A Constitutional Right to Work

On October 4, 2018 Commonwealth Court issued a significant decision in King v. BPOA discussing the Criminal History Record Information Act (“CHRIA”).This statute gives licensing boards a discretionary authority to discipline, suspend, revoke, grant, or deny licensure based upon a criminal conviction related to the practice of a license. CHRIA’s general purpose, however, is to control the collection, maintenance, dissemination or receive a criminal history record information.

Recently,licensing boards use CHRIA to discipline licensees for criminal conduct NOT related to the practice of license. King reiterates CHRIA does not provide standards for Boards to exercise their discretion. Boards must look at their specific and more relevant enabling statutes, the specific board licensing laws. CHRIA does not authorize discipline for a criminal convictions not related to the practice of the profession.

This is why in CHRIA disciplinary cases, those solely based upon a criminal conviction, licensee’s mitigation and rehabilitation evidence is critical. In 1998 King was convicted of indecent assault. He was sentenced to 5-10 years in jail, 10 years probation and supervision under Megan’s law. After parole and King satisfied all terms of his sentence, did not violate probation or parole, properly secured his barber license, and practiced his profession in an unblemished manner. He properly notified the Board of his conviction.

The Barber Board, after a hearing, revoked King’s license based upon the misdemeanor conviction and probationary sentences. King appealed. Commonwealth Court ruled the Barber Board abuses its discretion in revoking the license based upon CHRIA. As the licensee did not violate the Barber licensing statute, there was no other basis to discipline him.

This case is significant because Commonwealth Court relies upon Article 1, Section 1 of Pennsylvania’s Constitution. This Article guarantees Pennsylvania residents the right to engage in any of the occupations of life. By referencing a state constitutional guarantee the court effectively holds this rights outweighs CHRIA’s general purpose, non-mandatory discretionary license disciplinary.

King emphasizes Boards’ general statements of public safety concerns of a future occurrence is not proper evidence upon which it may base a discretionary disciplinary action. The Board abuses its description when it revokes licensure based on supposition that the licensee could potentially be an instructor for female students under the age of 18 or have contact with minor clients. Such speculative reasoning is flawed.

King rejects Board member perceptions that criminal convictions scar licensees’ character forever, with no possibility of rehabilitation. King instructs licensing Board to consider and properly allow for rehabilitation. King follows a line of 2018 Commonwealth Court cases instructing Pennsylvania licensing Boards that CHRIA is a not a proper basis to suspend or revoke a constitutionally secured property right. https://www.phila-criminal-lawyer.com/blog/2018/05/another-appeals-court-reverses-a-pennsylvania-licensing-board-disciplinary-decision.shtml

Fully employment and hard work is the rule. This is in contrast to many recent cases of which I have written. Commonwealth court is telling the boards as a matter of policy, “let these people work”. Rehabilitation is part and parcel with employment, which is part and parcel with members being productive people in society.

Call me to discuss your case.

Act 6 of 2018 — All Licensees Must Report Criminal or Disciplinary Charges with in 30 Days

Act 6 of 2018 is a new law in 2018. It represents a fundamental shift in Pennsylvania licensees’ duty to report criminal charges and disciplinary actions filed against them in any jurisdiction in the entire country. The General Assembly passed the new law in anticipation of medical marijuana. The enforcement environment is getting much stricter in Pennsylvania. Every Pennsylvania professional licensee must report the misdemeanor and felony criminal charges to their respective board within 30 days receipt of criminal charges. It is a disciplinary offense for any licensee to not report within 30 days of receipt of criminal charges.

Act 6 of 2018 specifically authorizes the The Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs (“BPOA”) to subscribe to JNET. My prior blogs discuss JNET, the criminal reporting database network to which the Nursing Board began subscribing.   JNET now levels the reporting responsibility and Boards learning of its licensees’ criminal conduct.  There was a significant difference between nurses and doctors, pharmacist, realtors, cosmetologists, and funeral directors (and all others) in their criminal charge reporting responsibilities. All licensees are now treated equal. Licensees can not wait to report — thinking at a preliminary hearing charges will be reduced to a summary offense, for which there is a guilty plea. The charging is the reportable event, not the end result.

This all began in 2014.  In late 2014 the General Assembly modified Pennsylvania professional licensing regulations to require nurses to report criminal charges, not conviction, within 30 day days of charges being filing. The BPOA utilized the last several years to create a new enforcement infrastructure and mechanisms to insure disciplinary action is initiated against all nurses who either reported or they learned of criminal conduct or did not report at all.  The reporting responsibility is in addition to reporting criminal charges upon licensee renewal.

Through JNET the Nursing Board became familiar with the criminal reporting subscription service and its information power. Obviously the Board created a flow chart starting at receipt of criminal information through to disciplinary charge initiation for failure to report. The Nursing Board worked out the differences between JNET and nurse reporting of charges. Steps between failure to report, Board investigation, document review, and charges have also been ironed out.

Apparently BPOA had a significantly positive experience with JNET’s notification process, allowing it to better enforce nurses’ reporting responsibility. Expanding 30-day reporting of criminal activity to all other 25 licensing boards will inundate the BPOA with information regarding licensees’ criminal behavior.  This will produce some delays in failure to report and initiation of criminal charges.

The Act also gives the BPOA prosecutor not just the authority but the command to initiate within 30 days an emergent suspension if a licensee’s criminal acts reveal a clear and present danger to the public. The licensee is afforded a preliminary hearing to contest the automatic license suspension. This “automatic suspension process” is not new.

All licensees were spared the obligation to report summary Drug Act violations. By this I mean summary charges for disorderly conduct written by cops giving a break to licensees caught with illegal marijuana. This reporting requirement was in the original versions of the bill but stricken from the final version. The Act includes authority for every Board to institute a schedule of fines for escalating number of failure to report charges.

Act 6 includes a very limited right of expungement. This is only for disciplinary action for failure to comply with continued education requirements. The law explicitly precludes any expungement of any disciplinary order by any board for any other offense. Aside from capping Board fines to $10,000, BPOA can enter a judgment against the licensee if the fine is not paid in 5 years.

Call me to discuss your case.

Northampton County’s 1861 Court Room!!

Finding the diamond in the rough. That describes my recent drive to the Northampton County Courthouse. As my law practice takes me from the Philadelphia’s suburban counties to northeastern Pennsylvania, I routinely travel on the Pennsylvania Turnpike and its Northeast extension.

The drive this July week was rough. The weather forecast proved accurate; rain and fog through the Lehigh Valley. It was raining so hard, I missed my exit off Rt 476E at Rt 22 E. I drove an additional 20 miles each direction, turning around in Jim Thorpe. (I love the Carbon County Courthouse – see my other blogs – but I was not going there today.)

 I was uncharacteristically late, arriving at 9:25 am for a 9:00 am hearing.  I was otherwise safe.  The judge was extremely gracious and polite. The case was handled quickly.  Opposing counsel – a local assistant district attorney – offered a tour of the courthouse as I expressed my appreciation for our hearing taking place in the old courthouse, courtroom 3, as compared to the new 2004 building.

The county website states, “The original court house was built in  1764. Nearly a century later and after the courthouse had experienced a number of historical events, which included being used as a barracks by Revolutionary troops, a group of citizens petitioned for a new County Courthouse at a different location. On August 23, 1860, the County Commissioners decided to accept land offered at a price of $1.00 that was located several blocks west of the original facility.   A new brick structure was later built on a steep hill at a cost of $53,000. The first term of court was held in the new facility on June 18, 1861.  Since then, two additional wings were constructed to accommodate the growth of Northampton County and satisfy the judicial needs of the expanded population.  The second part of the courthouse was built in 1978 and the third in 2004. “

I was interested in the 1861 building and court room 1.  Finished at the out set of the Civil War.   Wow!! A majestic legal theater, refurbished in 1978 to match the import to the community when the courthouse was built. Original woodwork, plaster, and paint are renewed. County Commissioners rightfully chose to not clutter the court room with of a phalanx of computer cables, microphones, and other modern day accoutrements that clutter some other county courtrooms in which I practice.

The pictures below reveal the courtroom’s grand entrance, judicial bench, and the jury box of the times. The remarkable woodwork and attention to detail immediately reveals itself. The artisans of Pennsylvania’s counties knew their work would be on display at every important and public event of the times. The honor and respect they earned working for their local government on the most important building in the county.

Call a Lawyer, Not the Licensing Board, When Contacted by Board Counsel or Investigators

My administrative law practice takes me before many of Pennsylvania’s licensing boards and in hearings that address a variety of disciplinary actions.  It is during Pennsylvania’s professional licensing boards’ bimonthly meetings that disciplinary matters are commenced, reviewed, or finalized.  This is why after a given board’s monthly meeting I typically receive a wave of calls from new clients, mail that initiates disciplinary action in pending cases, or final decisions in cases.

Potential disciplinary actions a board may commence include: 1) reciprocal disciplinary actions; 2) emergency petitions to immediately take a license; 3) objections to license applications; 4)  approval of different consent agreements; 5) approval or rejection of hearing officer’s proposed adjudications; and 6) reviewing cases sent back from the Commonwealth Court for issuance of revised disciplinary action. Also, several boards have subcommittees that approve probable cause petitions compelling licensees to undergo mental and physical of evaluations.

After bimonthly board meetings I receive calls from both current or potential clients inquiring “What I should do? Who should I talk to?  or What information should be disclosed?   Many callers disclose prior conversations with board counsel, investigators, PHMP assessors, or other board representatives. I cringe when I hear this.

 

Board representatives, prosecutors, administrators, and/or medical professionals do not represent the licensee. These people are tasked with enforcing board regulations. They are tasked with complying with each and every administrative procedural requirement (of which the licensee has no idea). They are tasked with securing information against the licensee who is potentially, or actually, subject to disciplinary action. These people do not look out for the best interest of the licensee.  DO NOT TALK TO THESE PEOPLE ABOUT YOUR CASE, FACTS, OR MEDICAL CONDITIONS.  THEY WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN.

 

Board administrators and PHMP office staff are not sophisticated licensed professionals. They are unfamiliar with the actual medical issues, legal issues, or licensing process. They merely perform administrative functions. They lack any authority to adjust, regulate, or modify any correspondence.  Relying upon statements from these administrative level workers is frustrating and leads to incorrect practices.

 

I have heard on many occasions board clerical staff and social workers advise licensees and/or license applicants to cooperate – give statements or do other inaccurate suggestions – that are not in the licensees best interest.  Administrative workers routinely do not recommend hiring counsel to secure a better, more complete, or correct legal advice on how to respond to the legal correspondence  just received in the mail.

 

That is why I say do not contact these boards, rely upon what any administrator says, or even hope that they give you correct advice. Call an attorney and secure proper legal advice.  The best analogy I can give is: Do you call a doctor’s office and follow medical advice dispensed by the phone receptionist or want to talk to RN, LPN, or M.D.?  The obvious answer is no.  So why would you do that when calling a licensing board about your professional license you utilize every day?

 

Please call me to discuss the recent board ordered disciplinary correspondence you just received!

Another Really Nice Client Review with my Response

Here is another really nice and very accurate client review and my response. I can write blogs about this stuff. But, client testimonial about how aggressive and direct my representation is becomes the best blog.

I received a “letter of concern” from Pa nursing board after a charge of public intoxication.I unwittingly responded to the Board before contacting Richard.What a mistake!!!!The Board is not your ally-quite the opposite.Their job is to destroy you both financially and mentally.
Fortunately,Richard was able to expertly win our court case.Unfortunately,unbeknownst to me,I had been suffering from Bipolar disorder all the while,and the relentless emotional stresses caused by the Board caused me to suffer deep depression and a resulting manic swing where I had 2 DUI’s in a span of less than 2 weeks. Richard was right there for me and had my charges lessened significantly.Despite that,the Board required that I participate in their onerous,soul and money sucking program.I chose to voluntarily suspend my RN license rather than go through with that.I would not be able to work in my specialty during the 3+ years in the program,be out of thousands of dollars,and may not be employable when all is said and done.32 years as a nurse is enough for my lifetime anyway.
Richard Hark is an expert in protecting licenses of health care professionals and will work tirelessly to win your case.He is also very understanding and helpful with your anxieties at such a stressful and unsure time.I recommend him 100%.

Richard Quinton Hark’s response: “Thank you. I am so happy to help. I aggressively support every client’s need to take their medication without VRP and PHMP interjection in you, the professional’s, course of medical care and treatment. The one size fits all, regulatory approach does not work for everyone. We live in the best time of medical care and lawful prescription medication management of many medical conditions. Do not be ashamed or scared of your medical care as it pertains to your license. Anxiety, depression, ADHD are commonly diagnosed medical conditions for which properly administered and dosed medication management is no one’s business but the patient. Do not tell your job, your manager, the D.O.N., or any police officer in a DUI investigation. Do not respond to any letter of concern or sign medical authorizations releasing your medical care and treatment history to a social worker. Call me. This client and the others who have reviewed me attest to my aggressive defense of you, your privacy, and your license. I couldn’t be happier for this client who trusted my professional experience to help them, and won!!!!!!!”

Pennsylvania’s DUI Statute and Warrantless Blood Draws On An Unconscious Person

Since Birchfield v. N. Dakota, 136 S.Ct. 2160, 2173, 2185, 195 L. Ed. 2d 560 (2016), the Pennsylvania Supreme court has swiftly moved to invigorate and buttress Pennsylvania civil liberties and motor vehicle drivers’ privacy rights.  On July 19, 2017, in Commonwealth v. Myers, 2017 Pa. LEXIS 1689, 2017 WL 3045867, the Court upheld lower court rulings granting suppression of blood evidence seized from a drunk, unconscious motorist.

The facts are simple. Myers was visibly drunk, operated the motor vehicle, was arrested by one police officer, and taken to the hospital for a blood draw. A second officer arrived at the hospital, did not observe Myers or ask his consent to take his blood before hospital staff administered medication rendering Myers unconscious.  Unable to respond to his commands, the 2nd police officer instructed the nurse to draw Myers’ blood for testing.  The police did not secure a warrant to draw or search drunk, unconscious Myers’ blood.

The Court granted the appeal to consider the lawfulness of a warrantless blood draw conducted upon a motorist who, having been arrested for DUI, had then been rendered unconscious by medical personnel before a police officer provided O’Connell warnings and before the officer requested the motorist’s submission to a chemical test. The Philadelphia Municipal Court, the Court of Common Pleas, and Superior Court all held that a blood draw conducted under these circumstances is impermissible, and that the results of the derivative blood test are accordingly inadmissible at trial. Because the seizure of Myers‘ blood violated Pennsylvania’s implied consent statute, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547, and because no other circumstances justified the failure to obtain a search warrant, the Court affirmed all of the lower courts’ decisions suppressing the blood evidence.

At the intermediate appellate level, in Commonwealth v. Myers, 2015 PA Super 140, 118 A.3d 1122 (Pa. Super. 2015), the court stated that Subsection 1547(b)(1) “provides a driver under arrest with [a] statutory right of refusal to blood testing.” (quoting 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(1)).  Because Myers was unconscious at the time that Officer Domenic requested the blood draw, the court observed that Myers “could not claim the statutory protection” of Subsection 1547(b)(1). 

Superior Court also relies upon Missouri v. McNeely,     U.S.    , 133 S.Ct. 1552, 185 L. Ed. 2d 696 (2013), holding that, “because police did not act pursuant to the implied consent law until 4:45 p.m., after Myers had been rendered unconscious by an intervening cause that occurred subsequent to his DUI arrest and transport to the hospital, … McNeely controls here.”  Like the trial court, Superior Court determines the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate the impracticability of obtaining a warrant prior to the blood draw. Therefore, the panel held that the trial court correctly affirmed the Municipal Court’s order granting Myers‘ motion to suppress.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Commonwealth argues that the implied consent statute establishes a valid exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and that the statutory right to refuse chemical testing does not apply to unconscious arrestees. The Commonwealth’s central premise is that, under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(a), “any individual who exercises the privilege of driving in Pennsylvania has consented to a blood draw.” 

Although a conscious individual may refuse to submit to a chemical test, the Commonwealth asserts that “[t]here is no law in Pennsylvania that treats an unconscious defendant as having revoked his already-provided consent.”  The Commonwealth faults the Superior Court for “distinguish[ing] between conscious and unconscious drivers without any analysis.” (emphasis omitted). In the Commonwealth’s view, an arrestee’s state of consciousness matters only to the extent that “[u]nconsciousness . . . prevents the suspect from refusing the blood draw,” but it “does not somehow negate his existing consent.”  The Supreme Court categorically rejects this argument.

 

A review of the DUI informed consent issue is a good place to start.  Consistent with 75 Pa. C.S.A. §1547(c) the Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle code imposes evidentiary admissibility standards for blood tests consensually drawn without a warrant. Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle code addressing driving under the influence (“DUI”) of alcohol or controlled substances, 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 3802 (b)(c) & (d) each contain as an essential element of the criminal offense a defendant’s blood alcohol concentration level.

The grading provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle code, 75 Pa. C.S.A. §3803(d), as they relate to DUI charges, identify in subsections 1 through 4 that any individual who is under investigation for violating 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802, et seq., (accusing an individual of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol such that they are incapable of safely driving) and refuses to voluntary submit to a warrant-less blood test, is to receive enhanced criminal sentencing terms of incarceration solely as a result of the refusal to voluntarily submit to the blood draw.

Pennsylvania’s implied consent law requires motorist who drive on our roads to automatically consent to a blood draw if under police investigation for alleged DUI.  75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(2) (prescribing the “duty of the police officer” to inform a DUI arrestee of the consequences of refusal); Pa. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Safety v. O’Connell, 521 Pa. 242, 555 A.2d 873, 877 (Pa. 1989) (“The law has always required that the police must tell the arrestee of the consequences of a refusal to take [a chemical] test so that he can make a knowing and conscious choice.”)  If the operator refuses, no blood draw can take place.  Now after, Birchfield, the motorist can not be criminally penalized for refusing the blood draw.

By operation of the implied consent statute, once a police officer establishes reasonable grounds to suspect that a motorist has committed a DUI offense, that motorist “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.” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(a). Notwithstanding this provision, Subsection 1547(b)(1) confers upon all individuals under arrest for DUI an explicit statutory right to refuse chemical testing, the invocation of which triggers specified consequences. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(1) (“If any person placed under arrest for [DUI] is requested to submit to chemical testing and refuses to do so, the testing shall not be conducted”); Eisenhart, 611 A.2d at 683 (“The statute grants an explicit right to a driver who is under arrest for [DUI] to refuse to consent to chemical testing.”).

The Court rules that under this statutory scheme, a motorist placed under arrest for DUI has a critical decision to make. The arrestee may submit to a chemical test and provide the police with evidence that may be used in a subsequent criminal prosecution, or the arrestee may invoke the statutory right to refuse testing, which: (i) results in a mandatory driver’s license suspension under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(1); (ii) renders the fact of refusal admissible as evidence in a subsequent DUI prosecution pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(e); and (iii) authorizes heightened criminal penalties under 75 Pa.C.S. § 3804(c) if the arrestee later is convicted of DUI.

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 determining the validity of a given consent, the Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing that a consent is the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice — not the result of duress or coercion, express or implied, or a will overborne — under the totality of the circumstances. The standard for measuring the scope of a person’s consent is based on an objective evaluation of what a reasonable person would have understood by the exchange between the officer and the person who gave the consent. Such evaluation includes an objective examination of the maturity, sophistication and mental or emotional state of the defendant. Gauging the scope of a defendant’s consent is an inherent and necessary part of the process of determining, on the totality of the circumstances presented, whether the consent is objectively valid, or instead the product of coercion, deceit, or misrepresentation.  Commonwealth v. Smith, 621 Pa. 218, 77 A.3d 562, 573 (Pa. 2013).

The case of Commonwealth v. Evans, 2016 PA Super 293  (December 20, 2016), is the first major Pennsylvania Appellate Court decision discussing Pennsylvania’s DUI statute, the Implied Consent Law (“O’Connell Warnings”), and the prosecutor’s burden of proof at the suppression hearing.  Evans holds that a defendant does not have to prove they gave consent only based upon the threat of a more severe criminal penalty (jail and further license suspension).  Rather, the statute itself establishes this burden and the Prosecutor must rebut that legal presumption.  Because there is no ability to rebut a presumption of illegitimate consent when threatened with enhanced jail penalties, all motions to suppress must be granted.

Myers takes Evans one step further, finding that “Subsection 1547(b)(1) does not distinguish in any way between conscious and unconscious individuals, but, rather, provides the statutory right of refusal to “any person placed under arrest” for DUI. 75 Pa.C.S. § 1547(b)(1) (emphasis added). By its plain meaning, “any person” necessarily includes an unconscious person. Accordingly, we hold that Myers had an absolute right to refuse chemical testing pursuant to the implied consent statute, that his unconscious state prevented him from making a knowing and conscious choice as to whether to exercise that right, and that the implied consent statute does not authorize a blood test conducted under such circumstances.”

The Drug Act — Pa Doctors’ Reporting Responsibilities for Arrest, Conviction, and Automatic Suspensions

Every day I read appellate cases that review disciplinary decisions of Pennsylvania’s licensing boards. A recent case discusses physicians’ unique arrest and conviction reporting responsibility to the State Board of Medicine.  Physician’s reporting of arrests versus convictions depends on the crime involved.

Pennsylvania’s MCare’s law regarding malpractice insurance coverage, 40 P.S. § 1303. 903(4), identifies physician’s reporting responsibilities if a professional liability claim is asserted them, disciplinary action taken against them from another jurisdiction, criminal sentencing for any case, and the arrest of a physician in four very limited classes of crimes. These offenses are:

• following offenses in this Commonwealth or another state:
  • (i)  18 Pa.C.S. Ch. 25 (relating to criminal homicide);
  • (ii)  18 Pa.C.S. § 2702 (relating to aggravated assault); or
  • (iii)  18 Pa.C.S. Ch. 31 (relating to sexual offenses).
  • (iv)  A violation of the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.

Physicians’ limited reporting responsibilities means arrests for following offenses does not trigger reporting to the state: domestic violence offenses, DUI’s offenses, theft offenses, or a string of federal related non-drug criminal arrest offenses.   Physicians do have to report arrests alleging a sex offense, homicide, aggravated assault, and a violation under the Drug Act.

Understanding what offenses are Drug Act offenses, not just possession or selling drugs, under The Act that are important.  Drug Act charges include patient record keeping, charting issues, and properly recording and dispensing medications.  Section 780-111 of the Drug Act focuses  on professional prescription, administration, and dispensing of drugs.  Here, the Act states:

• (a)  Except when dispensed or administered directly to the patient by a practitioner or his authorized agent, other than a pharmacist, to an ultimate user, no controlled substance in Schedule II, may be dispensed without the written prescription of a practitioner, except in emergency situations, as prescribed by the secretary by regulation. No prescription for a controlled substance in Schedule II may be refilled.

• (b)  Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner, other than a pharmacist, to an ultimate user, no controlled substance in Schedule III or IV, may be dispensed without a written or oral prescription. Such prescriptions shall not be filled or refilled more than six months after the date thereof or be refilled more than five times after the date of the prescription unless renewed by the practitioner.

• (c)  No controlled substance in Schedule V may be distributed or dispensed for other than a medicinal purpose.

• (d)  A practitioner may prescribe, administer, or dispense a controlled substance or other drug or device only (i) in good faith in the course of his professional practice, (ii) within the scope of the patient relationship, and (iii) in accordance with treatment principles accepted by a responsible segment of the medical profession. A practitioner may cause a controlled substance, other drug or device or drug to be administered by a professional assistant under his direction and supervision.

• (d.1)  A practitioner shall not prescribe, administer or dispense any anabolic steroid for the purpose of enhancing a person’s performance in an exercise, sport or game. A practitioner may not prescribe, administer or dispense any anabolic steroid for the purpose of hormonal manipulation intended to increase muscle mass, strength or weight except when medically necessary.

• (e)  A veterinarian may prescribe, administer, or dispense a controlled substance, other drug or device only (i) in good faith in the course of his professional practice, and (ii) not for use by a human being. He may cause a controlled substance, other drug or device to be administered by a professional assistant under his direction and supervision.

• (f)  Any drug or device dispensed by a pharmacist pursuant to a prescription order shall bear a label showing (i) the name and address of the pharmacy and any registration number obtained pursuant to any applicable Federal laws, (ii) the name of the patient, or, if the patient is an animal, the name of the owner of the animal and the species of the animal, (iii) the name of the practitioner by whom the prescription order was written, and (iv) the serial number and date of filing of the prescription order. In addition, the following statement shall be required on the label of a controlled substance: “Transfer of this drug to anyone other than the patient for whom it was prescribed is illegal.”

§ 780-112 focuses on records of distribution of controlled substances

• (a)  Every person who sells or otherwise distributes controlled substances, shall keep records of all purchases or other receipt and sales or other distribution of such substances for two years from the date of purchase or sale. Such records shall include the name and address of the person from whom purchased or otherwise received or to whom sold or otherwise distributed, the date of purchase or receipt or sale or distribution, and the quantity involved: Provided, however, That this subsection shall not apply to a practitioner who dispenses controlled substances to his patients, unless the practitioner is regularly engaged in charging his patients, whether separately or together with charges for other professional services, for substances so dispensed.

• (b)  Every practitioner licensed by law to administer, dispense or distribute controlled substances shall keep a record of all such substances administered, dispensed or distributed by him, showing the amount administered, dispensed or distributed, the date, the name and address of the patient, and in the case of a veterinarian, the name and address of the owners of the animal to whom such substances are dispensed or distributed. Such record shall be kept for two years from the date of administering, dispensing or distributing such substance and shall be open for inspection by the proper authorities.

• (c)  Persons registered or licensed to manufacture or distribute or dispense a controlled substance, other drug or device under this act shall keep records and maintain inventories in conformity with the record-keeping, order form and inventory requirements of Federal law and with any additional regulations the secretary issues. Controlled substances in Schedules I and II shall be distributed by a registrant to another registrant only pursuant to an order form.

Violations of either of these two subsections and their itemized list, by either doctors or other health care nurses is dealt with under section § 780-123, revocation of licenses of practitioners.

• (a)  Any license or registration heretofore issued to any practitioner may either be revoked or suspended by the proper officers or boards having power to issue licenses or registration to any of the foregoing, upon proof that the licensee or registrant is a drug dependent person on the use of any controlled substance, after giving such licensee or registrant reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard.

• (b)  The appropriate licensing boards in the Department of State are hereby authorized to revoke or suspend the registration or license of any practitioner when such person has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere or has been convicted of a felony under this act or any similar State or Federal law. Before any such revocation or suspension, the licensee or registrant shall be given a hearing before the appropriate board. At such hearing the accused may be represented by counsel and shall be entitled to compulsory attendance of witnesses.

• (c)  The appropriate licensing boards in the Department of State shall automatically suspend, for a period not to exceed one year, the registration or license of any practitioner when the person has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere or has been convicted of a misdemeanor under this act. The district attorney of each county shall immediately notify the appropriate State licensing board of practitioners subject to the provisions of this section. However, the provisions of such automatic suspension may be stayed by the appropriate State licensing board in those cases where a practitioner has violated the provisions of this act only for the personal use of controlled substances by the practitioner and the practitioner participates in the impaired professional program approved by the appropriate State licensing board for a period of between three and five years, as directed by the appropriate licensing board. If the practitioner fails to comply in all respects with the standards of such a program, the appropriate licensing board shall immediately vacate the stay of the enforcement of the suspension provided for herein. Automatic suspension shall not be stayed pending any appeal of a conviction. Restoration of such license shall be made as in the case of a suspension of license.

35 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 780-123

Case law addressing practitioner’s objections to the emergent and disparate impact Drug Act convictions and their automatic suspensions have on doctors is very clear.   Board discretion and legislative prerogative regarding public safety out weight a physician’s property right in their license.  “Licensed medical practitioners’ unique access to controlled drugs and a physician’s appropriation of this access for illegal purposes presents a danger to the Commonwealth, for which the General Assembly has legitimately and rationally adopted a separate policing device.”  Call me to discuss your case.

Professional Licensing Board’s Discretion and Appellate Case Review

The discretionary decision making process of Pennsylvania’s twenty six professional boards is a huge appellate issue many cases confront.  In a recent case, board discretion is discussed in the context of non-criminal conduct and the Medical Board’s authority to police its own licensees.  The case is Mosuro v. Bureau of Prof’l & Occupational Affairs, 2016 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 717 (Commw. Ct. Oct. 13, 2016).

Dr. Mosuro was disciplined in the state of Texas as a result of a medical relationship with a pain management clinic.  Dr. Mosuro was compensated by the owner of the clinic, an Advanced Practical Nurse (“APN”) licensed under Texas law, with a flat fee for each prescription he wrote for a clinic patient. In turn, the APN referred patients to Dr. Mosuro for other treatment.  Upon being investigated by the Texas Medical Board, but with no criminal charges being filed, the doctor enter into a consent agreement acknowledging violations State of Texas  Medical Board laws, rules, codes, and regulations due to his failure to supervise the APN and allowed her to prescribe medications that were non-therapeutic while acting under his prescriptive delegation. Charts were also not adequately documented and prescriptions were not supported by objective medical findings and data.  In sum, he allow his prescriptions to be used in a pill mill.

The Texas Board of Medicine issue the public reprimand and a $10,000 fine. He was also given a prescription prohibition on ordering, prescribing, or dispensing scheduled medication services.  The licensing authorities of Maryland, Tennessee, Alabama, and Virginia imposed similar discipline on Dr. Mosuro ‘s license.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania commenced disciplinary proceedings based upon Texas’ disciplinary action, accusing the doctor under 63 P. S. § 422.41 of improper prescribing of controlled substance through his involvement with the pill mill and his failure to properly supervise a nurse practitioner as required under Texas law. Standard of care violations, documentation of medical record violations, and unprofessional conduct were perceived by the Pennsylvania Medical Board as very serious.

After hearing in Pennsylvania, the hearing examiner proposed an Order and Adjudication of a $500 civil penalty and indefinitely suspended Doctor Mosuro license to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Upon review, the Pennsylvania Medical Board excepted the hearing examiner’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law but rejected the recommended order. Rather, the Medical Board ordered a public reprimand on Dr. Mosuro ‘s permanent licensing record, a $5000 civil penalty, and an indefinite suspension of his license to practice medicine and surgery in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Reinstatement may be sought upon compliance with the Texas Board order and his Texas medical license being reinstated to unrestricted status.  This totaled over $15,000 in fine for a doctor unable to practice medicine.  This Board issued this order even though Dr. Mosuro did not have an active Pennsylvania medical license, was not practicing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and was disciplined by many other jurisdictions as a result of the same conduct.  PENNSYLVANIA’S DISCIPLINE WAS THE HARSHEST OF ALL JURISDICTIONS.

Dr. Mosuro appealed to the Commonwealth Court.  The scope of the Commonwealth Court appeal is limited to determining whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whether the board committed errors of law or constitutional violations.” Blair v. Bureau of Prof’l & Occupational Affairs, State Bd. of Nursing, 72 A.3d 742, 750 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).  In review of the record, the appellate court concludes  the Medical Board’s extensive discipline based solely upon the opioid prescription drug abuse crisis is proper. The Board restates with approval the Pennsylvania Medical Board citation to recent Pennsylvania legislative findings regarding human suffering associated with addiction and how its epidemic has reached families throughout the Commonwealth.

The Medical Board and the Commonwealth Court use this case as a example of how to ensure public safety from medical practitioners who use their medical licenses to create “rogue pain management clinics” in Pennsylvania. Citing statistics that Pennsylvania ranks seventh in the nation for drug overdoses from prescription pain killers and the role of pill mills in the overdose epidemic, the Court approves the Medical Board utilizing these facts to “engage in its purpose under the medical practices act of safe guarding the public health and welfare”.

The Court did not address the Board’s role of insuring individual penalties to individual licensees be based upon their case facts. The Court affirms Board citation to broad policy language that the prescription overdose epidemic cannot be ignored. The Commonwealth Court concludes that when as now there is a “current threat to public health and welfare when assessing whether a Board carries out its statutory mandate in a purely arbitrary and capricious manner”, the Medical Board is properly carrying out its broader policy mandate of stopping pill mills during this great opioid epidemic.  Such is sufficient factual and legal reasoning to discipline even an in-active medical licensee.

 The Commonwealth Court limited its inquiry into the “wisdom of the board,” not reviewing the administrative decision of the Medical Board with an eye towards substituting it’s judgment of what is reasonable for that of the agency whose decision is being reviewed. The court let stand the Pennsylvania Medical Board’s perceptions of the seriousness of the doctor’s Texas discipline, how such is also a violation of Pennsylvania’s medical licensing scheme, and the Board’s broad policy reasons for its discipline.

In sum, Commonwealth Court concludes that “the board did not abuse its discretion by taking strong action to protect the safety and welfare of citizens by suspending Dr. Mosuro’s license instead of imposing conditions on his license similar to those of the Texas Board.” Dr. Mosuro’s violation is very serious. In determining that the Board did not abuse its discretion, the Court states “even if we disagreed with the severity of the sanction and thought the Texas Board’s decision was more appropriate, the sanction must be upheld because proper review is not whether it’s order is reasonable, but whether it was made in accordance with law.”  Facilitating and conspiring to engage in operation of a “pill mill”, the Court and the Medical Board conclude, is not in accordance with law and, therefore, the suspension of the medical license is within the confines of the Board’s regulatory authority.

Call me to discuss your out of state disciplinary action and Pennsylvania’s pending disciplinary action.

Non-Pennsylvania Disciplinary Process’ Affect on your Inactive Pennsylvania Professional License

On September 27, 2016 Commonwealth Court addressed a consistent issue regarding inactive professional licenses and licensees who fail to appear at hearings to defend these disciplinary process. The case is McLeish v. Bureau of Prof’l & Occupational Affairs, 2016 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 687 (September 27, 2016).  Sometime prior to 2014 Fred McLeish was discipline by the New Jersey State Board of Pharmacy.  He voluntarily surrendered his license and enrolled in its pharmacist drug monitoring program. McLeish had been caught diverting IV Morphine, Fentanyl and Hydroxizine tablets for personal use.

McLeish’s New Jersey monitoring program enrollment and voluntary surrender of his NJ license triggered Pennsylvania’s Pharmacy Board to commence revocation proceedings consistent with 63 P.S. § 390-5(a)(10).  In a 2014 Order to Show Cause Pennsylvania moved against McLeish’s inactive Pennsylvania pharmacist license.

McLeish did have a history with the Pennsylvania Pharmacy Board. In 2003 his license was suspended for failing to comply with continuing education requirements and providing false documents. In 2006 his pharmacist license was reinstated, to then be placed on inactive status.  In December 2006 McLeish’s Pennsylvania pharmacist license was placed on three years probation when he enrolled in Pennsylvania’s drug monitoring program due to prior New Jersey Pharmacy Board monitoring agreement. In 2008 McLeish completed both PA and NJ’s monitoring programs, securing reinstatement of both New Jersey and Pennsylvania licenses. McLeish’s Pennsylvania pharmacist license remained inactive since 2008.

Many of my clients think that because they practice in another jurisdiction and their Pennsylvania professional license is inactive they are not subject to Pennsylvania disciplinary process or it’s not worth responding. This is wrong. Inactive status still allows licensees to seek reactivation of their licenses so they may recommence practicing their profession in Pennsylvania. Consequently, inactive status allows licensing boards to commence disciplinary process against that licensee.

Importantly, Pennsylvania disciplinary process on inactive licenses will result in a disciplinary decision reportable to the National Practitioner Data Bank. This in turn will result in a reportable decision to your current home state licensing board and employers conducting annual background searches.  My blog last week discussed Pennsylvania’s enrollment in the judicial net fingerprinting and crime reporting network (JNET).  Now criminal charges from other  jurisdictions are automatically noticed to your Pennsylvania licensing board. These charges will trigger disciplinary processes on an inactive Pennsylvania license.

McLeish originally responded to the 2014 Pennsylvania disciplinary action. He asked for a dismissal due to inactive status. This request was denied. McLeish did not appear at the disciplinary hearing. The record did not contain evidence supporting mitigation to impose a lesser sanction than license revocation.  The only evidence in the record was the New Jersey Pharmacy Board suspension of McLeish’ license based upon the factual drug diversion allegations contained in the petition.

McLeish did not have an attorney file an appeal for him. Upon review, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Pharmacy Board’s public safety need to impose a harsh sanction predicated upon a reciprocal discipline involving the diversion of drugs by a member of the pharmacy profession. Maintaining the integrity of the profession and protecting public safety were deemed to be sufficient basis for revocation.

“In order to fulfill its duty as protectorate of the public and to the integrity of the profession it needs to send a clear message about the severity of [McLeish’s] violations – both to the citizens of the Commonwealth and to [McLeish] himself. Therefore, it is necessary to impose a more stringent sanction than the one recommended by the hearing examiner in her proposed report. Great trust is placed in pharmacists as healthcare providers. Pharmacists have the responsibility to ensure that prescription drugs are legally distributed. Drug diversion has led to numerous overdose deaths within this Commonwealth and throughout the country. [McLeish’s] actions in failing to conform to the prevailing standards of practice in New Jersey were not only a violation of this Act but they exhibit a complete lack of professionalism and responsibility to the public when dealing with powerful narcotics.”

Commonwealth Court affirms the Pharmacy Board’s public policy concerns in this age of prescription opiate addiction and overdose propensities. This case is another example of the courts being pushed by current events to stem the tide of opiate addiction and drug overdoses. Whether the drugs are legally secured by medically unnecessary prescriptions, pharmacists not engaging in their corresponding responsibility, or drugs on the street, the courts and the professional licensing boards are stepping up their enforcement protocols, disciplinary processes, and sanctions.  McLeish’s ongoing fight with his drug addiction and extensive steps he affirmatively took to fight his addiction did not matter.

Please call to discuss your pending non-Pennsylvania disciplinary process and it’s effect on your current inactive Pennsylvania license.

Felony Convictions — Pennsylvania Drug Act Cases — Professional License Revocation, Suspension, and Reinstatementts

A series of recent cases have just been decided that address automatic suspensions and revocations of health care professional’s licenses (and thus the time period after which reinstatement is possible). These are very important decisions effecting every professional confronted with criminal charges, to what charges they should not plead guilty, and the collateral consequences of a felony conviction.

The first case was decided in 2014. That case is Packer v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, Department of State, State Board of Nursing, 99 A.3d 965 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 109 A.3d 680 (Pa. 2015). The second case is McGrath v. Bureau of Prof’l & Occupational Affairs, 2016 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 367 (Commw. Ct. Aug. 24, 2016). McGrath reverses Packer, discussing more in depth the 1985 law that amended the Nursing Act to provide for automatic license suspensions and 10 year reinstatement periods based upon felony Drug Act convictions. The drug Act is found 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(1-32).

Only felony criminal charges under the Drug Act, 35 P.S. 780-113(a)(1-32), trigger these cases. If a professional is convicted of a felony under the Drug Act, Section 14 of the Nursing Act (the “Act”) becomes effective, thereby allowing the Board to institute an automatic license suspension and/or revocations.  Section 14 of the Act states the Board has the discretion to refuse, suspend, or revoke any license if the Nurse is, among other things, convicted of a Drug Act violation. Section 15 of the Law addresses the procedures for suspensions, revocations, and reinstatement of licenses following a hearing before the Board:

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. All actions of the Board shall be taken subject to the right of notice, hearing and adjudication, and the right of appeal therefrom . . . . 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. (Emphasis added.)

Section 15.1(b) of the Law, however, which was added in 1985, mandates that the Board automatically suspend licenses under certain circumstances prior to a hearing. Of relevance to the circumstance now before the Court, Section 15.1(b) of the Law provides, in part:

(b) A license issued under this act shall automatically be suspended upon the legal commitment to an institution because of mental incompetency from any cause . . . , conviction of a felony under the [Drug Act,] or conviction of an offense under the laws of another jurisdiction, which, if committed in Pennsylvania, would be a felony under [the Drug Act]. . . . Automatic suspension under this subsection shall not be stayed pending any appeal of a conviction. Restoration of such license shall be made as hereinafter provided in the case of revocation or suspension of such license.(Emphasis added.)

Section 15.2 of the Law, which follows immediately after Section 15.1(b), provides:

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.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. All actions of the Board shall be taken subject to the right of notice, hearing and adjudication, and the right of appeal therefrom . . . . 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.

These cases typically involve nurses convicted of drug offenses or prescription fraud matter.  While in jail or out of a job, the Board prosecutors (through either annual renewal, self-reporting, or automatic fingerprint notification upon arrest) learn of the drug charges and file a Rule to Show Cause with the Board seeking an automatic suspension without prior notice to the licensee. I typically see the Motion and the Order of Suspension that allows the licensee to respond to the Petition after the Board issues the automatic suspension and issues with Order with a right to a hearing on limited basis.

The final Order of Suspension language is the issue in these cases.  The suspension order states the licensee is ineligible for reinstatement for a 10 year time period. The Packer and McGrath claim that because there are no administrative regulations addressing implementation of the new automatic suspension law that the Board did not have the authority to institute in effective a mandatory 10 year license suspension. More importantly, the nurses objected to the Board action instituting a 10 year mandatory suspension versus consent agreements that offered a reduced reinstatement time period to 3 years. After reviewing much of the arguments, the court in Packer, which affirmed that new interpretation stating:

The Law is structured in a manner that affords the Board discretion (through decision making or regulation) to suspend or revoke a license under certain circumstances (Section 14 of the Law) and removes discretion from the Board in other circumstances by mandating that the Board suspend a license if certain circumstances exist (Section 15.1(b) of the Law). It would appear that the General Assembly, in mandating license suspensions under Section 15.1(b) for certain drug convictions and legal commitments based on mental incompetency, viewed those circumstances to be sufficiently serious such that it removed from the Board its discretion not to suspend or revoke a license. In other words, the General Assembly viewed those circumstances to be so serious that suspension is mandatory and automatic. Given that the General Assembly took measures to remove discretion from the Board by legislating automatic suspension, it would seem unlikely that the General Assembly would then allow the Board to exercise discretion and lift an automatic suspension at any time. Rather, it is much more likely that the General Assembly contemplated that an automatic suspension would remain in effect for at least some minimal period of time, which is consistent with the Board’s interpretation of the Law.

However, in McGrath the entire Commonwealth Court reviews Packer and the legislative process, overruling Packer, stating:

Because we conclude that Packer’s punitive interpretation of the ambiguous statutory provisions of the Nursing Law violates the principle that ambiguities in penal statutes must be strictly construed against the government, Section 1928(b)(1) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972 (Statutory Construction Act), 1 Pa. C.S. § 1928(b)(1); Richards v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 20 A.3d 596, 600 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (en banc) (discussing the common law rule of lenity), we overrule Packer. Therefore, we reverse the Board’s Order to the extent that it mandates a 10-year suspension of Ms. McGrath’s license and requires, based on Packer, Ms. McGrath to reapply for a new license under Section 6(c)(1) of the Nursing Law, rather than request reissuance of her suspended license pursuant to Section 15 of the Nursing Law, 63 P.S. §§ 216(c)(1), 225.

This effectively eliminates 7 years of an automatic suspension that became a revocation requiring 10 years prior to becoming eligible for reinstatement of a nursing license. This is huge.  Importantly, the court sets forth a statutory history of the Board’s apparent interpretation and use of its automatic license suspicion process as

Previously, the Board interpreted this statutory language as permitting it to consider each automatic license suspension on a case-by-case basis to determine the length of the suspension and to approve consent decrees setting forth the term of the suspension. Packer, 99 A.3d at 967, 970. The Board’s interpretation relied on Section 15, which gives the Board discretion in imposing and reviewing license suspensions under the Nursing Law. 63 P.S. § 225. However, in 2013, the Board changed its interpretation of these provisions without, as observed in Packer, engaging in either formal interpretation, i.e., promulgating regulations, or informal interpretation, i.e., issuing policy guidelines, regarding its new interpretation. Packer, 99 A.3d at 969-71. Rather, the Board “altered its application of the [Nursing] Law based upon a directive from its parent agency, the Department of State [(Department)], Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs [(Bureau)].” Id. at 970. According to the Board, “the [Bureau] made the determination that the language in all the acts with automatic suspension provisions authorized the boards to impose a year automatic suspension and that all healthcare providers should be treated equally.” Id. at 970 n.10 (internal quotation omitted). Thus, “until . . . the Bureau or the Department issued an unidentified directive in 2013 to all health profession boards” indicating that “the Board (and apparently prosecutors in the Bureau)” had to apply Sections 15.1 and 15.2 in a non-discretionary manner, the Board and the Bureau’s prosecutors interpreted the statutory language as authorizing the exercise of discretion in determining the length of a suspension issued pursuant to Section 15.1(b). Packer, 99 A.3d at 970.

After discussing the legal and legislative process the McGrath Court makes the following remarkable statement,

The impact of Packer on the individuals affected is to preclude them from engaging in their profession for 10 years before the Board has the authority to even review their requests to reissue their suspended licenses. It prevents the Board from exercising its discretion, as it does in all other suspensions, to determine whether the Commonwealth’s citizens will be harmed by the reinstatement of a particular nurse. Such a result prevents individuals from earning their livelihood during that time period, which is particularly important because, based on the ambiguousness of Section 15.1(b) and 15.2 of the Nursing Law, licensed individuals have no guidance regarding what actions result in what punishment under the Nursing Law. We believe that our continuing reliance on Packer, therefore, creates [35] a “great injustice or injury” to those individuals.

This is the first time I have read a court case worried about a convicted felon professional’s ability to secure employment. This Commonwealth Court decision is finally taking a step to curtailing the conservative legislature from stopping hard working professionals who secured a license from every practicing their profession again. The court does not state suspension or revocation of the license is improper. It does state, however, that these individuals should be allowed to try to get their licenses back sooner, through hard work, and become working members of society again.  The Board has the discretion and the legislature can not take that away from them.

This is a momentous decision pushing back the General Assembly from issuing mandates to Pennsylvania’s  licensing boards. The legislature has previously given the Boards extensive discretion in deciding cases. The courts have routinely enforced this discretionary authority. The en banc Commonwealth Court is now telling the legislature these mandatory pronouncements are unnecessary and constitute legislative overreach. As well, the Court is telling the legislature in these hard economic times, let the professionals go back to work.

The import of these cases can not be understated. First and foremost, have proper counsel in any criminal matter involving the Drug Act violation so that your professional license is able to be reinstated at the appropriate time. Thereafter, make sure you properly respond to all license disciplinary action petitions. The Boards attempt to unilaterally interpret its governing law and regulations is many times wrong. Appellate review is proper. Courts really do objectively look at the evidence below and the legal actions taken by the Board. These cases involved convicted felons who were professionals and they still won their case. Call me to discuss these important cases and their affect on you license.