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.

Advertisements

Rural Nursing and the Scope of My Practice

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

Carbon County Square

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

A Major Constitutional Decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

In 2011 the General Assembly enacted, consistent with federal mandate, Pennsylvania’s latest version of Megan’s Law.  Entitled SORNA or the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, the law became effective on December 12, 2012.

SORNA, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9799.10 to 9799.41, classifies offenders and their offenses into three tiers, 42 Pa.C.S. §9799.14. Those convicted of Tier I offenses are subject to registration for a period of 15 years and are required to verify their registration information and be photographed, in person at an approved registration site, annually, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.15(a)(1), (e)(1). Those convicted of Tier II offenses are subject to registration for a period of 25 years and are required to verify their registration information and be photographed, in person at an approved registration site, semi-annually, § 9799.15(a)(2), (e)(2).  This registration scheme greatly extended the registration responsibilities for defendants whose criminal acts occurred prior to December 2012.

I have written several blogs on this issue: SORNA’s retroactive registration requirement for those previously convicted of crimes enumerated within the law purview.  The law specifically states that any individual under supervision (probation, parole, or prison – but not registration supervision) on December 12, 2012 was subject to reclassification of their registration scheme.  The reclassification effectively altered every supervised defendant’s SORNA’s registration requirements from 10 years to 15, 25 or life and changed the annual to quarterly registrations.

My blogs focused on the Pennsylvania State Police’s effort to reclassify offenders who were not under supervision, but were still registering consistent with their guilty plea or sentencing scheme.  In these cases the defendants served their sentence, had complied with their guilty plea agreement, but the State Police sought to reclassify and extent their registration requirements.  The Supreme and Superior court decisions in these cases (Nase, Haisworth and Martinez) dealt with these cases, declaring the State Police’s unilateral reclassification of non-supervised defendant a breach of the guilty plea agreement.

Various state court judges not willing to terminate a SORNA registration requirement found every way possible to deny these defendants post-conviction non-PCRA relief.

On July 19, 2017 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued the decision in Commonwealth v. Muniz, 2017 Pa Lexis 1682.  The facts are as follows: On February 7, 2007, after a bench trial in Cumberland County, appellant was convicted of two counts of indecent assault arising out of an incident where he touched the breasts of his girlfriend’s twelve-year old daughter.  Sentencing was scheduled for May 8, 2007, at which time appellant would have been ordered to register as a sex offender with the Pennsylvania State Police for a period of ten years pursuant to then-effective Megan’s Law III. See 42 Pa.C.S. §9795.1 (expired).  However, appellant failed to appear for his sentencing hearing and absconded until he was apprehended on unrelated charges in Rhode Island in September 2014. N.T., 10/14/14 at 2. During his absence, the General Assembly [*3] had replaced Megan’s Law III with SORNA. Under SORNA, persons convicted of indecent assault of a person less than thirteen years of age, 18 Pa.C.S. §3126(a)(7), are categorized as Tier III offenders and are required to register as sex offenders for the remainder of their lives.

Appellant Muniz was sentenced to four to fourteen months’ imprisonment and ordered to comply with lifetime registration requirements under SORNA. Appellant filed a post-sentence motion seeking application of the ten-year registration period under Megan’s Law III, which was the law in place at the time of his offense and conviction, instead of lifetime registration under SORNA. The trial court denied Muniz’ motion and he appealed to the Superior Court, claiming retroactive application of SORNA violates the ex post facto clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions, and the reputation clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

Importantly, the court found that Muniz’ seven year absence from the Commonwealth is of no moment. SORNA applies retroactively to any individual serving a sentence for a sexual offense or any individual who had not completed their registration period under prior registration statutes as of SORNA’s effective date of December 20, 2012. 42 Pa.C.S. §9799.13. Had Muniz been sentenced in 2007 and subject to registration under Megan’s Law III, he would not have completed his ten-year registration period when SORNA became effective and thus his ten-year registration period would have been converted to a term of lifetime registration.  This foot note number 3 applies to every case for which pre-December 2012 defendants may now seek to contest their post-sentencing reclassification!

Appellant filed a petition for allowance of appeal raising two questions regarding SORNA’s “sexual offenses and tier system” provisions set forth at 42 Pa.C.S. §9799.14:
1) Does applying [42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.14]  retroactively violate the Federal Constitution?
2) Does applying [42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.14] retroactively violate the Pennsylvania
Constitution?

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said YES to both questions:   The retroactive application of SORNA’s new harsh, punitive shaming registration scheme to defendants whose sex related crimes were committed prior to December 12, 2012 is unconstitutional.   The Court rules that SORNA increases punishment for conduct which occurred before its enactment and such retroactive application violates both federal and state constitutional bans on ex post facto laws; in doing so, the court finds that the Pennsylvania Constitution provides greater protection than the United States Constitution, that SORNA is therefore unconstitutional as applied to someone like Muniz whose conviction predated its enactment. The Pennsylvania State Police can not now lawfully retroactive apply SORNA and reclassify defendants (under supervision or not) for criminal conduct occurring prior to December 2012.  This is huge.

Call me to discuss your case.

PHMP — Pennsylvania — How It Really Works

Here is an email I received this week

RN w a PA license started pnap program 4 yrs ago and they will not let me out if the program. I fulfilled all the requirements and I’m over the amount of time stated in my contract. Every months they come up w something new and threaten to add another year to three. They also threaten if I contact a lawyer I can kiss my license goodbye and I truly believe they have the power to do anything at this point.

They treat me as if I have a substance abuse and test me relentlessly and at one point bc of ice n snow I missed testing they cut my hair and did hair analysis which was negative. In four years I have never had a positive test. And that’s w 1,2,3,4 times testing. Month. I was supposed to be released in November 2016 I missed a call in the day I was leaving for the beach. Packing for 6 kids 10yo and younger for a week distracted me a bit. That is when they threatened to add 3. More yrs for noncompliance. I’m already over my time! Yesterday I could not make a test bc 3 of my kids were vomiting and Had high fevers I could not drag them out w out torturing them. So again I’m getting threatened w more time ands or never seeing my license again. I went I to this program thinking they were here to help me. Obviously they are here for the $$ and to make near impossible to complete the program. I’m stuck. They have taken all the money I have. No I’m finding out it’s not the pnap making the calls it’s the testing company.

This is email presents legal issues about which I receive calls every week.  This email is reflective of the PHMP and PNAP, how the treat their enrollees in the program.  Read this email again before signing any documents and call me.

More importantly, understand the exploding opiate addiction pain medication problem our cities, states, rural areas, and country is facing.  Stepped up offering and then enforcement of the impair professional program, and all of its terms and conditions, is reflected in the statistics a recent news article discussed. Video of ABC News Investigation

However, the statistics cited int he article,73% of all disciplinary cases are for drug and impairment issues, only reflects the stepped up threats, coercion, and intimidation the program administrators are using in convincing people to go into the program that some do not really need.  Read my many other blogs discussing how single offense DUIs, Public Drunkenness, and other minor infraction are brought tot he Board’s attention, resulting in PHMP and PNAP “Letters of Concern” being sent to professionals and scaring them into the program.

Call me to discuss your case.

 

 

 

 

The Bi-Annual Registration and Criminal Contact Questions

Multi-state professional licensees face significant legal issues when confronted with a disciplinary action or criminal charges from one state. It is important to know when and what to properly report to each jurisdiction after incurring a criminal charge, conviction, or any resultant disciplinary prosecution. Thereafter, timely handling the resulting reciprocal discipline from Pennsylvania’s licensing board is paramount to retaining all licenses.

I emphasize Pennsylvania due to the vast number of Pennsylvania professional schools from which licensees residing around the country received their original license. Reciprocal discipline will occur after a licensee has moved to another state, for any reason was subjected to professional discipline therein, and then reports the consequences to Pennsylvania’s equivalent professional board.  The multi-step disciplinary process is very complicated and time consuming. Many of my clients retain my services, while residing outside of Pennsylvania, after  receiving a Pennsylvania disciplinary notice for either failing to, or properly reporting, a triggering criminal contact or disciplinary action from another state.

The July 8, 2014 Commonwealth Court decision of Campbell vs. Bureau of Prof’l and Occupational Affairs (2014 Pa. Commw. Unpub LEXIS 411 July 8, 2014) discusses the Pennsylvania Medical Board’s authority and responsibility of imposing both reciprocal discipline and separate discipline for failing to report to the Pennsylvania Medical Board an extra-jurisdiction discipline or criminal conviction. The case once again establishes the importance of candidly answering renewal questions honestly, with integrity.

While a first-time criminal offender who answers honestly the renewal license question merely has to deal with a reciprocal disciplinary issue, Pennsylvania’s licensing boards do not suffer fools lightly who fail to answer honestly the renewal questions contained in the online application. Pennsylvania’s licensing boards will include additional charges in any disciplinary action for failing to properly disclose a professional school disciplinary action, board test failure, criminal charges relating to drugs, or a criminal conviction for any manner.

In the recent case, Dr. Campbell was previous disciplined for failing to disclose his failing a portion of the 2004 licensing board examination. Upon discovery and prosecution, the doctor was given probation, after which his license was reinstated to the full status after several years  Thereafter, the doctor moved to the State of Oregon.

In 2009 he was criminally charged with possession of methamphetamine, which misdemeanor charge was conditionally discharged (“ARD”), but not yet expunged in 2011. On his 2011 license renewal registration, he intentionally did not report the criminal charge and ARD result. The Board found out and the first basis for discipline was the actual criminal charge.  The second count of discipline was that  he intentional omitted non-Pennsylvania criminal drug prosecution in the online renewal questions of the bi-annual registration questionnaire.

Once the Pennsylvania Medical Board learned of both his omission and intentional misrepresentation on his bi-annual renewal, his license was once again prosecuted. While the Board addresses proper evidentiary objections of both prior discipline and criminal ARD type process, the Board squarely addresses the doctor’s misrepresenting his criminal ARD contacts. The Board suspends Dr. Campbell’s license for six months and places him on probation for three years. The Medical Board stated that this sanction was appropriate “to impart to him the seriousness and gravity of his misconduct” and to provide him “with an opportunity to reflect upon the seriousness of his offense and the importance of honesty, integrity and judgment in the medical profession.”

On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, Pennsylvania’s intermediate Court which addresses all administrative agency’s cases such as the Pennsylvania Medical Board, the court affirmed the Board action in whole based upon the doctor’s obvious, intentional, and over acts of dishonesty and deceit. The court reviewed the Board’s statutory authority to revoke or suspend a medical license for the conduct under section 42 of the Medical Practice Act, which provides in relevant part: (a) Authorized actions.–When the board is empowered to take disciplinary or corrective action against a board-regulated practitioner under the provisions of this act or pursuant to other statutory authority, the board may: (3) Revoke, suspend, limit or otherwise restrict a license or certificate. … 63 P.S. § 422.42(a).

Finding the Board had the authority to act, the Court reviewed the Board’s discretionary sanction, stating such is in the Board’s discretion and must be upheld unless it is shown that the Board acted in bad faith or fraudulently or that the sanction constitutes capricious action or a flagrant abuse of discretion. Slawek v. State Board of Medical Education & Licensure, 586 A.2d 362, 364-66 (Pa. 1991); Tandon v. State Board of Medicine, 705 A.2d 1338, 1346 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). Absent proof of Board fraud or capricious action and a doctor who intentionally lied on the biannual re-registration process, we know who lost the case.

This opinion is one more example of the adage that the cover-up is always worse than the initial crime. Every licensee who fails to timely and correctly report a criminal contact will face future stiffer discipline. The filing of false or deceptive licensure documents, including biennial registration forms, is a ground for discipline regardless of whether there is any other ground for discipline and independent of whether the content misrepresented relates to patient care or medical ability. 63 P.S. § 422.41(2), (11).

I instruct every criminal client facing a professional license collateral consequence to properly, truthfully, candidly, and completely answer the criminal contact question on the renewal application. To do otherwise as a licensee will merely invite an obvious and easy second basis to commence prosecution.

%d bloggers like this: