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.

Advertisements

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) Suspension for refusal.—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alcohol Use Disorder and Self-Help Remedies — Licensees Be Careful

My blog topics sometimes originate from media outlets  discussing issues that impact my professional clients. NPR published an article this week discussing a new National Institute of Health (“NIH”) alcohol use disorder online self- help tool.  The attached link presents a significant web presence on alcohol consumption, alcohol use disorders, and other NIH discussion pieces on a national alcohol abuse epidemic. NPR, NIH Alcohol Use Disorder Article

The website reveals a national problem with alcohol consumption and provides a means for self diagnosis of one’s alcohol use disorder (“AUD”) through a DSM questionnaire.  In prior blogs I discuss the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM”) as the tool mental health professionals utilize to diagnose mental health conditions.  An Alcohol Use Disorder is one such identified mental health disease.  The DSM-V, the latest and current version, identifies any person meeting two of the following 11 criteria during a 12 month period as suffering from an alcohol use disorder.

• Had times when you ended up drinking more, or longer than you intended?
• More than once wanted to cut down or stop drinking, or tried to, but couldn’t?
• Spent a lot of time drinking? Or being sick or getting over the aftereffects?
• Experienced craving — a strong need, or urge, to drink?
• Found that drinking — or being sick from drinking — often interfered with taking care of your home or family? Or caused job troubles? Or school problems?
• Continued to drink even though it was causing trouble with your family or friends?
• Given up or cut back on activities that were important or interesting to you, or gave you pleasure, in order to drink?
• More than once gotten into situations while or after drinking that increased your chances of getting hurt (such as driving, swimming, using machinery, walking in a dangerous area, or having unsafe sex)?
• Continued to drink even though it was making you feel depressed or anxious or adding to another health problem? Or after having had a memory blackout?
• Had to drink much more than you once did to get the effect you want? Or found that your usual number of drinks had much less effect than before?
• Found that when the effects of alcohol were wearing off, you had withdrawal symptoms, such as trouble sleeping, shakiness, irritability, anxiety, depression, restlessness, nausea, or sweating? Or sensed things that were not there?

As an an attorney representing medical or other licensed professionals possibly suffering from AUD, or other DSM-V criteria disorders, you’re wondering why I’m writing this blog.  The NIH web page, marketing campaign, and DSM assessment tool are very helpful for life correcting and treatment of a medical condition.

However,  licensed professionals should not seek treatment as a result of a self-help assessment in an on-line article, not conducted by a professional.  Such an endeavor could create significant potential professional license exposure. Obviously your health is a paramount concern.  Seek help if you need it.  But before doing so, understand there could be significant legal and professional ramifications.

Licensed professionals who self diagnose themselves and then seek drug and alcohol treatment through any number or type of treatment facilities opens a Pandora’s box of medical records and mental health disclosure issues and potential employment and license reporting responsibilities.   The wrong treatment facility could seek employment related information. Thereafter, under various state and federal regulations, these drug or alcohol treatment facilities (whom the licensee sought for help and stress reduction) become mandatory reporters to state professional licensing boards – causing huge stress. This creates the scenario where someone seeks inpatient treatment and the treatment provider reports a person’s drug or alcohol use to their professional licensing board. This exposes the professional licensee to a disciplinary process.

Self disclosure to any drug or alcohol treatment facility becomes a medical record subject to mandatory disclosure to a licensing board if a petition for a Mental and Physical Evaluation is ordered. By this I mean, once a treating facility reports a licensed professional as suffering from a drug or alcohol use disorder (without any type of criminal or workplace related event), the licensee’s words become the basis for disciplinary action.  Petitions to Compel Mental and Physical Evaluations require disclosure of the medical records from the self-help treatment facility.  The licensee’s words become the proverbial nail in the coffin of any disciplinary action.

Before you proceed through an NIH or other self-help drug and alcohol use disorder assessment and then contact an inpatient treatment provider (which really just wants your money) please call to discuss the legal ramifications of your need for medical care. While your health and welfare are paramount, take into consideration the broader range of factors, including the status of your ability to work, maintain gainful employment, and practice your profession.  If your life is already full or stress (from family, marriage, work,  finances, and life), causing professional downfall, legal fees, or disciplinary action will just add to the current stress level. Eliminating additional stress is a huge factor in maintaining sobriety, maintaining confidence, and psychological stability.