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.

Disorderly Conduct — Moral Turpitude — Commonwealth Court Decides

Today the Commonwealth Court issues another remarkable decision involving a Pennsylvania medical professional.  Dunagan v. BPOA, 2019 WL 155879, is the third case in a row in which a Commonwealth Court panel has found a Pennsylvania medical related board engaged in an erroneous interpretation of the law and abuses its discretion.
In 2015, Dunagan was arrested and charged with three Drug Act violations and one Disorderly Conduct offense.  The charges stem from a police investigation that revealed Dunagan possessed a small amount of drugs and drug contraband.  The Disorderly Conduct offense is based upon Dunagan’s behavior during the search warrant execution. Dunagan’s criminal defense attorney negotiated dismissal of the Drug Act offenses and a guilty plea to the Disorderly Conduct offense.  This is a great legal tactic.  A medical professional who pleads guilty to a Drug Act violation is subject to an automatic one year license suspension and forced PHMP/DMU enrollment.  Dunagan’s plea avoided this result.

 

Dunagan properly reported her arrest to the BPOA.  Observing Drug Act offenses, a Nursing Board prosecutor filed an Order to Show seeking discipline Dunagan for her misdemeanor Disorderly Conduct guilty plea.  Ordinarily, Disorderly Conduct – charged either as summary offense or a misdemeanor –  is not a trigger for disciplinary action.  However, the Board prosecutor, with the support of his supervisors as a policy decision, subversively sought to discipline Dunagan for her drug related criminal conduct – not really the Disorderly Conduct offense to which she plead guilty.  This is outrageous.
Before the hearing examiner and Nursing Board, the prosecutor argues discipline should be based all facts of the criminal charges, not just the Disorderly Conduct behavior.  This is more facts than those essential elements of the Disorderly Conduct offense.  The prosecutor also maintains the facts giving rise to Dunagan’s guilty plea constitutes “a crime of moral turpitude” to which the Board may exercise its discretion and discipline Dunagan as it wishes.

 

The Hearing Examiner, rejecting this position, rules Disorderly Conduct is not a crime of moral turpitude and dismisses the Order to Show Cause.  The Board rejects the Hearing Officer’s Proposed Adjudication, finding Dunagan’s tumultuous behavior in the execution of a search warrant is a crime of moral turpitude.  The Board suspends Dunagan’s license for six months.

 

Obviously the decision is based upon the drug offenses that were dismissed and to which the Board could NOT force Dungan into the DMU/PHMP or automatically suspend her license under the Drug Act and CHIRA.
Dunagan appeals.  The Commonwealth Court reverses the Nursing Board decision.   The appellate court reviews much case law and facts and concludes Dunagan’s conduct resulting in a Disorderly Conduct guilty plea cannot and does not constitute moral turpitude.  The Court states

 

“A determination of whether a crime involves moral turpitude will be determined based solely upon the elements of the crime. The underlying facts or details of an individual criminal charge, indictment or conviction are not relevant to the issue of moral turpitude.” 22 Pa. Code § 237.9(b); see also Startzel v. Department of Education, 562 A.2d 1005, 1007 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (“Determination of whether a crime involves moral turpitude turns on the elements of the crime, not on an independent examination of the details of the behavior underlying the crime.”).

 

The Court rules a six month professional license suspension is 1) an abuse of discretion, 2) a guilty plea to a Disorderly Conduct offense is neither a crime of moral turpitude nor a basis to suspend or revoke a professional licensees license, and 3) citing her need to earn a living and work – that the case facts are not health related  — there is no justifiable necessity to protect the public from her conduct.
This case reveals the extreme prosecutorial environment in which all Pennsylvania licensees now practice. Medical marijuana is the prime influencer of this case. Many Drug Act possessory offenses result in either original charges of Disorderly Conduct or evolve into a guilty plea to a Disorderly Conduct offense. A summary Disorderly Conduct offense is not a conviction under the Drug Act. As a result, Pennsylvania’s health related boards are not able to automatically suspend a license or commence disciplinary process predicated on a drug possessory offense.

 

BPOA prosecutors tried to secure Commonwealth Court case law stating a summary offense, whether a crime of moral turpitude or not, is a valid discretionary basis to suspend and discipline a medical related board licensees license.  The Commonwealth Court said no.
More importantly, at the Board hearing the attorney did not properly protect the record. I have written that factual allegations contained in an Order to Show Cause can only be those related to the criminal convicted charges, not allegations that are dropped or dismissed. Facts related to  dismissed, withdrawn, or not guilty charges are not relevant or admissible in any disciplinary prosecution.
This attorney did not object to a whole set of irrelevant and inadmissible facts.  Or the licensee simply testified about everything that happened on the date and time of her arrest. This placed those facts in the record for the Nursing Board to consider. It did consider the entire case facts, knew the case was about drugs, and suspended her license.  Both the legal strategy and Board conduct was improper. Call me to discuss your case.

Criminal Conviction – Professional License Suspensions and Mitigation Evidence

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

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

handcuffs-with-gavel-on-a-wood-background-picture-id504104838

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

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

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

beyond-the-classroom-into-the-courtroom

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

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

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

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

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

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

When licensees take an appeal, they have an appellate, independent, unbiased court review the nature and extent of imposed discipline.  The appellate court rejects this board’s arbitrary and capricious decision. Unfortunately this costs a lot of money. However, in many of my cases I see unfettered discretion punishing hard-working licensees that is far beyond both what is necessary and reasonable and what the licensing statutes allow.
Call me to discuss your case.  A criminal record should not be a bar to getting or keeping a license.
 jerry-arrest-record-seinfeld1
Jerry’s career took off.  So should yours.

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.

images

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.

Felony Convictions and License Reinstatement

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

To Testify or Not – A Licensee’s Hearing Rights

The confluence of administrative and criminal procedure is a significant issue I confront defending licensee disciplinary cases.  Sometimes, during a hearing, or a pre-complaint investigatory meeting, a licensee is asked — almost expected — to give a statement.  During a hearing, with a criminal case pending, a licensee sometimes must strategically choose or not to testify.  This issue was recently addressed in the case of Blair Anthony Hawkins v. Bureau of Prof’l & Occupational Affairs, 2017 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 112 (Commw. Ct. Feb. 16, 2017).

In that matter, after the Department presented its evidence, Hawkins argued that the Board denied him a full and fair hearing when it failed to continue the hearing until after the resolution of the criminal case, thus resulting in Hawkins’ decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before the Board.  However, Hawkins was not forced to testify.  Hawkins invoked his 5th Amendment Rights against self-incrimination.

A hearing was held on January 8, 2016, at which Petitioner renewed his request for a continuance until after the criminal charges were resolved. The Board denied the continuance request. Therefore, Hawkins asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and did not answer any questions.  This looks horrible in a hearing.

Prior to the hearing, the parties exchanged pre-hearing statements, identified witnesses and exhibits, and participated in a pre-hearing conferences. On the day before the hearing, Petitioner requested a continuance via email, until Hawkins’ criminal charges were resolved. The Department opposed the continuance request. The Board denied the continuance, noting that Petitioner had previously been granted a continuance, had indicated that he was available for the hearing on January 8, 2016, had participated in a pre-hearing conference a few days prior, and had failed to identify an emergent reason for requiring a continuance.

Initially, the continuance request was handled improperly.  Either at a pre-hearing conference, or in a separate motion to continue the hearing, counsel for Hawkins should have sought a continuance much sooner, with greater vigor.  Counsel, not Hawkins, put his client in the trap the licensee board prosecutors set.  The Board prosecutor set the trap, showed the trap to counsel, and counsel messed up the case.  The matter should have been continued way before the hearing until after the criminal case had resolved.

In reviewing the choice to testify or not, the Board looked to prior case law.  In Herberg v. Commonwealth, State Board of Medical Education & Licensure, 42 A.2d 411, 412 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982), a physician’s medical license was revoked and the physician argued that during the hearing before the board, his rights pursuant to the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution were violated. The physician invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination so that his testimony before the board could not be used in a later criminal proceeding.  Commonwealth Court determined that:

‘[T]here [is nothing] inherently repugnant to due process in requiring the doctor to choose between giving testimony at the disciplinary hearing, a course that may help the criminal prosecutors, and keeping silent, a course that may lead to the loss of his license.'[A]bsent a finding that a physician was forced to testify against himself, a medical disciplinary board was not constitutionally required to stay its proceedings until the criminal prosecutions against the doctor were over.

In Hawkins, the licensee was called as a witness, chose not to testify, and was not forced to testify. Thus, Hawkins’ Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not violated because the Board honored his choice not to testify. Further, due process rights are not violated simply because a decision on whether to testify is arduous. See PSI Upsilon v. University of Pennsylvania, 591 A.2d 755, 760 (Pa. Super. 1991). Hawkins made what was assuredly a hard decision not to testify; however, making this decision did not result in a violation of his due process rights. See Herberg, 42 A.2d at 413. The Board did not err or abuse its discretion when it held Hawkins’ disciplinary hearing prior to his criminal proceeding, thus making Hawkins choose between testifying or asserting his privilege against self-incrimination.

Call me to talk about your case, investigators wanting you to give a pre-complaint statement, and how to handle your up coming hearing.

 

The VRP and its Consequences

A standardized contract with a three-year term similar to requirements outlined by PHMP Board ordered Consent Agreements is utilized. Random Observed Body Screens are used to determine abstinence is being maintained. (We may require urine, serum, blood, saliva, perspiration or hair testing in fulfillment of this requirement.) 

(This Quote is taken from a Pa Licenseing Board website discussing the VRP administered by the PHMP)

In preparation for today’s blog I searched the Internet for comments and questions about Pennsylvania’s various licensing boards’ voluntary recovery programs (“VRP”) and the manner in which they entice professionals with drug or alcohol use issues to enroll in their programs. I found numerous professionals concerned about the arduous process, high cost, and undisclosed lengths of time as a professional they were kept from working. Complaints centered on expensive mandatory in-patient treatment or weekly drug testing protocols, work place monitoring agreements, and an inability to even interview for a job unless approved by capricious and degrading case workers. Each comment concluded with the professional wishing they consulted an attorney prior to enrolling in the program.

The nature and manner VRP case workers “trick” professionals with no criminal record or an ARD to enroll in the program is very creative. Sometimes, the standard letter stating with “It has come to our attention you may be suffering from an impairment” is mailed. Other times threatening and provocative telephone calls unilaterally scheduling appointments occur. Or, the best, case workers demand provisionally licensees show up in Harrisburg to sign unknown documents that can’t be mail. Under each of these circumstances the licensee is scared, possibly losing their job, and not advised of the full scope and breadth of the VRP agreement into which they are almost forced to enter.  They are given ultimatums on times to respond and returned signed documents with no explanation of the long term implications of the legal stipulations they are acknowledging.

The legal problem is licensees do not understand the terms and conditions of the VRP agreement and the legal footing upon which the agreement is based. Sections 63 P. S. 224(a)(2) and (b)(4) allow the Board to refuse, suspend or revoke a license if the licensee “is unable to practice professional nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of … physiological or psychological dependence upon alcohol, hallucinogenic or narcotic drugs or other drugs which tend to impair judgment or coordination, so long as such dependence shall continue.” As part of submitting to treatment, the Board is given the authority under Section 14.1(c) of the Law, 63 P.S. § 224.1(c), to require a licensee as a condition of being allowed to continue to practice to enter a VRP Agreement or face public disciplinary proceedings for his or her impairment.

The significance of these provisions, when read together, is the terms of the statutorily mandated VRP agreement. Every VRP agreement requires the licensing to stipulate among many things that:
1) The Board is authorized to suspend, revoke or otherwise restrict the license under 63 P.S. § 224(a)(2);
2) The licensee is unable to practice the profession with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of illness, addiction to drugs or alcohol, or mental impairment;
3) The disciplinary action is deferred and may ultimately be dismissed pursuant to the impaired professional section of the Law, 63 P.S. § 224.1, provided the licensee progresses satisfactorily in an approved treatment and monitoring program and complies with the terms and conditions of the VRP Agreement .

It doesn’t matter what time or how long after you enter into the VRP program that you object to the terms of the VRP or decide to not perform in accordance with the Agreement. Once the licensee violates the agreement, the Board moves to suspend or revoke the license. The basis for this is simple: The licensee when they entered the VRP stipulated that they are unable to practice due to an impairment, which inability may only be concluded to be over by the VRP case worker. As such, the licensee has given up their entire defense that they are not impaired or a safety risk. Case law says that any expert testimony that the licensee post VRP enrollment is “cured” or not a danger to the community and can practice safely will be found to be not credible.
In cases involving a single DUI or a single positive drug test of any scheduled narcotic for which there is no medicinal basis, entry into the VRP is an acknowledgment that the licensee has a drug addiction or problem.  It is this drug or alcohol problem that must be candidly acknowledged, treated, and for which inpatient and outpatient treatment with drug testing will be required. All costs will be born by the licensee.

If the VRP comes knocking two years after the alleged DUI, which occurred after a family marital event, lets say, and you really have no drug or alcohol issue but the VRP is chosen rather than face “possible” public disciplinary action, the licensee has now stipulated to having a drug addiction for which they are unable to practice safely. Having agreed to this, every VRP licensee is thereafter unable to seek employment, continue their employment, or be hired by a job without the VRP notifying the employer. As well each employer could be required to approve a workplace monitor of the licensee who will report to the VRP case worker. This employment will also be delayed after SATISFACTORILY COMPLETING 30, 60 or 90 days inpatient treatment, which cost will be born by the licensee.

The issues become, why should the VRP be chosen, by whom, and under what circumstances?  If some of the facts discussed above are familiar to you and your case, call me to discuss your options and the agreement being presented to you.  Please understand the legal consequences of entering into the VRP.

%d bloggers like this: