonwealth , Dep’t of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, No. 1759 C.D. 2016, 2017 WL 2536439, at *7–8 (Pa. Commw. Ct. June 9, 2017), reargument denied (Aug. 7, 2017). These cases maintain arresting officer’s statutory obligation to inform a motorist of the General Assembly’s defined § 1547(b)’s ramifications of a refusal – not PennDOT’s version.

Garlick v. PennDOT is the first case to decide the exact argument I have raised in several cases.  Garlick rejects, though without explanation, the argument that the PennDOT revised DL-26 form is illegal.  The court  opinion adopts much of my and other defense counsel’s reasoning that; “It is true, as Licensee argues, that the language contained in Section 1547(b)(2)(ii) was mandatory at the time Trooper requested that Licensee submit to a blood test. However, while Section 1547(b)(2)(ii) then “command[ed]” that a warning about enhanced criminal penalties be given the purpose behind that provision is to make a licensee aware “of the consequences of a refusal to take the test so that he can make a knowing and conscious choice.” Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety v. O’Connell, 555 A.2d 873, 877 (Pa. 1989); see Commonwealth v. Myers, 164 A.3d 1162, 1171 n.12 (Pa. 2017) (plurality) (“purpose of [Section 1547(b)(2)] ‘is to entitle arrestees to the information necessary to assess the dire consequences they face if they fail to consent to chemical testing, to ensure their choice in that regard is knowing and conscious, as we described in O’Connell’”

However, the court proceeds to state “Given our review of the current state of the law, Licensee’s argument that his license must be reinstated because he was not warned that he would be subject to no longer constitutionally permissible enhanced criminal penalties for refusing blood testing is unpersuasive. Trooper specifically and accurately warned Licensee about the consequences of refusing a blood test that remain following Birchfield, that is, the suspension of his license. Therefore, common pleas did not err when it denied Licensee’s appeal.”

This conclusion ignores the realty of the legislative dictate that the law as written and authorized by the General Assembly is the only permitted and regally authorized language Penn DOT can read to licensees.  More appeal will follow because of this specious and ill-informed decision.

Still on the topic of refusals to submit to  a breath or blood test, a new bill introduced into the General assembly in 2018, Senate Bill 553, makes changes to the state’s DUI laws and will take effect Jan. 11.  Among them is a new fee for refusing to submit to a blood-alcohol test, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that police can’t obtain blood samples without a warrant or consent.  Under the revised law, drivers who refuse a blood-alcohol test but are convicted and lose their license will have to pay a “restoration fee” for their license of up to $2,000 — $500 for the first time a test is refused, $1,000 for the second time and $2,000 for the third and each time after. The law requires officers to inform suspects of the costs when they’re pulled over.

Nurse, Doctors, and Intimate Relationships with Patients

Most health care related professional licensing schemes contain a uniform proscription against engaging in sexual intimacies with clients.  This sexual conduct bar does not depend on consensual or non-consensual acts.     Violating this conduct is the first and surest way to lose your professional license.  Prior relationships with current licensee and current relationships with former patients also creates huge problems.

The General Assembly, through the Pennsylvania Code defines  Sexual intimacies as romantic, sexually suggestive, sexually demeaning or erotic behavior. Examples of this behavior include the following:

  • (i) Sexual intercourse, or any touching of the sexual or intimate parts of the person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire in either person.
  • (ii) Nontherapeutic verbal communication or inappropriate nonverbal communication of a sexual or romantic nature.
  • (iii) Sexual invitations.
  • (iv) Soliciting or accepting a date from a client/patient.
  • (v) Masturbating in the presence of a client/patient or encouraging a client/patient to masturbate in the presence of the licensed marriage and family therapist.
  • (vi) Indecent exposure, kissing, hugging, touching, physical contact or self-disclosure of a sexual or erotic nature.  49 Pa. Code § 48.1
Section 49 Pa. Code § 21.146a, is a catch-all Pennsylvania Code provision setting forth as a procedural matter, not even a substantive violation,  a rule stating:
  • (a)  The consent of the patient to any sexual impropriety or violation is not a defense to any disciplinary charge for violation of the act or this subchapter.
  • (b)  Evidence of specific instances, opinion evidence, or reputation evidence of a patient’s past sexual conduct is not admissible in proceedings brought under §  21.148(b)(9) (relating to standards of nursing conduct).  The Board may consider sexual relationships between the nurse and the patient occurring prior to the professional relationship.
  • (c)  A nurse who attempts to raise as a defense an argument that conduct prohibited as a sexual violation or sexual impropriety was necessary or appropriate to the treatment of a patient shall be required to demonstrate competency in practice which relates directly to the treatment of sexual function or dysfunction. This competence may be demonstrated through educational training and supervised clinical experience. Appropriate discussions of sexual matters between a nurse and a patient shall be fully documented in patient records.

Apparently this conduct is prevalent in the psychology, psychiatry, licensed marriage and family therapist, and LSW and professional counselor professions.  I say this because the language in each of these licensing regulatory schemes is exact, precise, and consistently repeated throughout.   The law is very clear about this topic: 49 Pa.Code § 47.61 states: Sexual intimacies between a licensed social worker or licensed clinical social worker and a current client/patient, or an immediate family member of a current client/patient, are prohibited.  More importantly, licensed social workers and licensed clinical social workers may not accept as client/patients individuals with whom they have engaged in sexual intimacies.  For how long you ask?  Sexual intimacies between a licensed social worker or licensed clinical social worker and a former client/patient, or an immediate family member of a former client/patient are prohibited for 7 years following the termination of the professional relationship.


Violation of these provision will warrant disciplinary action:

  • (a)  A violation of § §  47.61—47.63 (relating to prohibited conduct; former sexual partners as clients/patients; sexual intimacies with a former client/patient or an immediate family member of a former client/patient) will be deemed unprofessional conduct and will subject the licensed social worker or licensed clinical social worker to discipline under section 11(a)(2) of the act (63 P. S. §  1911(a)(2).
  • (b)   The consent of a former client/patient or immediate family member of a former client/patient to engage in sexual intimacies with the licensed social worker or licensed clinical social worker is not a defense in any disciplinary action brought under § §  47.61—47.63.

Pennsylvania does not recognize, along with all other states, that a mental health professional’s conduct in engaging in a sexual affair with a patient is actionable in tort (a medical malpractice action).  Thierfelder v. Wolfert, 617 Pa. 295, 327, 52 A.3d 1251, 1271 (2012).  However, our Commonwealth court routinely concludes the State Board of Medicine properly orders, and it is within their authority, that psychiatrist’s license to practice medicine be revoked on ground that he had engaged in sexual relations with his patients.  (“Revocation of psychiatrist’s license was reasonable sanction in light of his conduct.) Starr v. State Bd. of Med., 720 A.2d 183 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998); Morris v. State Bd. of Psychology, 697 A.2d 1034 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1997).



In these cases, the court concludes the Board of Medicine, and other boards, are entitled to deference in their determination of what constitutes “unprofessional conduct” as that term is used in Medical Practice Act (or their licensing schemes) section providing that practitioner may be disciplined for “unprofessional conduct.” 63 P.S. § 422.41(8).  As there is no per say rule of revocation, the regulatory language stated above in the counseling fields is overlapped by the Medical Practice Act.
There, sections 41(8) and (9) of the Medical Practices Act state that the Board shall have the authority to impose disciplinary or corrective measures on a board-regulated practitioner for

  • (8) Being guilty of immoral or unprofessional conduct. Unprofessional conduct shall include departure from or failing to conform to an ethical or quality standard of the profession. In proceedings based on this paragraph, actual injury to a patient need not be established.
    • (i) The ethical standards of a profession are those ethical tenets which are embraced by the professional community in this Commonwealth.
    • (ii) A practitioner departs from, or fails to conform to, a quality standard of the profession when the practitioner provides a medical service at a level beneath the accepted standard of care. The board may promulgate regulations which define the accepted standard of care. In the event the board has not promulgated an applicable regulation, the accepted standard of care for a practitioner is that which would be normally exercised by the average professional of the same kind in this Commonwealth under the circumstances, including locality and whether the practitioner is or purports to be a specialist in the area.
  • (9) Acting in such manner as to present an immediate and clear danger to public health or safety.  63 P.S. § 422.41 (8) and (9).

The Boards and the courts consistently determine that having sexual intimacies with clients breaches ethical standards, standards of care, and constitutes immoral or unprofessional conduct.   “Unprofessional conduct” includes “those breaches of trust, confidence and reliance, necessarily attendant upon the intimate relationship of physician and patient, which amount to gross abuses of the standards of professional conduct generally recognized as essential to the proper practice of medicine and surgery.”  As well, the specific regulations above clearly state that it is of no consequence that intimacies occur either before or after a terminated client relationship.  Importantly,

the professional who, during course of therapeutic relationship, engages in sexual intimacies with client may not absolve himself or herself from professional liability by ceasing to provide therapy while sexual relationship continues, or billing for services and masquerading the sex as a therapy. 49 Pa. Code § 41.61. Giddings v. State Bd. of Psychology, 669 A.2d 431 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995).
Call me to discuss your legal issues.


Disciplinary Action – Scope of Practice Certified Registered Nurse Practitioners

Certified Registered Nurse Practitioners (“CRNP”) can prescribe medication, examine patients, diagnose illnesses, and provide treatment, much like physicians do. In fact, nurse practitioners have what’s referred to as “full practice authority” in 20 states, meaning that they do not have to work under the supervision of a doctor. In the Pennsylvania, however, while CRNPs still have more authority than RNs, they must have a medical doctor sign on certain patient care decisions.

Nurse practitioners are increasingly becoming integral to medical teams as more and more hospitals and healthcare facilities are utilizing their expertise. Their experience as working nurses gives them a unique approach to patient care, while their advanced studies qualify them to take on additional duties that are usually left to physicians.

There are many different ways CRNP are exposed to practicing outside the scope of their practice.  Dispensing medications incorrectly or without a prescription is the first and foremost.  CRNPs are especially vulnerable to disciplinary action as they hold prescriptive authority to dispense Schedule II and other non-scheduled medications.  This blog will address CRNP’s legal duties.

CRNP’s must collaborate with a physician who holds a current license to practice in the Commonwealth.  When acting in collaboration with a physician in a “collaborative agreement” within the CRNP‘s specialty, the CRNP may perform comprehensive assessments of patients and establish medical diagnosis, perform and supervise diagnostic tests, institute referrals, develop treatment plans, establish prescriptive authority approvals for pharmaceutical treatments, complete admission and discharge summary’s, and order various supplemental therapeutic medical care. Supplemental medical care includes dietary plans, home health care and hospice, durable medical equipment, physical therapy and dietitian referrals, respiratory and occupational therapy referrals, and perform initial assessments of methadone treatment evaluations.

Methadone treatment and evaluations can be accomplished in conjunction with approval of a physician in the Pennsylvania methadone treatment regulations.  In this time of opioid crisis, CRNP’s prescribing methadone is a huge issue. CRNPs have sought clarification of their authority and qualifications to prescribe Suboxone.  63 PS § 21.283(c) of the Pennsylvania Code sets forth CRNP’s prescriptive authority.


Every two years CRNP must complete 16 hours of board approved CE credits in pharmacology.  Initially, CRNPs require 45 hours of coursework specific to advanced pharmacology through the a professional nurse education program within five years before initial prescriptive authority approval. Board prescribing and dispensing schedule II restrictions include only 30-day supply authorizations and only in conjunction with a collaborative agreement setting forth such authorization by the physician in the agreement.

CRNP are limited to prescribing 90-day supplies of schedule III and IV controlled substances, which physician based authority is identified in the collaborative agreement. CRNP may not delegate prescriptive authority to other RNs working in the practice. CRNPs may not issue pre-signed prescriptions, must receive a national provider identifier number, and all prescriptions must include the CRNP’s name, title, and Pennsylvania CRNP certification number.  All labeling, packaging, dispensing, administering, and prescribing must be done in compliance with all other federal and state regulations and Pennsylvania Department of Health chapter 28 code of regulations.

CRNPs must register with the DEA and follow DEA minimum standards when prescribing, administering or dispensing controlled substances.  DEA federal regulations require the CRNP to properly conduct and documents their initial evaluation, physical examination, receipt and review the patient’s medical and medication history.  The physical evaluation includes examining the heart, lungs, vital signs, pain level, and body functions that relate to the patient specific complaint. Re-evaluation‘s and follow up should follow accordingly.

Patient counseling and medical records review are warranted to properly document symptoms observed and reported, diagnosis of any condition for which the controlled substance is being given, and the directions for administration. If the CRNP continues to prescribe the controlled substance, medical records must reflect changes to symptoms observed and reported and modification, alteration, or a limitation of any diagnosis of the condition for which the controlled substance is being given and the directions given to the patient.

The CRNP may dispense emergency, short-term prescriptions in conjunction with examination, evaluation, and proper diagnosis if such is then documented in the patient’s medical record.  Any emergency prescription must be delivered to the pharmacist within three days, and the emergency prescription may not be refilled or issued consecutive to an emergency prescription unless there is a follow-up physical examination.

Compliance with the terms and conditions of CRNP prescriptive authority is not necessarily compliance with Nursing Board scope of practice or standards that are acceptable and the prevailing practice.  Compliance with the above PA Code minimum standards does not restrict Nursing Board disciplinary action CRNPs based upon violations of the Drug Act or any other nursing licensing regulation.

Federal and State Drug Act issues address improper prescription dispensing, improper charting, failing to chart, or performing medical malpractice in the course of acting outside the scope as a CRNP.   Mere compliance with PA Code rudimentary medical practice and charting responsibilities and basic medical care giving duties does not shield the CRNPs from scope of practice and other claims.

CRNP scope of practice is governed by the collaborative agreement by and between the supervising physician and CRNP along with any large scale institutional employment job position limitations. Improperly administering medications earlier than the time set forth in a prescription and refilling daily, weekly, or 30 day prescriptions will well necessary trigger employment or board based disciplinary issues.

This is why the prescriptive authority established in the collaborative agreement between a physician and a CRNP  must satisfy very specific requirements. The collaborative agreements must be in writing, identifying the category of drugs this specific CRNP is allowed to prescribe as per their certified practice.   The collaborating physician obviously must sign the agreement and a copy must be submitted to the Bureau Professional and Occupational Affairs.

The agreement must be updated every two years, or whenever the agreement is changed, and must identify the professional liability insurance limits the physician’s policy provides.  Anytime the prescriptive authority in the collaborative agreement is updated or terminated, the CRNP (and no one else) shall notify the Board in writing of such changes. The CRNP is allowed to advertise or publicly display sign identifying their participation in a medical practice. A licensed CRNP may include such nomenclature after their name on any letterhead, business cards, and practice advertising.

CRNP must undertake and only engage in their specific practice area and only perform procedures in which they have necessary knowledge, preparation, experience and competency to properly execute.  CRNP practice is limited in scope to only their specialty and consistent with their CRNP collaborative agreement. This is the scope of practice provision that allows for the allegation CRNP prescribing medication drugs or other items outside the scope of their practice.

Certification as a CRNP may be suspended, revoked, or otherwise subjected to remedial measures when, after notice of and an opportunity for a hearing, the board finds that a CRNP has engaged and performed medical functions and tasks beyond the scope of practice permitted for a CRNP, that CRNP specially, or in violation of the collaborative agreement.  This is the general, catchall provision, for a potential penalty, based upon the allegation that a CRNP performed a medical function for which the CRNP does not have the necessary knowledge, preparation, experience and competency to perform properly or is not qualified under the CRNP Act.

Call me to discuss your case.

A Drug Act Conviction – An Automatic License Suspension – Not Revocation – with A Right of Reinstatement.

Pennsylvania’s Nursing Law has existed since 1951.  Between 1951 and May 1985 the Nursing Law did not include a provision automatically suspending a license upon conviction of a Controlled Substance Act felony.  In 1985, the Legislature revised the statute by adding Section 16.1 which states:

A license issued under this act shall automatically be suspended upon . . . conviction of a felony under the [Controlled Substance Act] . . .. As used in this section the term “conviction” shall include a judgment, an admission of guilt or a plea of nolo contendere. . . . Restoration of such license shall be made as in the case of revocation or suspension of such license.

McGrath v. Bureau of Prof’l & Occupational Affairs, No. 5 WAP 2017, 2017 Pa. LEXIS 3109, at *12-13 (Nov. 22, 2017).  Once issued, nursing licenses may be suspended or revoked by the Board. As set forth in Section 14 of the Law, the Board may suspend or revoke a license if it makes certain findings. See 63 P.S. § 224(a), (b)(3). Additionally, the Board may refuse to issue an initial license for these same reasons.

McGrath’s nursing license was automatically suspended – not revoked – when she was convicted of violating the Drug Act (it seems a felony).  McGrath petitioned for reinstatement of her nursing sometime shorter than 10 years.  McGrath argued the Nursing Act’s provision for reinstatement allowed for the Board to grant such application within its discetion at any time, not earlier then 10 years stated under a separate provision of the Nursing Act.

She won in the Commonwealth Court and the Nursing Board took an appeal to the Supreme Count. The issue is “In view of the absence of an explicit directive for restoration of an automatically-suspended license which has not been revoked, should the court follow the 10 year reinstatement period or shorter.

I have written about the consequences of a Drug Act conviction many times.  The automatic suspension and delayed eligibility for either reinstatement or revocation present substantial impediments to practicing licensee.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in McGrath determines that after the Nursing Board has suspended a license, it may restore or reissue the license in its discretion (less than 10 years) subject to any disciplinary or corrective measure it could have originally imposed. § 224(b)(6). The process for doing so is reflected in Section 15 of the Nursing Law, which states, in pertinent part:

All suspensions and revocations shall be made only in accordance with the regulations of the Board, and only by majority vote of the members of the Board after a full and fair hearing before the Board…. The Board, by majority action and in accordance with its regulations, may reissue any license which has been suspended. If a license has been revoked, the Board can reissue a license only in accordance with section 15.2.
63 P.S. § 225. There are distinct procedures for the restoration of suspended versus revoked licenses, and it imposes a more restrictive regimen in relation to revoked licenses. In addition to the discretionary suspension of licenses under Sections 14 and 15, the Nursing Law contains a provision, added in 1985, for automatic suspension due to a felony conviction under the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.  63 P.S. § 225.1(b).  In particular, Section 15.1(b) of the Law states:
A license issued under this act shall automatically be suspended upon … conviction of a felony under the [Controlled Substance Act] …. As used in this section the term “conviction” shall include a judgment, an admission of guilt or a plea of nolo contendere…. Restoration of such license shall be made as hereinafter provided in the case of revocation or suspension of such license.
(emphasis added). In terms of the “hereinafter provided” clause of the above text, Section 15.2 indicates:
Unless ordered to do so by Commonwealth Court or an appeal therefrom, the Board shall not reinstate the license of a person to practice nursing … which has been revoked. Any person whose license has been revoked may reapply for a license, after a period of at least five (5) years, but must meet all of the licensing qualifications of this act for the license applied for, to include the examination requirement, if he or she desires to practice at any time after such revocation.
Finally, Section 6(c) of the Nursing Law, which relates to the qualifications for licensure, specifies that if a nursing license applicant has been convicted of a felony under the Controlled Substance Act, the Board may not issue a nursing license to that person unless: ten years have passed since the date of the conviction; the applicant demonstrates significant progress in rehabilitation so that licensure is not expected to create a substantial risk to patients or the public; and the applicant otherwise satisfies the licensure qualifications set forth in the Law. See63 P.S. § 216(c).
The McGrath Supreme Court specific states a professional nurse who has been licensed but whose license has been suspended is not similarly situated to an individual who has never been licensed—or, for that, matter, a person who was once licensed but whose license has been revoked. See generally Brown v. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 129 Pa. Cmwlth. 642, 646, 566 A.2d 913, 915 (1989) (acknowledging that a person holding a professional license still possesses a property right in that license even where it has been suspended (but not revoked), as a suspended license is “susceptible to revival”); Pittenger v. Bureau of Prof’l & Occupational Affairs, 142 Pa. Cmwlth. 57, 61–62, 596 A.2d 1227, 1229–30 (1991) (same, and expressing further that “when a license … is revoked, it is extinguished and the former possessor is returned to the same position he occupied had the license or privilege never been issued” (quoting Keeley v. State Real Estate Comm’n, 93 Pa. Cmwlth. 291, 296, 501 A.2d 1155, 1158 (1985))).
Having conclude that reinstatement is eligible in less that ten years, such is still within the discretion of the Board.  More importantly, the Court affirmed the proposition that

Section 15.1(b) reflects a clear legislative policy judgment that a felony violation of the Controlled Substances Act is an especially serious infraction warranting an automatic license suspension.  “The Board [still possesses] … discretion to restore such a license in the manner applicable to other license suspensions after conducting an appropriate administrative review.”
This huge legal victory, is however, probably short lived.  The McGrath Court simply counsel’s the Board to seeking revocation of a license, in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Nursing Law, following a conviction under the Controlled Substances Act. See63 P.S. § 224(a)(8) (authorizing the Board to impose discipline, up to and including revocation, based on the acquisition, possession, distribution, or use of a controlled substance for other than acceptable medical purposes).  (“The Board could have sought revocation of Ms. McGrath’s license [under Section 14] … but it did not.” (emphasis omitted)). If an automatically-suspended license is ultimately revoked, reinstatement would then be governed by Section 15.2.
The McGrath lesson is two fold.  The case reveals very poor legislative drafting that creates a loop-hole, for suspended licensees convicted of Drug Act violations, which allows them to seek to seek license reinstatement under ten years when they have a good reason.  However, either the General Assembly will fix this statutory construction problem or the Board will change its policy and start revoking licenses of those professionals convicted of Drug Act violations.
Call me to discuss your criminal matter and the status of your license.


Felony Convictions and License Reinstatement

A licensed professional convicted of a felony drug offense is a major impediment to securing licensure in another jurisdiction or seeking reinstatement once your professional license is disciplined for that conviction. In many license reinstatement cases, applicants are so in need of their license that they hire the wrong attorney, waste money on filing reinstatement petitions prior to the expiration of the license preclusion period, or simply give up on getting their license back.
In a 2017 Pennsylvania Nursing Board Final Adjudication and Order the nurse was convicted in 2006 in Delaware of practicing with an expired nursing license.  In 2015 she sought reinstatement of her Pennsylvania nursing license.  Because she was convicted of a felony involving the practice or professional in Delaware, the convicted offense and license discipline was applicable under the Pennsylvania Nursing Act to her Pennsylvania license.
After 8 years, she hired the wrong attorney to seek reinstatement of her Pennsylvania nursing license. Her attorney thought reinstatement was was possible based upon mitigation and rehabilitation evidence.  She was wrong.
Pennsylvania’s Professional Nursing Law, section 6(c), states that the “Board may not issue a license or [graduate training certificate] to an applicant who has been convicted or a felony relating to a controlled substance law (in any jurisdiction) unless at least 10 years has elapsed from the date of conviction.   It does not matter how much rehabilitation the applicant has undergone.  If the application for licensure is not outside the ten years, there is no legal ability for the Board to consider the license application.
This denial of licensure application case reveals that counsel for the applicant did not know the law.  Focusing on rehabilitation rather than eligibility, the applicant’s attorney wasted his client’s money on his premature application, hearing, and appeal time.
Licensing attorneys must know what evidence is admissible in the relaxed administrative hearing process under GRAPP (General Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure) 2 PA.C.S. § 504.  Knowing to what exhibits or evidence to object and facts an attorney should stipulate will make or break a licensee’s case.  The uninformed general practitioner will not know the importance or admissibility of certain evidence.  They will waste time and legal fee money fighting evidence that is admissible in evidence for the Board to consider or will move into evidence evidence that the Board should not consider.
More importantly, the uninformed practitioner will accept a case simply to pay their bills.  The uniformed attorney will take cases that have no merit, can not be won, or will lose a case that is easily won.  Desperate licensed professionals who are waiting out a discipline and seek reinstatement will pay an attorney who sounds good but can not discern the attorney’s lack of knowledge of their case.
Call me for confidence in understanding your case.  I will give you a clear understanding of the problem, counsel you about the risks and rewards of fighting your case.  I will not take your case, or fight for your license if you do not want me to, can not afford it, or there is no basis to seek reinstatement.
Fighting a disciplinary action – an Order to Show Cause -, contesting the VRP or DMU letters must be done with competent informed counsel. Never concede an impairment. Never admit an addiction without formal legal counseling on the affect of such on your license. Never plead guilty to any criminal offense without consultation with an experienced license attorney so you understand the collateral consequences of the criminal conviction, ARD, or no contest plea.  Please read my blogs and website to understand how I can help you and protect your license.

Rural Nursing and the Scope of My Practice

Telephones are great.  Your reading this blog because of the internet.  You are concerned about a legal issue of which I have written about.  I write all of my blogs and wrote every article on my website and the topics contained therein.    All the AVVO reviews on my website are from great medical professional facing significant issues  of which I help them considerably.

Due to the Pennsylvania nursing impairment enforcement environment, my professional license defense practice (criminal and disciplinary hearing) take me to many rural counties throughout Pennsylvania.  My web and internet presence starts my legal relationships.  I meet with almost every client in either county district or Common Please Court, in Harrisburg for a hearing, or at a convenient place to prepare for the next step in the legal process.  I therefore drive a lot.

My driving throughout the Commonwealth brings me to really wonderful people, scenery, and vistas.  I have written about driving through the Lehigh Valley several times.  Last week I ventured off to Columbia County.  It could be considered the middle of the Commonwealth — a wealthy state it is.  Some pictures taken while driving reveal the early morning fog burning off.


The really interesting thing about this photograph is that the fog is coming from the cold water of the eastern branch of the Susquehanna River.  This branch meanders west and then south, merging with the northern branch that falls north to south from Lewisburg and Williamsport into Harrisburg, where my clients and I attend the Nursing, Medical Board and other hearings.

Coming back from Columbia County, Jim Thorpe and the Lehigh River bring me home through the Lehigh Tunnel.


I really like Carbon County, Jim Thorpe.  The town is great.  The court house is magnificent, and there is a bike rental and equipment shop next to the breakfast place.  The crazy monument controversy is alive and present in the town square.

Carbon County Square

Call me to talk about coming to your Pennsylvania County to handle your nursing license, medical license, or other professional license disciplinary or criminal matter.

Medical Marijuana and the Pitfalls for the Professional

The pitfalls of medical marijuana for the professional are more evident every day. Several weeks ago I wrote a blog on the challenges facing licensees who seek a medical marijuana card due to a medical condition. Prescription Drug History   In another blog I wrote about the complexities facing medical professionals who seek to become medical marijuana authorized prescribers.


In Pot Doc Article the Philadelphia Inquirer reveals Pennsylvania’s Medical Board, Health Department, FBI, and DEA investigatory practices in this field.  If you are a medical professional, please read this article.  I represented a peripheral, part time doctor moon lighting for Dr. Nikparavarfard.

Doctors working in a medical practice that includes a “Pot Doc“ – doctors that are authorized to write prescriptions for medical marijuana – are subjecting themselves to unnecessary oversight and inquiry.  When a  “Pot Doc” exposes himself to both criminal and licensing  investigations, they expose all nurses or doctors employed by that practice.  Drug Act violations are routinely found and criminal charges filed!.

The FBI and DEA’s investigation of Dr. Nikparvarfard’s Scranton office – the Pot Doc – necessarily also included  my client’s prescribing patterns.  An invasive, long running investigation turned to her simply because the police were investigating that practice and needed leverage against Dr. Nikparvarfard.  Experienced and accomplished undercover FBI, DEA, Health Department agents then ensnared my client.  Again, only because they were looking at Dr. Nik’s practice.

My client was not the prescribing “Pot Doc.”  However, the overarching Pot Doc investigation expanded to any potential criminal activity discovered within the medical practice.  But for my client working for the Pot doc and his medical practice, my client would not have been under surveillance. Unfortunately she was.

Once my client became known to FBI, her prescription and Medicaid/Medicare billing patterns were easily examined, patients contacted, and medical procedures evaluated.  Undercover patients were sent to the practice.  All because of the attention brought on the practice by Pot Doc Nikparvarfard.

One bad apple spoils the pie; two or three bad apples subject professionals to jail.  These types of investigations render medical professionals (nurses and doctors) unemployed and potentially unemployable.  Thereafter, professionals are the target of multiple investigations by medical boards, DEA,  Health Departments, and potentially the U.S. Department of justice.  But for my client’s employment with a Pot Doc, she would not have come under any surveillance.

This case is but one example of many to come.  Overarching public safety concerns, opiates in the news, and an aggressive enforcement environment of a new regulatory scheme create huge risks for both Pot Docs and those doctors and nurses who work with them.

Please call me to discuss

Birchfield, Rufusals, and PennDot’s DL – 26B Form

In many pending 2017 Pennsylvania DUI and civil license refusal cases stemming for arrests between April 2016 and July 2017 police officers administered incorrect chemical test warnings to Pennsylvania motorists.  Use of the DL 26B form, I think, is legally insufficient pursuant to the then effective 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(2).  Counsel should file suppression motions.  A corollary issue is whether these drivers are capable as a matter of law of refusing the blood test where the police officer testifies he read the illegal PennDOT DL-26B form.

In May/June 2016 PennDOT created the new DL 26B form in response to Birchfield.  Birchfield held that criminally coercing a blood draw — compelling a defendant to testify/provide blood evidence against themselves or face jail time — is unconstitutional.  After Birchfield, enhanced penalties and threats of jail to secure evidence in DUI cases require suppression of blood evidence.  In response PennDOT changed its DUI informed consent form, the DL 26B document that local and state police read to DUI suspects when the want the suspect to give blood.  The General Assembly did not give PennDOT authority to do this.  This is the topic of this blog.

The suppression argument is as follows:  The arresting officer’s warnings to the DUI suspect fail to comply with Section 1547(b)(2) in that the driver was not advised that refusing the chemical test would result in enhanced criminal penalties (i.e. the penalties provided in Section 3804(c)) as § 1547(b) (pre-July 2017) requires.  While there is no statutory or other requirement that any DL-26 Form contain appropriate warnings, or that the form be read verbatim, it is nonetheless the duty of the police officer to inform the petitioner of the statutorily required warnings.  (See Section 1547(b)(2)).  In other words, if the police officer recites the appropriate warnings from memory without the use of any form at all that is perfectly acceptable under the law.  If an officer confirms the only warnings provided were those contained on the DL-26B Form, those warnings are not consistent with the statutory law prior to July 2017.

This date is important because on July 20, 2017, the governor approved Act 30 of 2017 which provides for an amendment to Section 1547(b)(2), removing language requiring a police officer to provide the warnings relating to enhanced criminal penalties for refusal. While this amendment was not effective on the date of petitioner’s incident, the fact that the legislature  amended  it is indicative  of its acknowledgement that such an amendment was necessary to effectuate the change required of the warnings pursuant to Birchfield.

Importantly, the §1547 pre-July 2017 statute includes the word shall.   The legislature’s use of the term “shall” establishes that police officers must comply with the §1547 language mandate. In Comm v. Weaver, the 2006 Pennsylvania Supreme Court interprets §1547(b)(2) verbiage (the same was in effect on prior to July 2017) reaching the same conclusion.  Following the September 2003 amendments to the Implied Consent Law, PennDOT implemented the language of§ 1547(b)(2)(ii) into a new DL-26 form. This led to a significant amount of litigation over whether the warnings printed on the December 2003 version of the Department of Transportation’s DL-26 form were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of§ 1547(b)(2). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Weaver, held that the warnings printed on that version of the DL-26 form were legally sufficient to satisfy those requirements.  In reaching its decision, the Weaver Court stated:

The legislature’s use of the term “shall” clearly establishes that police officers must comply with  this mandate.   Subparagraph (ii) commands police officers to inform an arrestee that “(ii) upon conviction, plea or adjudication of delinquency for violating section 3802(a), the person will be subject to penalties provided in section 3804(c) (relating to penalties).” The words of this statute are clear and free from all ambiguity; thus, we will glean the legislative intent from those words. The plain language requires only that the officer inform the arrestee that if he is convicted of DUI, refusal will result in additional penalties.

Accordingly, under the plain language of the statute, the warnings set forth in the 2017 version of § 1547(b)(2) are mandatory and must be strictly complied with in order to suspend a motorist’s operating privilege pursuant to the Vehicle Code. Previously, in very certain terms, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court has held that, in requesting a chemical test, the police officer must inform the arrestee of the consequences of refusal and notify the arrestee that there is no right to consult with an attorney before making a decision. See O’Connell, 555 A.2d at 877-78.12 “An arrestee is entitled to this information so that his choice to take a [chemical] test can be knowing and conscious.” Id. at 878. The choice belongs to the arrestee, not the police officer.

In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation v Kennedy, 66 A.3d 818 (Pa. Comw. 2013), the Court says that:

“the warning delivered to [licensee] fully complies with the statutory requirements. The statute simply does not require any specific explanation as to the length of the civil suspension and does not require explanation of criminal penalties set forth in §3804(c). The statute requires only that the police provide notice that refusal will result in license suspension and, that if the licensee is driving under the influence, refusal will result in additional penalties. [The licensee] receives this information. Kennedy requires that the officer deliver only the statutory authorized 1547(b) authorized penalties of a refusal. While there is no specific language that the Courts have determined these police officers must read licensees, once the officer begins notifying potential motorists of license refusal consequences, only those consequences that are set forth in the statute must be read.”

Our Pennsylvania Supreme Court has confirmed police officers’ obligation to advise motorists of the exact warning contained in §1547(b)(2). In this 15 month period, police officers utilizing the DL-26B form did not comply with statutory law requiring the correct consequences be advised to these motorists. PennDOT’s utilization of the revised DL-26B was not sanctioned by the General Assembly and not legally effective on the date and time of these arrest render the information provided to them insufficient as a matter of law.

§1547 prior to July 2017 required reading all language contained therein, even those provisions deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. This tension between the current statutory laws and judicial decisions create a situation fraught with potential that motorists will not receive sufficient information to make a voluntary, informed decision regarding consent to the requested chemical testing.

The complex criminal versus civil application of Birchfield, Weaver, Kennedy, supra, is born out in Boseman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 157 A.3d 10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), and Gray v. Commonwealth , Dep’t of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, No. 1759 C.D. 2016, 2017 WL 2536439, at *7–8 (Pa. Commw. Ct. June 9, 2017), reargument denied (Aug. 7, 2017).  These cases maintain  arresting officer’s statutory obligation to inform a motorist of the General Assembly’s defined § 1547(b)’s ramifications of a refusal – not PennDOT’s version.

In Boseman  and Gray, supra, Commonwealth Court states Birchfield does not apply to PennDOT license suspension refusal cases. As such, any court finding that Birchfield effectively compelled PennDOT to unilaterally re-write the 1547(b) mandatory warning, to a non-statutorily authorized version, is not supported by the Commonwealth Court’s application of Birchfield in the §1547(b) refusal context. Boseman, Gray, Weaver, Kennedy, supra.

In Gray and Boseman, supra, Judge McCullough dissents.  Judge McCullough convincingly points out the incongruity of the constitutional right of privacy and self-incrimination Birchfield establishes (adopted by Commonwealth v. Evans, 153 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2016)) and Commonwealth Court’s dismissing such argument in the civil license suspension context when ONLY a state based property right (a motor vehicle operator’s license) is at issue.

In Price v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing,, No. 1873 C.D. 2016, 2017 WL 4321625, at *6 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Sept. 29, 2017), Judge McCullough concurs in the result (she is constrained to follow Boseman, supra) but reiterates her position set forth in Gray and Boseman.  However, Judge Cosgroves dissents:

While Birchfield is not directly applicable here, it does stand for a principle which the former DL–26 does not reflect. And while Birchfield allows implementation of civil penalties for refusal to submit to a blood test in cases such as this, it does not give states permission to misinform a licensee as to the consequences of a refusal.

As such, Courts may, on alternative grounds, conclude Birchfield applies in the civil, administrative license suspension realm as a driver’s licenses in this day and age constitutes a property right to which criminal threat of incarceration to surrender (the proper § 1547(b) language to be read but was not) violates her constitutional rights, voiding any refusal. This conclusion is sought even though the DL-26 Form with the enhanced penalties was not read to these motorists.  It was still required to be read, but was not.

Call me to discuss your case.


What is a “Conviction” – How Important is Drug Court to the Licensed Professional?

In 1999 Tim Kearney was issued his Pennsylvania physician assistant (“PA”) license. In March 2010 he admitted himself into a treatment facility for drug addiction issues.  On August 16, 2011 he plead guilty to the felony Drug Act violation –  securing a prescription by fraud.  At the time of his guilty plea, Kearney acknowledges he understood that by pleading guilty he was  “admitting to committing the criminal charge” as alleged under the Pennsylvania Drug Act.

In December 2011 the Pennsylvania Medical Board automatically suspended Mr. Kearney’s PA license for no less than 10 years pursuant to section 40(B) of the Medical Practices Act of 1985.  This provision requires the Board to suspend any licensee who suffers a felony conviction for violating any provision of Pennsylvania’s Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (CSA). 35 P.S. § 780–113(a)(12).

In December, 2011, Kearney filed in criminal court a petition to vacate his guilty plea and enroll in the county adult drug court program.  In June 2014, after 2 1/2 years in drug court, Kearney petitioned to vacate his guilty plea and dismiss the criminal case.   His request was based upon compliance with all terms and conditions of the program. On June 20, 2014 the county trial court dismissed all of Kearney’s criminal drug charges.  They were subsequently expunged. (This is really important.)

Six months later, in December, 2014, Kearney filed a Petition to Reinstate his PA license based upon the lack of criminal conviction, the expungement, and his extensive drug and alcohol treatment.  This blog discusses the Commonwealth Court opinion approving his petition and reversing the Medical Board’s refusal to reinstate Kearney’s PA license.  The case is found at Kearney v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, — A.3d —- (2017).

The Pennsylvania administrative law hearing examiner denied Kearney’s Petition to Reinstate his PA license. The hearing examiner concluded Kearney’s admission of guilt in the guilty plea colloquy and statement before the presiding judge when the charges were dismissed constitute either a conviction or an admission of guilt pursuant to the Medical Practices Act.  The hearing officer determined Kearney satisfied his burden of proof that he was able to resume his PA practice with reasonable skill and safety to patients, subject to monitoring by the physicians health program.

The Medical Board agreed with the hearing examiner that Mr. Kearney’s PA license remained indefinitely suspended as a result of a “conviction” as defined by the Medical Practices Act.  It did not reach the PHP and monitoring aspect of the decision because it determined Kearney’s license was still suspended.

Kearney appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which reversed. The sole issue on appeal was whether Kearney’s original guilty plea (vacated and now expunged) constituted a conviction and his statements on the record constitute “admissions of guilt“ in accordance with section 40B of the Medical Practices Act.

Commonwealth Court reviewed the Medical Practice Act.  “The Act provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] license or certificate issued under this act shall automatically be suspended upon … conviction of a felony under the act … known as [t]he [CSA] ….” 63 P.S. § 422.40(b). Section 40(b) of the Act clarifies that “[a]s used in this section, the term ‘conviction’ shall include a judgment, an admission of guilt or a plea of nolo contendere.Id.; see also section 2 of the Act, 63 P.S. § 422.2 (defining “conviction” as “[a] judgment of guilt, an admission of guilt or a plea of nolo contendere.

  • Section 43 of the Act further states that “[a]ny person whose license, certificate or registration has been suspended or revoked because of a felony conviction under the [CSA] … may apply for reinstatement after a period of at least ten years has elapsed from the date of conviction.” 63 P.S. § 43.

While the Act provides for automatic suspension of a license for a felony “conviction” under the CSA, the Act incorporates the CSA by express reference. By all reasonable means, this compelled the Court to unify two or more statutes in a cohesive and consistent fashion and avoid interpreting one statute in a manner that repeals or is otherwise incongruous with another statute.

Under section 17 of the CSA, a trial court “may place a person on probation without verdict if the person pleads nolo contendere or guilty to any nonviolent offense under [the CSA] and the person proves he is drug dependent.” 35 P.S. 780–117. (This is a Section 17 plea.)

Importantly, that section also states that “[u]pon fulfillment of the terms and conditions of probation, the court shall discharge such person and dismiss the proceedings against him,” adding that the “dismissal shall be without adjudication of guilt and shall not constitute a conviction for any purpose whatever ….” 35 P.S. § 780–117(3) (emphasis added). Section 19 of the CSA further declares that records of arrest or prosecution under the Act will be expunged. When a court orders expungement, the records “shall not … be regarded as an arrest or prosecution for the purpose of any statute or regulation or license or questionnaire or any civil or criminal proceeding or any other public or private purpose.” 35 P.S. § 780–119(b).

As a surface matter, Commonwealth court observes that a plain reading of the statutes indicates that, while the Act includes an “admission of guilt” as a subpart of the definition of a “conviction,” the CSA commands that a final disposition of “probation without verdict” does not constitute a “conviction.” Under the procedure in section 17 of the CSA for a “probation without verdict,” an individual’s “plea” is, in essence, held in abeyance, or not accepted, until there is a final determination by the court as to whether the individual has satisfactorily completed the terms and conditions of probation; if the individual does so, the trial court dismisses the charges and there is no verdict or finding of guilt in the matter.

Consequently, in order to afford the phrase “for any purpose whatever” in section 17 of the CSA its full linguistic effect, the Court reasonably interpreted it to mean that the oral and written statements made to a trial court in connection with a “probation without verdict” cannot be a considered a “conviction” for purposes of section 40(b) of the Act. To be sure, this construction is the only way in which the term “conviction” in the Act can be harmonized with the same term in the CSA.

Indeed, following dismissal of the underlying charges, the criminal record is expunged pursuant to section 19 of the CSA, and the criminal record cannot be used at all in an administrative licensing matter – not even as proof that the individual  was arrested or prosecuted.  In some statutes, our General Assembly, without using the word “conviction,” has expressly included the phrase “probation without verdict” to describe the basis upon which a licensing board can refuse, suspend, or revoke a professional license.

However, the General Assembly did not insert this or similar language in the Act. Nor did   the General Assembly inject “probation without verdict” alongside “admission of guilt” in the Act’s definition of a “conviction.” Inferentially, the divergence in word usage among the CSA, the Act, and other similar statutes is indicative of the General Assembly’s desire to conceptually separate an “admission of guilt” from a “probation without verdict,” suggesting to courts that the two should not be perceived or linked as being one and the same.

On the whole, Commonwealth Court precedent has clearly concluded as much.   For example, in Carlson, a teacher entered a plea of nolo contendere to charges that he possessed drugs in violation of the CSA, a plea that has “the same legal effect as a plea of guilty in the criminal proceedings in which it is entered.” 418 A.2d at 813. The criminal case proceeded under the provisions of section 17 of the CSA, and the teacher eventually had his criminal record expunged. Although this Court was convinced that the school district properly dismissed the teacher for immorality pursuant to sections 1122 and 1129 of the Public School Code, Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended 24 P.S. §§ 11–1122 and 11–1129, we pointed to the special nature and characteristics of the CSA and the probation without a verdict mechanism.

More specifically, the Court explained that when the charges are dismissed following compliance with probation, “no judgment is entered, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant is placed on probation, an act which normally constitutes a sentence, i.e. a judgment.” 418 A.2d at 813. On this basis, we determined that evidence of the teacher’s plea of nolo contendere was inadmissible, and further reasoned that, as a result of the expungement, there was “no criminal record” upon which the trier of fact could determine that the teacher engaged in conduct of a criminal nature. Id. Accordingly, this Court held that the teacher could not be discharged from his employment with the school district as a matter of law.

The crisp and clean understanding of this case is that in any Medical Board supervised license case, for which disciplinary action is based upon a conviction that has been opened and erased due to Drug Court compliance, there is no conviction.  There is no basis to deny reinstatement of a license.  Whether the PHP gets involved is a different question.  This case merely, but forcefully, allows for eligibility for reinstatement once Drug Court is served, complied with, and all charges are dismissed and expunged.

Call me to discuss your case.


%d bloggers like this: