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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Call me to discuss your case.

Hearsay, The Pharmacy Board, and Due Process

A recent client sought reinstatement of her pharmacy license after a period of suspension for failing out of the SARPH, Pennsylvania pharmacists’ drug monitoring program. The Pharmacy Board rejected her petition. I represented the pharmacist only in her appeal to the Commonwealth Court.

Prior counsel cost her her license and Markowitz did not utilize an attorney during her petition for reinstatement process, including the hearing before the Pharmacy Board.  She represented herself very poorly at that hearing.  As a result, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Pharmacy Board’s denial of reinstatement. Carol Markowitz should have won her appeal because at the Pharmacy Board hearing the Board accepted inadmissible expert report evidence that tainted the Board’s consideration of the case.  Markowitz v. Bureau of Prof’l & Occupational Affairs, State Bd. of Pharm., 2016 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 594, at *16 (Commw. Ct. Aug. 25, 2016).

With every SARPH or PHMP approved monitoring program, following all terms and conditions of the case worker’s demands establishes compliance with a professional board order. Lack of compliance results in prosecutors filing motion to kick licensees out of the monitoring programs and retroactively suspend their license. Thereafter, before reinstatement should be sought and can be approved by the board, licensees must prove compliance with the terms and conditions of the monitoring program as mandated by the disciplinary order suspending the license.

In  Markowitz’ circumstance, she remained drug-free, did not work, and was otherwise compliant with all terms and conditions of the SARPH program. However, during the term of her suspension, she was not enrolled in the SARPH. No SARPH case worker appeared for her at her petition for reinstatement, did not approve of her medications, and did not perform the perfunctory supervised tests to confirm her  drug-free condition.

As part of the reinstatement process, Markowitz contacted SARPH, which sent her to a fitness to return to work evaluation by Drs. Heran and Garbely. These two doctors wrote a report, which the Board utilized against Markowtiz.  Neither appeared nor and testified at the reinstatement hearing.  The prosecutor moved Drs. Heran and Garbely‘s unqualified experts report into evidence.  The Board relied upon these two individuals’ hearsay report to find Markowitz was not eligible for reinstatement.

On appeal Markowitz complained about the Board’s due process violation in considering the expert reports for which Markowitz was unable to cross examine and question the author(s) of the report. Markowitz also complained about Drs. Heran and Garbely’s competence, prior histories of license suspensions, and their own drug addiction issues that ultimately lead to their becoming drug counselors and experts.

“Hearsay is defined as an out-of-court statement, either oral or written, offered in court for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter contained in the statement.” Bailey v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 142 Pa. Commw. 294, 597 A.2d 241, 243 n. 3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). “Hearsay evidence, [p]roperly objected to, is not competent evidence to support a finding[ ],” but “[h]earsay evidence, [a]dmitted without objection, will be given its natural probative effect and may support a finding[ ], [i]f it is corroborated by any competent evidence in the record….” Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa. Commw. 522, 367 A.2d 366, 370 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976). “[A] finding of fact based [s]olely on hearsay will not stand.” Id.

Surprisingly, the Court ruled “It is clear that the joint report is hearsay and not corroborated by other evidence of record. We agree with Markowitz that the report of Drs. Heran and Garbely should not have been considered by the Pharmacy Board.”  Markowitz v. Bureau of Prof’l & Occupational Affairs, State Bd. of Pharm., 2016 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 594, at *16 (Commw. Ct. Aug. 25, 2016).

Please call me to discuss your contact with these two doctors, their handling of your licensing case, and any case in which they were involved.

Criminal Contact and the Licensee’s Mandatory Reporting Reesponsibility

Every day brings new licensing reporting requirements that affect each licensee’s renewal responsibilities.  I reported in October 2015 of the Pennsylvania Nursing Board’s new mandatory reporting of just an arrest, not a conviction, for any misdemeanor or felony.  The questions that have arisen since then range from how long will the renewal time period take to what disciplinary action can I expect.

Every Board is different with regard to how long it will respond to either renew a license or advise of the potential consequence. Each board website contains general admonishments on what documents to attached and the variety of reasons for their dilatory response. One consistent response is to always blame the applicant, licensee for improper or unclear documentation.

 Statements such as “If you have previous criminal conviction(s) and/or discipline on another health license it will take longer to review your application. ” None the less, every licensee can assist in the enforcement review by submitting the following so that a letter does not have to be mailed out requesting these items.

• letter of explanation
• certified arrest and court records or out of state discipline documents
• letters of reference
• current work performance evaluation

Many state board websites include definitions that help explain the reporting requirements.  New Jersey’s states :

Conviction” includes a plea of no contest and any conviction that has been set aside or deferred pursuant to Sections 1000 or 1203.4 of the Penal Code, including infractions, misdemeanor, and felonies. It is not necessary to report a conviction for an infraction with a fine of less than $1,000 unless the infraction involved alcohol or controlled substances. However, any convictions in which a plea of no contest was entered and any convictions that were subsequently set aside pursuant or deferred pursuant to Sections 1000 or 1203.4 of the Penal Code must be disclosed. “License” includes permits, registrations, and certificates. “Discipline” includes, but is not limited to, suspension, revocation, voluntary surrender, probation, or any other restriction.

The following information must be provided for each license discipline or conviction sustained:

1. A detailed written explanation describing the circumstances and events that led to your arrest(s) and conviction(s), including: date and place of arrest; arresting agency; court where case was heard; and sentencing information, including fines, courses, counseling, restitution, probation, parole, community service, and jail or prison time.
2. Documents relating to the arrest, such as: police report, arrest report, booking report, complaint, citation or ticket.
3. Documents from the court, such as: Notice of Charges, Complaint, or Indictment; Plea Agreement, Sentencing Order, Probation Order, or Judgment; Dismissal, Probation Release, or Court Discharge.
4. Any related mitigating evidence or evidence of rehabilitation that you want to provide.

In Pennsylvania, a Board-regulated practitioner who engages in unprofessional or immoral conduct is subject to disciplinary action under section 41 of the act (63 P. S. § 422.41). Unprofessional conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following relevant provision:

(19) Violating a provision of this chapter, Chapter 17 or Chapter 18 (relating to State Board of Medicine—medical doctors; or State Board of Medicine—practitioners other than medical doctors) fixing a standard of professional conduct.

(b) Immoral conduct includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(1) Misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact in obtaining a license or a certificate issued by the Board or a reinstatement thereof.

(2) The commission of an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption when the act directly or indirectly affects the health, welfare or safety of citizens of this Commonwealth. If the act constitutes a crime, conviction thereof in a criminal proceeding is not a condition precedent to disciplinary action.

Disciplinary process is also available when a physician is convicted of a felony or being convicted of a misdemeanor relating to a health profession or receiving probation without verdict, disposition in lieu of trial or an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition in the disposition of felony charges, in the courts of this Commonwealth, a Federal court or a court of any other state, territory or country.

Moral turpitude” is not defined in the Pennsylvania’s Medical Practices Act but “is capable of being defined as evidenced by court decisions which determine that certain offenses are crimes involving moral turpitude.” “[M]oral turpitude” as “anything done knowingly contrary to justice, [h]onesty, or good morals.” A “[d]etermination 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 Pennsylvania Supreme Court routinely defines moral turpitude to mean anything done knowingly contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals. The terms “good moral character” and the “lack of moral turpitude” are used interchangeably to define each other in many cases. ‘Fraud’ certainly has acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law. Black’s Law Dictionary 594 (5th ed. 1979) defines fraud as any kind of artifice employed by one person to deceive another.

The provision that addresses reporting criminal conduct on a license application or renewal is more specific as to which offenses must be reported. Section 16.16 contains medical doctors’ legal reporting responsibilities. There, reporting of disciplinary actions, criminal dispositions and other licenses, certificates or authorizations to practice for new applicants states:

(a) An applicant for a license, certificate or registration issued by the Board shall apprise the Board of any of the following:

(3) A finding or verdict of guilt, an admission of guilt, a plea of nolo contendere, probation without verdict, a disposition in lieu of trial or an accelerated rehabilitative disposition with respect to a felony offense or a misdemeanor offense relating to a health care practice or profession.

(b) Portions of applications provided by the Board will be reserved to assist applicants in meeting the reporting responsibilities enumerated in subsection (a).

(c) The reporting responsibilities enumerated in subsection (a) continue after the Board issues a license, certificate or registration. If, after the Board has issued a license, certificate or registration, any of the events in subsection (a) occur, the person shall report that matter to the Board in writing within 30 days after its occurrence.

Some Board’s have regulations that assist them determining which violations are substantially related to the applicant’s license. In California, Title 16, California Code of Regulations, section 1444, states a conviction or act shall be considered to be substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of a registered nurse if to a substantial degree it evidences present or potential unfitness of a registered nurse to practice in a manner consistent with the public health, safety or welfare.

 Please call me to discuss you license renewal issues or criminal conduct reporting responsibility.

ALL NURSES MUST REPORT CRIMINAL CHARGES FILED AGAINST THEM WITHIN 30 DAYS OF ARREST.

Effective October 17, 2015 The Pennsylvania Nursing Board rules now require all Pennsylvania licensed RNs, LPNs, CRNPs, LDNs, and CNSs to report being charged with any misdemeanor or felony criminal charge, regardless of which jurisdiction the charges originate. The same practitioners must also within 90 days report any discipline from another jurisdiction.

§ 21.29a. Reporting of crimes and disciplinary action.

(a) A registered nurse shall notify the Board of pending criminal charges within 30 days of the filing of the criminal charges or on the biennial renewal application under § 21.29(c)(4) (relating to expiration and renewal of license), whichever is sooner.

(b) A registered nurse shall notify the Board of a criminal conviction, plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or an admission into a probation without verdict or accelerated rehabilitative disposition program within 30 days of the disposition or on the biennial renewal application under § 21.29(c)(4), whichever is sooner.

(c) A registered nurse shall notify the Board of disciplinary action in the nature of a final order taken against the registered nurse by the licensing authority of another state, territory or country within 90 days of receiving notice of the disciplinary action, or on the biennial renewal application under § 21.29(c)(4), whichever is sooner.

http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol45/45-42/1827.html

§ 21.156b. Reporting of crimes and disciplinary action.

(a) An LPN shall notify the Board of pending criminal charges within 30 days of the filing of the criminal charges or on the biennial renewal application under § 21.156 (relating to renewal of license), whichever is sooner.

(b) An LPN shall notify the Board of a criminal conviction, plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or admission into a probation without verdict or accelerated rehabilitative disposition program within 30 days of the disposition or on the biennial renewal application under § 21.156, whichever is sooner.

(c) An LPN shall notify the Board of disciplinary action in the nature of a final order taken against the LPN by the licensing authority of another state, territory or country within 90 days of receiving notice of the disciplinary action or on the biennial renewal application under § 21.156, whichever is sooner.

The Board is specifically concerned with the fact that practitioners were being charged with criminal acts and then enrolled in and completed the ARD program, with an expungement, between reporting periods. As such, the Board found that:

Background and Purpose

This final-form rulemaking accomplishes two goals: (1) amends current continuing education regulations for registered nurses; and (2) requires licensees to report criminal and disciplinary actions sooner than currently required. The Board published continuing education regulations implementing section 12.1 of the RN Act at 38 Pa.B. 3796 (July 12, 2008). To ease implementation, the Board provided registered nurses with a grace period of 6 months to cure deficiencies. Now that licensees have had an opportunity to obtain the continuing education and seek renewal, this grace period is no longer warranted and, in its place, the Board is implementing a procedure for continuing education compliance identical to that applied by the other licensing boards within the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs. Additionally, the final-form rulemaking provides the Board with the flexibility to require licensees to complete continuing education on a specific topic as the necessity arises. This is particularly important when there are advances or changes in practice that affect the entire profession or significant modifications to the Board’s regulations.

Regarding the reporting of criminal and disciplinary actions, § 21.29(c)(4) (relating to expiration and renewal of license) requires registered nurses to report these actions on their biennial renewal. Similarly, § 21.723 (relating to license renewal) requires licensed dietitian-nutritionists to report criminal and disciplinary actions at biennial renewal. Conversely, § 21.156 (relating to renewal of license), which applies to practical nurses, formerly did not require reporting of criminal and disciplinary actions at all. In many circumstances, especially in cases when licensees enter into an Accelerated Rehabilitation Disposition (ARD) Program, licensees avoid notifying the Board of the criminal action because the matter has been expunged by the time of renewal. The Board is authorized to discipline licensees who receive ARD, disposition instead of trial or probation without verdict in the disposition of felony charges. In addition, licensees who receive ARD or other pretrial disposition of DUIs and other drug offenses may suffer from mental or physical illnesses or conditions or physiological or psychological dependence on alcohol, hallucinogenic or narcotic drugs, or other drugs which tend to impair judgment or coordination, authorizing the Board to require mental and physical examinations under section 14(a)(2) and (2.1) of the RN Act (63 P. S. § 224(a)(2) and (2.1)) or section 16(a)(6) of the PN Law (63 P. S. § 666(a)(6)). It is therefore imperative that the Board receive these reports in a timely manner.

 

Call to discuss your criminal case and your reporting requirements.

The document requirements for the professional license applicant or during renewal.

I receive many calls inquiring about what legal documents relating to prior arrests, convictions, or investigations need be attached to a professional license original or renewal application. These questions come from qualified individuals with some prior criminal entanglements which may/must be disclosed to a licensing board.  Disclosure of criminal convictions, felony arrests, or prior disciplinary actions are typically required upon initila application regardless of when they occurred. Renew application are more difficult to address.

Understanding what must be disclosed is the first step. From the criminal record standpoint, pending misdemeanor cases (typically DUI’s) at renewal need to be disclosed.  Open and pending felony charges for which there is no conviction, also need to be disclosed at renewal or in the initial application. Misdemeanor convictions, ARD, or other non-trial dispositions that have not been expunged need to be disclosed at both times. Only expunged matters based upon enrolling in ARD or a dismissal need not be disclosed.  Disclosure requires production of a certified criminal record secured from the county courthouse in which the manner was handled.

Immediate disclosure is not required of any initial contact with the law.  It is only upon renewal or initial licensing that the criminal contacts must be disclosed.

Any pending professional disciplinary action may need to be disclosed. “May” depends on the nature of the pending investigation. If the investigation is a PHMP referral to the VRP and the licensee has not elected to enroll, disclosure is not required as there is no pending disciplinary action. Even if there is a petition for a mental and physical valuation for which a probable cause screening committee has required a mental and physical evaluation, if the results of that evaluation have not come back yet, there is no pending investigation. There’s been no formal disciplinary action filed.  As such, disclosure is not required.  Formal disciplinary action would need to be disclosed.

Any decision to enter the PHMP through the VRP, with a signed consent agreement that is been entered as a Board order from a licensing board, requires disclosure. If a licensee has decided to enter the VRP disclosure maybe necessary. Here, disclosure is required to other states for which the licensee hold a license and is typically a condition of the PHMP/VRP consent agreement.

Mere contact by Commonwealth or other state’s narcotics enforcement officers or Pennsylvania professional board investigators regarding workplace related issues, for which neither a criminal prosecution nor state board investigation has commenced, does not require disclosure. Mere contacts, without the filing of formal charges or disciplinary action do not constitute an investigation. This is much more the case in the criminal context, which must be initiated by the filing of a criminal complaint.

This blog focuses on the reporting requirement in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Disciplinary or criminal action from outside the Commonwealth may require reporting in that home state that is different from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s reporting requirements.  Formal filing of criminal charges outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by other states or the federal authorities will require reporting in Pennsylvania if felony charges are filed and you are in your renewal period.  Providing copies of the documents in relation to that action or charges will be necessary. The same applies for disciplinary action by other state licensing boards.

Medicaid and Medicare preclusion letters may constitute an investigation by an agency requiring disclosure. Obviously, the preclusion letter would be based upon conduct of which the licensee has already been aware, charged criminally, or may constitute the basis of a pending disciplinary action. These preclusion letters nonetheless may require reporting to your licensing board.

Please call me to discuss any of the issues presented by Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or other states or federal authorities disciplinary or criminal action that affects your Pennsylvania professional license.

Fighting and Reporting Out-of-State Discipline to Pennsylvania’s Licensing Boards

A consistent and significant problem in many Pennsylvania disciplinary licensing matters I handle involve professionals who mistakenly stipulate to discipline in another state and then mistakenly fail to report the discipline to Pennsylvania’s licensing board. The reporting must be done within ninety days of the final disposition of that matter. This is a statutory requirement and set forth at 60 P. S. §221.1.

Failing to report is huge disciplinary error easily avoided. Pennsylvania’s licensing boards (including Nursing, Medical, Pharmacy, Osteopathic, Automobile, Real Estate, Social Work, Marital Counseling, or Psychiatry) receive notification of disciplinary decisions from other jurisdictions based upon information provided in many traveling professional’s applications for a second or third state license.When a final disciplinary order is entered in another jurisdiction, that jurisdiction communicates to every state for which the licensee holds a license. Pennsylvania is typically one such jurisdiction because many professionals secured their first professional license here upon graduating from one of our many fine teaching institutions. Failing to report a discipline is easily discovered by, and the basis for discipline in, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

With regard to the factual basis of any disciplinary proceeding, I see the same mistake many times: inexperienced council or unrepresented professionals erroneously agree to discipline and sign agreements or stipulations unaware of how the terms of the agreements will affect a Pennsylvania licensee. To the inexperienced practitioner (attorney or professional), seasoned state disciplinary counsel seek and secure amazing factual stipulations that admit medical errors, professional incompetence, or drug and alcohol impairments. These factual stipulations are then linked to legal stipulations that satisfy each jurisdiction’s legal burdens for suspension, probation, or revocation of a license. Once this is done, discipline in Pennsylvania is inevitable.

After agreeing to certain facts and what may seem moderate discipline, a certified order of stipulated facts and discipline makes its way to Pennsylvania. The unrepresented professional may forget this fact, but agrees to the discipline because of an inability to hire experienced counsel or the prohibitive cost of mounting an effective defense. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania’s respective licensing board commences its own disciplinary proceeding based upon the factual and legal stipulations to which the licensee has already agreed, whether or not they reported such to Pa. Hence, I am called to address a second disciplinary process commenced in Pennsylvania.

The case of Phillip Romanelli v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, 2011 Comm.Ct. Lexus 911 (November 1, 2011), is a clear example of the pitfalls of failing to fight a discipline in another state, failing to report the discipline, and then failing to appear and contest Pennsylvania’s discipline. Romanelli lost his license in another state, failed to timely report such and then decided too late to fight Pennsylvania’s proceedings. Ultimately, Pennsylvania’s license revocation proceedings were allowed.

The Romanelli case makes clear that it is the licensee’s responsibility to respond to all litigation documents. Failure to do so will be at one’s own pitfall. The dual difficulty in these cases is binding decisions from another jurisdiction and traveling to the Commonwealth. It is important to contest every aspect of every proceeding in another jurisdiction and not stipulate to facts that will be included in any final decree or decision of a licensing board. Stipulations to unfitness, incapacity, professional misconduct, or drug and alcohol addictions and impairments will allow the Pa. boards to restrict, limit, revoke, or emergently suspend your license.

Do not ignore Pa. corollary disciplinary actions merely because you are now practicing your profession elsewhere. A subsequent discipline in Pa. will have to be reported back to your new home state where one disciplinary matter was just fought. Inability to travel to Pa. or not practicing in Pa. are not basis to ignore these proceedings. I represent many individuals residing and practicing throughout the United States with an initial Pa. license. Many of my clients are professionals unable to return to Pennsylvania to address the hearings or deal with the Pennsylvania Court filings. I fight the case in Pa. while you remain home in your new adopted state.

Stipulations to a monitor program or treatment in another jurisdiction will become the basis for Pennsylvania to require the same or suspend your license. Pennsylvania’s monitor program, PMP or PHMP, is governed by an overly restrictive and statutorily required boilerplate contract. Even if you fail to report the discipline, which is a separate basis for discipline in PA, agreeing to a monitored program outside of Pa will result in Pa’s version being forced upon a licensee in Pa. Do not sign any such agreement without fighting that case.

Currently I represent an individual who was counseled incorrectly on this exact issue. She is now confronted with a non-Pennsylvania disciplinary action/monitoring requirement being utilized by the Pa. licensing board to investigate her for both for failure to report and the necessity of monitoring. She has secured new non-Pa. counsel to open and contest the underlying disciplinary actions so as to eliminate the possibility of having to enter the PHMP and being disciplined for failing to report a discipline. Returning to the first disciplining state and re-contesting agreements or stipulations is the only way to proceed.

Please call me to discuss any non-Pennsylvania disciplinary action and its ultimate affect on your underlying Pennsylvania license. Please call me to discuss the requirements for reporting you’re non-Pa disciplinary action on your active Pennsylvania license.

Please call me to discuss any Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enforcement action you receive as a result of a non-Pennsylvanian disciplinary proceeding or agreement. Please call me to discuss negotiations and strategy of your non-Pennsylvania disciplinary matter with the anticipation of having to report the same to the Pennsylvania licensing authorities.

Nurse License Renewal–ARD and Expungment Timing

Pursuant to § 21.29, the annual Nursing license expiration and renewal occurs on (1) April 30 in the even-numbered years, (2) October 31 in the even-numbered years, (3) April 30 in the odd-numbered years, and (4) October 31 in the odd-numbered years.
Upon receipt of the notice of the renewal, and the time period within which the application need be completed, the applicant for license renewal may complete and submit an application online or may mail a completed application form to the Board’s administrative office.
When applying for licensure renewal, a professional nurse shall, among other things, disclose any discipline imposed by a state licensing board on any nursing or allied health profession license or certificate in the previous biennial period and any criminal charges pending or criminal conviction, plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or admission into a probation without verdict or accelerated rehabilitative disposition during the previous biennial period. If the charges were expunged, then no reporting is required.
Timing of any ARD admission, completion of ARD and expungment of the ARD criminal record in conjunction with filing the renewal application is important. There are time lags when submitting any renewal application if the applicant must report being involved in the criminal justice system. Attaching court documents of ARD completion and expungment orders are important. Speeding up a criminal case to get in and out of ARD before renewal is important. If the criminal case is not over at the time of renewal, it must be reported. If it ends after renewal, and you ARD is entered and completed prior to renewal, with an expungment possible, but not granted, it must be reported.
It is very important to file an expungment application just prior to completion of the ARD so that court dates may be coordinated just after ending ARD and having an expungment granted. We have experience filing the petitions very quickly with the appropriate averments addressing licensing complications. While answering honestly and forthrightly in any renewal application is primary, there are always ways to minimize the impact of any criminal matter on a licensee’s future with ARD and expungments.