IMPAIRMENT PROSECUTIONS – SAFE TO PRACTICE- FULL SUSTAINED REMISSION

Alcohol abuse, prescription pain medicine abuse, sleeping pill abuse, Adderall and ADHD medication abuse. Medical providers suffer from these disorders. However, if you go to work every day and professionally perform your care giving responsibilities should you voluntarily admit an impairment and go into the voluntary recovery program? NO
I tell my clients that unless until you are unable to safely perform your profession, as a medical professional you should never admit an impairment and/or an inability to practice safely. Admitting these fundamental facts could, in the long run, substantially impact your career.
Pennsylvania’s appellate courts are pushing back against the health related boards forcing and pushing practitioners in the PHMP drug and alcohol mandatory monitoring program. For a long time Pennsylvania’s health related boards scare professionals into admitting an impairment an inability to safely practice their profession to save their license. For many professionals, the PHMP, PHP, PNAP SARPH program was not legally or medically necessary and its restrictions too great.
The Courts are remind the boards and the experts they hire that if the license professional practices safely and there is no evidence of patient impact or safety issues, the Commonwealth cannot meet its burden of proof in these impairment cases.
In my recent case, my client plead guilty to two separate DUI offenses. One DUI was for drugs and one DUI was for alcohol. Both abuses stemmed from a medical injury and a psychiatric condition. In criminal court, the professional admitted his need for inpatient treatment. He was sentenced to county drug court, with 45 weekends (90 days) in custody. He was paroled to a drug treatment court, county certified halfway house in which he lived for two years.
The Petition for a Mental and Physical was filed while he was serving his weekend sentences. The Board expert’s report stated the obvious, he was impaired and needed monitoring. My client had nothing to lose. The Board would not offer his credit for time clean and on drug court. So, we fought the case.
Procedurally, we rejected a settlement agreement and waited for formal disciplinary action. That was the settlement offer — enrollment in the DMU. We waited for a hearing to be scheduled. My client remained clean, compliant with treatment conourt conditions, and was a model treatment court advocate. He was employed for the half-way house.
At the hearing, we presented proof of 36 months of negative drug tests and excellent employment references. Significantly, the professional was a nursing burn specialist. He remained employed throughout the entire course of the criminal case defenses, while serving his weekend criminal jail sentence, and living in a halfway house. He was given work release as well. As with every medical professional that fights the impairment prosecution, he remained employed while preparing for the Mental and Physical Evaluation, waiting for disciplinary action to be filed, a hearing scheduled, and the recent decision.
This is the employment history I introduced into the hearing record. The Hearing Examiner thought it was exceptional that throughout my client’s pending criminal cases his employer wanted and allowed him to keep working. The job references were stellar. The Board expert had to agree.
The decision recited these key factors that the Nursing Board’s expert conceded on the witness stand. The expert could not testify that my nurse client was unsafe to practice his profession. The expert also conceded 36 months of negative drug screens revealed the alcohol and drug use disorders were in full sustained remission.
The hearing examiner concluded the Commonwealth did not meet its burden of proof. The Commonwealth could not establish an ongoing, continuing alcohol, drugs, or medical condition that impaired my nurse clients ability to practice his profession. As well, The hearing officer credited my nurse’s employment references, annual job evaluations, and employer testimony come to conclude that he was, in fact, safe to practice.
Absent these two crucial elements in the Commonwealth’s case in chief, my nurse client is not required to go into the PHMP, PNAP monitoring program. This case is a perfect example of why medical professionals should never admit an impairment or inability to practice their profession. The time delay between criminal charges, mental and physical evaluations, and a formal hearing allows the medical professional to organize their life, prepare their defense, and successfully fight their case.
Call me to discuss.

CHRIA – Expungements, Convictions, License Applications

The Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9124 controls how public and private entities use Pennsylvania criminal arrest and conviction records. CHRIA controls how Pennsylvania’s licensing boards may use prior criminal convictions in application and disciplinary matters. CHRIA also governs Pennsylvania’s expungement process. CHRIA allows private lawsuits for illegal dissemination of expunged criminal histories. Two recent developments involving CHRIA are noteworthy.

On May 22, 2019 House Bill 1477 of 2019 was introduced in the Pennsylvania Generally Assembly. This bill seeks to amend section 9124(a) of CHRIA. The amendment seeks to limit Pennsylvania licensing board’s ability to refuse, grant, renew, suspend or revoke any license, certificate, registration, or permit based upon a criminal conviction that does not relate to the applicant’s suitability for such license. This is huge. No longer will a conviction be an automatic bar to licensure.

If a felony or misdemeanor conviction does relate to the trade, occupation or profession for which the license, certificate, registration or permit is sought, the applicant is now permitted to establish sufficient mitigation, rehabilitation, and fitness to perform the duties of the trade. This precludes any automatic application license rejection or disqualification.

The amendment, if adopted into law, will allow applicants to rebut any adverse presumption and show rehabilitation. The Boards must consider the criminal act, nature of the offense, age, maturity since the date of conviction, any prior criminal history, or lack thereof, length of current employment, participation in education and training, and other employment and character references. This clean slate provision allows for applicants with a criminal history record to petition the board for a preliminary decision of whether a prior criminal record would disqualify the individual from receiving the licensure.

On a separate front, on May 28, 2019 a federal jury determined damages against Bucks County for its 2011 online inmate look-up service. In 2016 a federal judge ruled the on-line service will illegal, violating the 2011 version of CHRIA. The jury verdict focused on the damages Bucks County’s CHRIA violation caused. Between 1998 and 2011 the on-line look up tool produced criminal histories of approximately 67,000 inmates. However, many of these inmate’s criminal cases were dismissed and expunged. The federal judge found that Bucks County was disseminating criminal histories of individuals whose criminal records were expunged. The jury awarded $1000 in damages to each inmate whose information was improperly disseminated on the website. The total jury award was $67 million.

This is an important case. It reflects a governmental body acting intentional and deliberate in violating Pennsylvania residents’ privacy rights. Bucks County was determined to be not following Pennsylvania law. Its conduct was determined to be willful and in reckless disregard and in different to the inmates’ privacy rights.

This case and the Clean Slate public policy prerogatives reflect the economic changes in the air. Economic equality starts with criminal expungements and privacy rights. Full and fair employment opportunities provide financial security and stabilize our community. When people are able to get jobs, secure professional licenses, and become more productive members of society, domestic violence is reduced, crime is reduced, drug use is reduced, self-worth is increased and family values and protection of our children is increased. Call to discuss your health care related license application.

The PHMP, Kevin Knipe, Pharmacy Board, and an Abuse of Discretion

The PHMP, it’s caseworkers and director Kevin Knipe’s treatment of licensees is a major topic of my blogs and website. I routinely field inquiries regarding false positive drug tests, chain of custody issues, and other PHMP claimed violations. How do I get out of the PHMP is the most consistent PHMP question. Getting out of the PHMP

Kevin Knipe rules his PHMP fiefdom and its workers.  He gives them a script to follow, instructs no compassion is allowed, and they do not possess authority to vary from his rule of law.  In this era of medical marijuana and opiate addiction Pennsylvania’s health care licensing boards adopted his tough stance to licensees in the PHMP.  The Boards deferred much, if not all, of their discretion to his authority.  That is wrong.  The Commonwealth Court decision in my case, Kenney v. BPOA – Pharmacy Board, tells the Boards to take back their authority!

I am fortunate to represent Mr. Kenney, a pharmacist who is 100% compliant with all PHMP terms and conditions.  He timely sought proper termination of his PHMP probation and end Knipe’s and Kathy Simpson’s incessant limitations on his license. PHMP case worker Simpson agreed initially to let him out of the program.  Kevin Knipe got wind of this position the day before a hearing and overruled her. The Pharmacy Board acquiesced to Knipe’s dictates and denied Kenney’s petition.

I was hired to seek reconsideration of this denial before the Pharmacy Board and then appeal to Commonwealth Court if reconsideration was rejected.  It was.  On appeal my strategy was to argue the Pharmacy Board ignored the factual record, thereby abusing its discretion. My blogs talk about this issue.

Kenney is at least six years sober and compliant with every PHMP condition. On appeal, the Board and Knipe maintained Kenney did not use the proper form seeking early termination.  Knipe testified before the Pharmacy Board that he was worried about other petitions to terminate that would be filed if the Pharmacy Board approved Kenney’s Petition.  The Pharmacy Board agreed!

The Commonwealth court found this position outrageous.  It took Knipe, the PHMP, and the Pharmacy Board out to the “legal” woodshed and gave them a whipping. The Court quotes Knipe’s concern that early termination of PHMP monitoring will not be well received in the court of public opinion and could expose the PHMP to liability. The court rejected this reasoning, summarily stating, “The Board erred in relying on Knipe’s testimony because it was a based upon the PHMP’s inflexible policy, not the licensee’s record, and a mischaracterization of testimony.”  PHMP’s inflexible policy not based upon the licensee’s record.!!!

The court turned its ire to the Pharmacy Board’s acceptance of Knipe’s claims that PHMP consent agreements barred licensees from petitioning for early termination. The Court ruled the PHMP Consent Agreement/Orders are contracts; that Knipe and PHMP’s interpretation that they controlled termination approval rendered the contract illusory (illegal).

In evaluating the contract, the court rules as a matter of law that the period of probation may be extended or modified – – reduced – – and that the Pharmacy Board, not Knipe or the PHMP, controls modification. The rules as a matter of law the PHMP does not control the decision on early termination of probation petitions. “It is inappropriate for the Pharmacy  and all other Board which utilize the same consent agreements, to delegate its final decision making responsibilities to the PHMP.”

This is the decision’s important holding. The licensing board, not the PHMP, interprets the consent agreements into which it enters. The PHMP may manage the probationers.  It does not have a statutory authority to run rough shot over these licensees.

The Court rejects PHMP’s claim of God, sobriety, and public and patient safety override licensee’s constitutional and statutory property rights.  The Court tells licensing boards to take back their statutory authority; to allow its prosecutors, not the PHMP or Knipe, to modify consent agreement terms. PHMP’s one size fits all uniform enforcement practice against every PHMP monitored licensee is wrong.

Whether a nurse, physician, pharmacist, respiratory therapist, physician assistant, the PHMP, SARPH, PNAP, PHP has ruled professionals’ lives with an iron fist.  PHMP claimed it had the legal authority based upon the consent agreement. This decision says that the licensing boards have improperly abrogated their authority to the PHMP.

Let me help you file your petition to terminate the PHMP program and tell your licensing board that Kevin Knipe and his minions no longer control your life.

Petitions to Suspend a Professional License While on Probation

A Petition for Appropriate Relief (“PAR”) is a licensing board prosecution motion, presented to a licensing board committee, alleging an emergent need to suspend a licensee’s license.  PARs target licensees currently on PHMP disciplinary probation, whether a voluntary agreements and involuntary, licensing board order.  This is the TRAP I reference throughout my website, blogs, and PNAP Trap articles.

Licensees placed in the disciplinary monitoring unit (“DMU”) or the Voluntary Recovery Program (“VRP”) administered by the Professional Health Monitoring Program (“PHMP”) are subject to extensive board orders imposing mandatory drug or alcohol abstinence.  The bait and switch of provision in every PHMP agreement is that for a licensee to maintain or be re-licensed they agree to automatic license suspension if they violate the terms and conditions of PHMP probation.

The Petition for Appropriate Relief or PAR is the prosecutor’s mechanism advising the board of licensees’ probationary order violations. Immediate license suspension is the initial board remedy.  Thereafter, in order to secure licensure reinstatement, a licensee must file an answer to the PAR within 20 days.  If the licensee does not seek a hearing or continue to honor the terms and conditions of the probation, their license will be indefinitely suspension.

It is through the PAR  that board prosecutors apply a heavy-handed approach to compelling compliance with PHMP’s drug abstinence programs.  In agreeing to the DMU, VRP agreement administered through the PHMP agreement, the licensee consents to this automatic suspension process. Each licensee waves a pre-suspension due process hearing.

PHMP, PNAP, and PHP caseworkers can raise any number of issues in a PAR.  I have extensively written about the overbearing trap into which these programs invite licensees.  PHMP uses the carrot and stick approach to licensees who seek reinstatement of or continuance of licensure.  Missed or failed drug test is the number 1 basis for a PAR filing.  PHMP case worker allegations of positive drug tests are routinely wrong, false, mixed up.

Unfortunately, PHMP cases workers claim improper violations two years after licensee’s participation in the programs. Prosecutors, tasked with keeping their jobs and honoring their clients’ (PHMP – through their respective Board)  demands, follow instruction and file PARs for any number of suspicious reasons. Unfortunately, the challenges to address a PAR while a license is suspended are very limited. Typically, extensions agreements or time periods within the programs is the only result that is accepted in order to secure license reinstatement.  Call me to discuss your case.

New Jersey’s Proposed Medical Marijuana Act Amendments

Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act details in excruciating detail the prescribing limits placed on physicians (the only allowed prescribers). New Jersey’s MMA differs from Pennsylvania at the outset by not limiting prescribers to physicians.  Any medical professional with DEA prescribing authority may dispense Medical Marijuana.

This blog discusses NJ’s proscriptions against all NJ health care professionals who chose to dispense marijuana and patient card holders.  Importantly, the first significant rule is that the list of list of the persons to whom it has issued registry identification cards and their information contained in any application form, or accompanying or supporting document shall be confidential, and shall not be considered a public record and shall not be disclosed except to confirm the legality of their pot possession. Applying for a registration card does not waive physician-patient confidentiality.

As for dispensing health care professionals, a health care practitioner shall not be required to be listed publicly in any medical cannabis practitioner registry as a condition of authorizing patients for the medical use of cannabis.

When authorizing a qualifying minor patient who is a minor for the medical use of cannabis, if the treating health care practitioner is not a pediatric specialist, the treating health care practitioner shall, prior to authorizing the patient for the medical use of cannabis, obtain written confirmation from a health care practitioner who is a pediatric specialist establishing, in that health care practitioner’s professional opinion, and following an examination of the minor patient or review of the minor patient’s medical record, that the minor patient is likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefits from the medical use of cannabis to treat or alleviate symptoms associated with the patient’s qualifying medical condition. If the treating health care practitioner is a pediatric specialist, no additional written confirmation from any other health care practitioner shall be required as a condition of authorizing the patient for the medical use of cannabis.

No authorization for the medical use of cannabis may be issued by a health care practitioner to the practitioner’s own self or to a member of the practitioner’s immediate family.

These are important but very liberal provisions.  Any health care professional may write a prescription for medical marijuana.  Confirmation of a medical condition that is LIKELY to receive therapeutic or palliative benefits for marijuana is the medical burden.  Pennsylvania comparative provision is significantly more stringent.  Similar to Pennsylvania, health care professional can not prescribe pot to themselves or their family.

Ownership of a Medical Marijuana dispensary is a significant legal issue. In Pennsylvania, physicians can not have any owership interest in any verticle aspect of the marijuana manufacturing, production, or supply chain. In NJ, this is extremely different.

Except as provided in subsection b. of this section, no health care practitioner who has authorized a patient for the medical use of cannabis pursuant to within the past 90 days, and no member of such health care practitioner’s immediate family, shall be an interest holder in, or receive any form of direct or indirect compensation from, any medical cannabis cultivator, medical cannabis manufacturer, medical cannabis dispensary, or clinical registrant.

If the health care professional does not prescribe marijuana, they CAN have an ownership interest.

Nothing in subsection a. of this section shall be construed to prevent a health care practitioner from serving on the governing board of a medical cannabis cultivator, medical cannabis manufacturer, medical cannabis dispensary, or clinical registrant, or on the medical advisory board of a medical cannabis cultivator, medical cannabis manufacturer, medical cannabis dispensary, or clinical registrant established pursuant to section 15 of P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill), or from receiving a reasonable stipend for such service, provided that:

(1) the stipend does not exceed the stipend paid to any other member of the governing board or medical advisory board for serving on the board; and

(2) the amount of the stipend is not based on patient volumes at any medical cannabis dispensary or clinical registrant or on the number of authorizations for the medical use of cannabis issued by the health care practitioner pursuant to P.L.2009, c.307 (C.24:6I-1 et al.).

c. A health care practitioner, or an immediate family member of a health care practitioner, who applies to be an owner, director, officer, or employee of a medical cannabis cultivator, medical cannabis manufacturer, medical cannabis dispensary, or clinical registrant, or who otherwise seeks to be an interest holder in, or receive any form of direct or indirect compensation from, a medical cannabis cultivator, medical cannabis manufacturer, medical cannabis dispensary, or clinical registrant, shall certify that the health care practitioner has not authorized a patient for the medical use of cannabis pursuant to P.L.2009, c.307 (C.24:6I-1 et al.) within the 90 days immediately preceding the date of the application.

In almost every jurisdiction, use and possession of medical marijuana can and is a basis from professional disciplinary action.  Showing up high to work, for any reason, or being charged with driving under the influence of pot triggers professional license disciplinary actions.  Under the proposed legislation, the new law try to change this!

b. A qualifying patient, designated caregiver, institutional caregiver, health care facility, medical cannabis cultivator, medical cannabis manufacturer, medical cannabis dispensary, health care practitioner, academic medical center, clinical registrant, testing laboratory, or any other person acting in accordance with the provisions of the new law shall not be subject to any civil or administrative penalty, or denied any right or privilege, including, but not limited to, civil penalty or disciplinary action by a professional licensing board, related to the medical use of  cannabis as authorized under the bills (pending before the Legislature as this bill).

c. Possession of, or application for, a registry identification card shall not alone constitute probable cause to search the person or the property of the person possessing or applying for the registry identification card, or otherwise subject the person or the person’s property to inspection by any governmental agency.

d. The provisions of section 2 of P.L.1939, c.248 (C.26:2-82), relating to destruction of  cannabis determined to exist by the commission, shall not apply if a qualifying patient, designated caregiver, or institutional caregiver has in his possession a registry identification card and no more than the maximum amount of usable  cannabis that may be obtained in accordance with section 10 of P.L.2009, c.307 (C.24:6I- 10).

e. No person shall be subject to arrest or prosecution for constructive possession, conspiracy, or any other offense for simply being in the presence or vicinity of the medical use of cannabis as authorized under the bills pending before the Legislature as this bill.

Shall not alone constitute probable cause. These are the operative words. Simply using medical marijuana for a proper therapeutic or palliative need will not trigger a disciplinary investigation. Showing up at work smelling of pot and attempting to perform as a medical professional will cause problems. Work place reports, medical mistakes, criminal charges of driving while high (in any jurisdiction) are additional facts New Jersey’s licensing board will and can consider. They can not ignore “additional facts”. That is why the statute says “shall not alone constitute probable cause.”

Medical Marijuana — Statistics, Reality, and Your Professional License

On November 12, 2018 the Philadelphia Inquirer reports with fanfare there are 84,000 Pennsylvanians registered as medical marijuana patients. The article emphasizes medical marijuana is not treating the medical condition stated on the licensee’s card. Rather it is used to control medical symptoms of the 21 different serious medical conditions. Importantly, medical marijuana is replacing opiates to control pain and other disruptive physiological manifestations that originate from a diagnosed medical condition. This is success.

Medical marijuana is not treating the underlying medical condition. For example, the nausea, anxiety, insomnia, and pain from cancer. PTSD, cancer, bowel diseases, and opiate-use disorder are the most common medical conditions.

Pennsylvania limits THC delivery mechanisms. Smoking marijuana buds or flower gives a THC affect that lasts several hours. Ingesting THC oils takes an hour to “work” but lasts 3 to 4 hours. Eating THC edibles (brownies, gummy’s, crackers or other items) lasts 8 to 10 hours after an hour delay.

The import of these statistics and the divergent time periods the THC “high” lasts cannot be overstated. One fact is clear; at least 84,000 people are driving under the influence of marijuana in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This is because having any level of THC in one’s blood and operating a motor vehicle is a crime. Driving under the influence of marijuana is a violation of 75 Pa. C.S.A. 3802D. Pot and a DUI Charge.  My prior blogs on what is a DRE a pot DUI and those issues are going to surface more and more every day.The DUI, a DRE and a Letter of Concern.

Pennsylvania licensees requiring medical marijuana to treat the symptoms of a medical condition will be working with THC in their bloodstream. In essence, these licensees are coming to work high. They are either under the short or long term affect of marijuana. Workplace related to drug tests will reveal marijuana in the licensee’s blood. This will generate an automatic referral to a prospective respective licensing board for investigation.

There is no Family Medical Leave Act or American With Disabilities exception under the medical related licensing regulations in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Testing positive for pot based upon a diagnosed medical condition could result in The Mental and Physical Evaluation which concludes a licensee is unable to safely practice their profession due to a marijuana addiction. The addiction stems from the medical need similar to an opiate addiction which began after a traumatic or significant pain related event or medical procedure.

Call me to discuss your case. The statistics do not bode well for Pennsylvania Pot card holders who are also licensees in the medical profession. In this opiate-addicted overdose environment, the Pennsylvania medical related boards are now vigilantly investigating and prosecuting medical marijuana users who the boards think are masquerading as competent and capable professionals who are in fact addicted to pot.

DUI — Driving After Inhaling — And Expert Testimony

Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (A.R.I.D.E.) is the forefront of drunk driving enforcement in the age of legal and medical marijuana. State Troopers are trained to identify impaired drivers by substances other than alcohol. These officers receive training on Standard Field Sobriety (“FST”) and other field tests, and eye tests involving the convergence, pupil size, and reaction to light as well as methods of determining ingestion of the substance and classification of drugs (illegal and legal) by the type of impairment.

Typically these courses are 16 hours and “train” officers about drugs in the human body, heighten their observation of suspects eyes, and instruct them on seven drug categories and the effects of drug combinations.

Courts are pushing back against the junk science these courses to teach police officers. Courts are limitting the admissibility of field sobriety tests and officer conclusions of impairment based upon drivers “passing” or “failing” a FST.

Commonwealth v. Gerhardt, 477 Mass. 775 (2017) is the first case in the nation to address this issue. In this case the court considered the admissibility of FSTs where a police officer suspects that a driver has been operating under the influence of marijuana. The court observed that the three standard FSTs — the “horizontal gaze nystagmus test,” the “walk and turn test” and the “one leg stand test” — were created to assess motorists suspected of operating under the influence of alcohol. The court found that the tests were developed specifically to measure alcohol consumption as there is wide-spread scientific agreement on the existence of a strong correlation between unsatisfactory performance and a blood alcohol level of at least .08%.

By contrast, the court noted in considering whether a driver is operating under the influence of marijuana, there is as yet no scientific agreement on whether, and, if so, to what extent, these types of tests are indicative of marijuana intoxication. The research on the efficacy of FSTs to measure marijuana impairment has produced highly disparate results. Some studies have shown no correlation between inadequate performance on FSTs and the consumption of marijuana; other studies have shown some correlation with certain FSTs, but not with others; and yet other studies have shown a correlation with all of the most frequently used FSTs. In addition, other research indicates that less frequently used FSTs in the context of alcohol consumption may be better measures of marijuana intoxication.

The lack of scientific consensus regarding the use of standard FSTs in attempting to evaluate marijuana intoxication does not mean, however, that FSTs have no probative value beyond alcohol intoxication. Rather, the court concludes that, to the extent that they are relevant to establish a driver’s balance, coordination, mental acuity, and other skills required to safely operate a motor vehicle, FSTs are admissible at trial as observations of the police officer conducting the assessment.

The introduction in evidence of the officer’s observations of what will be described as “roadside assessments” shall be without any statement as to whether the driver’s performance would have been deemed a “pass” or a “fail,” or whether the performance indicated impairment. Because the effects of marijuana may vary greatly from one individual to another, and those effects are as yet not commonly known, neither a police officer nor a lay witness who has not been qualified as an expert may offer an opinion as to whether a driver was under the influence of marijuana.

This decision comports with the my prior blogs on drug recognition expert testimony and the lack of scientific basis for such. Please call me to discuss your legal matter.

Alcohol Use Disorder — Continuing Condition and Safe to Practice

Many professionals consume alcohol in a moderate and temperate manner. Reasonable, social alcohol consumption that results in a driving under the influence criminal charge is an unfortunate event. The criminal consequence and interactions with the justice system are necessary impediments to excessive drinking.

However, reasonable social drinking does not mean licensed professionals suffer from a drug and alcohol addiction or impairment that is both continuing and rendering the professional unsafe to practice their profession. It is these two statutory requirements the PHMP, PAP, and PNAP, ignore when enticing and scaring licensees to enroll in the PHMP monitoring program. PHMP’s threats and intimidation (PHMP Scare Tactics) when combined with licensees’ anxiety and stress from the criminal case create the perfect storm for licensees to make ill-informed and legally incorrect decisions regarding their professional license.

A recent case is a perfect example of why licensees should hire counsel upon receipt of any PHMP paperwork. My client hired me after she had attended a PHMP assessment and, having rejected it, also attended without counsel a Mental and Physical Evaluation. The Board MPE expert concluded she suffered from an alcohol use disorder that required monitoring for her to safely practice. She rejected the DMU/PHMP and fought her case. Luckily for this licensee she hired me.

In all impairment cases, the Practical Nurse Law, 63 P.S. §651-667.8, authorizes discipline if there is sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that licensee is addicted to alcohol, that any such dependence is continuing, and any such dependence prevents her from practicing practical nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients. Absent any one of these factors and the Commonwealth loses its cases. Translated into English, the Commonwealth must prove a professional’s alcohol use condition existed, is continuing, and results in the professional’s inability to practice their profession with care and safety.

During cross-examination of their expert I exposed the inaccuracies and legally deficiencies of his opinion. The expert conceded he did not request, and thus did not review, my client’s medical records, employment records, performance reviews from her current employer, and did not contact reference persons (including probation officer) my client provided. At the hearing the expert disclosed he did not possess any factual information about my client’s work performance, such as employer complaints, or any evidence indicating that her use of alcohol has ever affected her work or resulted in her being requested or directed to submit to alcohol and/or drug testing while at work.

As with many of my cases, prosecutors attempt to satisfy their burden of proof through expert testimony that only says the professional is able to practice practical nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients as long as she is monitored. The usual language is “I believe she is impaired and that it is unsafe for her to practice nursing with requisite skill and safety without monitoring. As such, experts routinely recommend monitoring based on the need for objective verification of a licensee’s abstinence from alcohol. However, this is not the burden of proof.

A review of the evidence showed this licensee was abstinent for 15 months since the MPE, had eight months of sobriety between the 2016 DUI and the examination, and accumulated years of continuous sobriety between 2008 and 2016. As of the date of the hearing my client was in full sustained remission. As well the expert had no information or documentation suggesting that my client relapsed since the 2016 DUI, given that the testing he ordered for her in February of 2017 came back negative. The Commonwealth could not meet its burden of proof of a continuing dependency element.

Even absent a continuing alcohol dependency, the Commonwealth must still also prove that any illness or dependency, continuing or otherwise, has prevents the licensee from competently practicing nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients. Here is where the expert testimony was clearly deficient.

The Board’s expert only found Respondent unable to practice nursing safely unless she is monitored. That is not the law. Recommending monitoring as a safety “precautionary measure” must be supported by the evidence. Here the expert did not avail himself of certain sources of information, whose names and contact information my client provided, to corroborate or counter the statements she made by during the examination.

Rather, the expert testified that “when someone gives you a list of people to call, 99 percent of the time they give glowing report, and I can’ t believe what they tell me… and .it may be true, but I can’t base my opinion on that.” Yet, when asked directly, the expert could not cite any evidence that, as of the hearing date, my client was unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients.

Please call me to discuss your case and pending prosecution.

PNAP Case workers — Do Not Trust Them

Medical professionals or their employers call PNAP case workers and intake administrators for numerous reasons.  The initial complaint call against the licensee  generates the “Letter of Concern.”  It is the response call from the licensee to PHMP/PNAP/SARPH/PAP that starts the proverbial ball rolling.  Here are several important facts each licensee should be aware of before calling PNAP.

PNAP/PAP/PHMP caseworkers are told to not tell inquiring licensees the truth. PNAP and PHMP caseworkers are instructed to emphasize the worst possible legal and licensing consequences if there is no cooperation.  PNAP/PHMP caseworkers are instructed to intimidate and scare licensees into the program. PNAP caseworkers are instructed to tell licensees about the costs of the Mental and Physical Evaluation and court fees.  PNAP caseworkers are instructed provide the minimum legal information possible.

PNAP caseworkers do not know the law.  PNAP/PHMP/PAP case workers are not trained in the several health care boards’ regulations.  PHMP/PNAP/PAP case workers do not understand the legal implications of the wrong advice they give. PNAP case workers do not know how to tell the truth.  Some PNAP caseworkers may be in the program too.

 

For every medical professional, agreeing to the initial PNAP assessment is the worst thing you can do. Current conflicts between the DSM-IV and DSM V alcohol use disorder – mild, moderate, or severe – are creating significant issues in determinations of impairment for PNAP assessors.  I have learned that the PNAP assessors could be  calling the PNAP caseworker and managers, who help the assessor diagnosis an impairment. This is improper.

PNAP and PHMP assessments should be performed independently, by appropriately trained medical professionals. PNAP and PHMP supervisors (Simpson and Knipe) should not be consulted on diagnosis. This type of diagnosis cooperation smacks of a pre-ordained determination of an impairment to insure medical professionals go in the program.  Please understand the above is not an anecdote or a hypothetical scenario. I have been told about PNAP supervisors providing supplemental questions and facts to assessors to insure a determination of impairment and a conclusion that the monitoring program is required.  Ethically, any assessor/PNAP consultation is improper.

This tells me that the system of initial communication with PNAP (in which they lie to you) and the read assessment process renders this entire program unacceptable. Be careful.  Call me.

Notice of A Disciplinary Proceeding

Pennsylvania’s licensing boards officially communicate with their licensees only through regular mail or certified mail, return receipt requested.  Licensing boards are not legally authorized to communicate via email any disciplinary correspondence.   This is why every disciplinary board requires licensees, not the board staff,  to update their own mailing address.

There always is a percentage of licensees that after  licensure move throughout the Commonwealth and country.  Many fail to update their licensing board with their new mailing address. Licensees who fail to update their prospective board with their most recent address expose themselves to disciplinary action in their absence.

Moving Truck

Moving on Up

A new client, over two years ago became divorced, moved out-of-state, and failed to update the Pennsylvania Nursing Board with her new Florida mailing address.  Unbeknownst to her, two years ago the Pennsylvania Nursing Board commenced an investigation and initiated disciplinary proceedings against her license.  Board mail included a Mental and Physical evaluation petition, medical expert appointment scheduling notices, hearing notices, and formal board disciplinary decisions.

For the last two years her disgruntled ex-spouse – who stayed in the marital residence – received all of her mail.  He threw out all her mail, never telling her anything.  Because she was unaware, all appointments, hearings, and decisions took place in her absence. This client was ignorant to all that was taking place against her license in her absence. Her lack of notice is now causing significant long-term detrimental consequences with her license because Nursing Board disciplinary decisions were entered against her.

This client has been working in Florida under a second professional license.  Her most recent employer’s basic regulatory compliance process included an annual subscription to the National Practitioner Data Bank (“NPDB”) automated inquiry process for all licensees. Consequently, her employer was automatically notified of her 2018 Pennsylvania Nursing Board license suspension – of which she had no idea.  She was terminated and can not work until she rectifies her Pennsylvania nursing license disciplinary action.  All other potential employers will see the NPDB disciplinary action.

These disciplinary proceedings transpired over 18 months. Having not updated her formal mailing address, she did not receive the Mental and Physical Evaluation appointments, hearing notices, and formal disciplinary decisions. By the time she became aware of her Pennsylvania Nursing Board license suspension it was too late to take an appeal.

Her only recourse is to comply with the terms of the license suspension order. This includes now attending the Mental and Physical evaluation, petitioning the Nursing Board for Reinstatement of her license, and attending a hearing in which she must prove she can resume the competent practice of professional nursing with reasonable skill and safety.  This process will take three to six months.  She is unable to practice nursing in her new jurisdiction.  Her State of Florida Nursing Board license may also subject to disciplinary action based upon the Pennsylvania Nursing Board disciplinary action.

State boards are permitted to engage in disciplinary actions against licensees.  Boards must afford all licensees the opportunity to be heard in accordance with administrative agency law.  This law includes a provision that by regular mailing administrative actions to the licensee’s last known address the Board is affording that licensee reasonable notice of proceedings and is giving the licensee a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

Pennsylvania’s General Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure (“GRAPP”) authorize service of any proceeding by regular mail, without a return receipt requested.  Email is not authorized.  Due process under both the federal and state Constitutions merely requires licensing boards make a respondent/licensee sufficiently aware of the charges against them and the procedures by which a defense can be presented.  Regular mail of any disciplinary petition or notice satisfies this constitutional obligation.  A licensee/respondent will suffer the consequences if they fail to attend evaluations, respond to petitions, file an answer within the time provided, or does not appear at hearings to challenge the charges against them.

In this client’s matter, having failed to attend a Mental and Physical and Evaluation, case law and board procedure allowed the prosecutor to file a petition Deeming Matters Admitted.  The Board accepts as true all allegations that warranted the Mental and Physical Evaluation.  This means mere suggestions of  drug use, work-related incidents, and/or drunk driving charges warranting an expert evaluation – but not proof of an impairment – become admitted and uncontested facts of an impairment.

This licensee cannot file a motion challenging the validity of the underlying mental and physical evaluation order, the factual findings of an impairment, or the need for monitoring of which the Board concluded after a hearing at which the licensee did not attend. The licensee can not contest the findings of fact or formal disciplinary action, which language the board transmits to the National Practitioner Data Bank.

This licensee’s failure to update her address precipitates a cascade of events that are easily avoided.  Licensing boards throughout the country have set in place this minimal notice and mailing procedure to be able to discipline in and out of state licensees in their absence.  The boards do not have to chase licensees down to discipline them.  Unlike in criminal matters where a defendant must almost always be present, state license boards can strip licensee’s of their property interest in their absence.  This client’s unfortunate predicament is a perfect example of the pitfalls of the failing to update your formal address with your licensing board.