Professional Licensing Attorney Explains CPA Disciplinary Actions in Kansas

/in /by

The Kansas Board of Accountancy (“the Board”) enjoys superintendence power over all Certified Public Accounts (CPAs) in Kansas. The Board, created by Kansas statute, is charged with ensuring that CPAs ethically practice public accountancy according to the standards in the profession. The Board exercises its authority to investigate and discipline accountants who have allegedly violated their ethical obligations. Kansas professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger, who has vast experience with occupational licensing defense, recommends contacting a highly skilled professional licensing attorney immediately if you are being investigated for or charged with disciplinary action relating to your work as a CPA in Kansas or Missouri.

A CPA’s professional standards are derived from core ethical principles of maintaining integrity in the profession, objectivity and independence, and due care.  These ethical principles are espoused by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). The Kansas statute enunciating the Board’s duties specifically states that any state-issued standard must meet the standards promulgated by the AICPA.  That same statute authorizes the Board to investigate violations of ethical misconduct in the profession and take adverse action, if necessary, to regulate the profession in addition to issuing, denying, and revoking permits to practice public accountancy.

The statute enabling the Board’s seemingly broad powers enumerates specific grounds upon which the Board may base its decision to refuse to issue a permit or revoke a permit to practice accountancy in Kansas. The statute authorizes adverse action for multiple grounds of misconduct. Some of those include:

  • dishonesty, fraud, or gross negligence in the practice of accountancy;
  • willful violation of a rule of professional conduct; and
  • conviction of any felony or of any crime, an element of which is fraud or deceit.

In Kansas, willful is a term of art that has been defined by the Kansas Court of Appeals. In a case of first impression on the issue of defining a willful violation of an administrative statute, the Appeals Court held that willful should be defined as an intent to commit the act or an omission to act. Therefore, the Board, in issuing discipline, must find that the act was willful and not that the CPA willfully intended to violate a rule of professional conduct.

To further regulate practitioners, the Board has issued regulations that, in addition to the previously referenced statutes, govern CPAs’ ethical standards. Article 5 of Chapter 74 of K.A.R. specifically adopts the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct (“the Code”), its rules, definitions, interpretations, and guidance as the ethical standard of practice for CPAs in Kansas.

The Code defines the core principles of CPAs’ ethical responsibility. For example, the Code espouses the ideal that every CPA must conduct themselves in accordance with the public’s best interest and “serve the public trust.”  Serving the public trust means acting with the highest level of professionalism and demonstrating excellence in their profession and acting with the utmost personal and professional integrity. Performing CPA services with integrity requires the CPA to be honest and frank with clients while ensuring confidentiality. Performing with integrity also requires the CPA to observe the form and the spirit of the Code while remaining objective and independent. Objectivity and independence require the CPA to exercise independent judgment and be free from conflicts of interest.

Professional Licensing Attorney Vigorously Defends CPAs Against Claims of Ethical Violations

Kansas Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger understands the sacrifice and commitment required to obtain and maintain a permit to practice public accountancy.  Call Attorney Sanger if you are facing discipline before the Kansas Board of Accountancy. Attorney Sanger will zealously represent you and protect your livelihood. Call Attorney Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule a free, no-obligation appointment.

Missouri and Kansas Law Differ Regarding Ex Parte Contact with Physicians

/in /by

Nearly every ex parte conversation about a patient’s health is prohibited in Kansas and Missouri. Notwithstanding, physicians who practice medicine in both states are faced with conflicting rules relating to ex parte conversations in the context of litigation involving a patient. Physicians must do their level best to educate themselves on their ethical responsibilities owed to their patients despite conflicting rules to avoid a HIPAA violation, which is a federal crime. Furthermore, a HIPAA violation can lead to sanctions on the physician’s license. Consequently, the careful physician must consult a professional licensing attorney to avoid HIPAA violations. Professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger who is admitted to practice in Missouri and Kansas, possesses the knowledge and experience to advise you how to ethically resolve the issue.

The ethical conundrum for physicians licensed in both states is caused by conflicting treatment of HIPAA’s privacy rules in the context of third-party contact with physicians regarding a patient’s claims. In a recent decision from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, a magistrate judge ordered a plaintiff to execute a HIPAA-compliant medical authorization granting permission to the defendant’s attorneys to conduct third-party conversations with the plaintiff’s treating physicians. The plaintiff objected to the defendant’s motion to endorse an authorization allowing the defendant’s attorneys to interview her treating physicians.  The plaintiff sought to quash the defendant’s motion by arguing that Missouri law, rather than Kansas law, must apply, and therefore under Missouri law, such a practice would be prohibited.

The magistrate judge disagreed with the plaintiff. The judge ruled that Kansas law applied rather than Missouri law. The judge further ruled that Kansas law, although recognizing a patient–physician privilege, specifically excluded patient–physician communications where the patient placed her condition in issue in litigation. This guided the court in ruling that HIPAA specifically allowed third-party conversations if the request otherwise complied with state requirements to obtain medical information from healthcare providers and the healthcare providers are given notice that they may decline to be interviewed. The magistrate judge, further construing Kansas law, noted that ex parte conversations with a physician are permitted by Kansas law and “may be regarded as ‘in the course of’ a judicial proceeding.”

The Supreme Court of Missouri, on the other hand, construes HIPAA, and therefore Missouri law, to prohibit ex parte contact. The Missouri Supreme Court, in an analogous situation to the case referenced above, analyzed whether HIPAA, a federal law, pre-empted state discovery rules in litigation.  The court held that HIPAA did pre-empt state law. Specifically, the Court found that HIPAA allowed disclosures of protected information through discovery or other “formal court procedures.”  In the context of discovery of protected medical information, a Missouri court has “authority and oversight” over proceedings in court and proceedings conducted under formal discovery rules. An ex parte conversation with a physician is not a formal discovery tool authorized by the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure. Additionally, Missouri courts have no authority to compel a physician to engage in ex parte communications or to compel a plaintiff to specifically authorize such communication.

The Missouri Supreme Court ultimately decided that ex parte communications are specifically prohibited by HIPAA. The Court reasoned that ex parte communications are beyond judicial supervision and therefore, a trial court had no jurisdiction to rule on “informal ex parte communications” with the plaintiff’s physicians who are not parties to the litigation. The Court offered some guidance to Missouri physicians. The Court opined that physicians can comply with HIPAA by declining to an ex parte interview unless their patient gives appropriate authorization. Of course, the physician is free under Missouri common law to decline to be interviewed.

Consult With A Knowledgeable and Experienced Professional Licensing Attorney

Kansas Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger has the best interests of professional licensees in mind. Consult attorney Sanger if you or your staff has any questions or concerns regarding the scope of disclosures that you may lawfully make. Call professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger at 785-979-4353 immediately to schedule your free consultation.

Kansas City Professional Responsibility Defense Attorney Discusses the Revocation of Hospital Privileges In Missouri

/in /by

Loss or revocation of hospital privileges can have a devastating effect on a physician’s career. The adverse impact of such a decision is felt beyond the physician and her reputation in the healing arts. Most importantly, patients suffer as well. Consequently, physicians whose privileges have been limited, suspended, or revoked by a private, non-profit hospital must vigorously fight to have their privileges reinstated. The State of Missouri now recognizes a cause of action for physicians to contest a hospital’s revocation of privileges. This cause of action is very limited in scope, as explained more thoroughly below. Professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger zealously advocates for every professional licensee, including physicians, who have suffered an adverse action on their ability to practice their chosen profession.

The general rule in Missouri, as in most other states, is that courts will not interfere with a hospital’s decision to limit, suspend, or revoke a physician’s privileges.  The prevailing view at the time held that hospital privileges were a private matter that rested in the sole discretion of the hospital’s management. That absolute bar no longer exists and a limited exception is now recognized in Missouri. The first exception carved out of the general rule recognized a cause of action of civil conspiracy where two physicians acted in concert against a third physician to revoke privileges and steal that physician’s business. The aggrieved physician in that case was permitted to sue the hospital to be reinstated because the physician alleged something more than wrongful termination of privileges.

Subsequent to that case, Missouri adopted regulations that compel the hospital to draft and enact by-laws.  The by-laws are designed to guide the staff and promulgate the standards by which privileges are revoked, including a hearing and appellate review procedures. The state regulation created an obligation for the hospital to institute a comprehensive set of by-laws as well as a concomitant obligation to follow those by-laws. Consequently, the Missouri Supreme Court recognized the narrow exception to the general rule permitting a physician to sue a hospital for injunctive relief compelling the hospital to follow its own by-laws prior to revoking privileges. In that case, the Missouri Supreme Court indicated a trial court in a suit for injunctive relief would scrutinize the hospital’s actions to ensure “substantial compliance with the hospital’s by-laws.”  Substantial compliance, however, is not a re-evaluation of the hospital’s case. Rather, substantial compliance means that a reviewing court will analyze whether the hospital followed its own by-laws regarding the decision that adversely affects a physician’s privileges. A court will not order injunctive relief if the hospital has complied.

While Missouri courts recognize a suit for equitable relief against a hospital for failure to comply with its by-laws, they have thus far refused to permit a suit for money damages against the hospital.  In Missouri, the hospital’s by-laws are not considered a contractual obligation to a physician. Likewise, privileges to practice at a hospital are not absolute. Privileges may be revoked for reasons which are non-discriminatory and reasonable according to the hospital’s rules and regulations. The rationale supporting this rule relates back to the ultimate mission of a hospital: quality patient care. Missouri courts have reasoned that hospitals should not be forced to make financial decisions relating to restricting privileges at the risk of patient care.

The general rule does not appear to be expanding beyond those limited exceptions. In a recent Missouri case, a physician brought suit for tortious interfere with business expectations. The trial court dismissed and the appellate court upheld that decision, thereby refusing to extend relief beyond injunctive already recognized by Missouri courts.

Contact An Experienced Professional Licensing Attorney For Immediate Assistance

Contact Kansas City Professional Responsibility Defense Attorney Danielle Sanger immediately if you have received notice of a potential adverse action against your privileges. Getting an experienced professional licensing attorney involved early in your case may make the difference to you, your business, and most importantly, your patients. Call professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger at 785-979-4353 today for a free, no-obligation consultation.

Nurses In Correctional Settings Face Ethical Challenges Unique to the Profession

/in /by

As recently as 2013, the United States Department of Justice calculated the prison population of the country at over 1.5 million people. Over 31,000 people are in the custody of the Missouri Department of Correction. Meanwhile, over 10,000 are incarcerated in the Kansas Department of Correction. Nurses working in a correctional institution must set aside their personal beliefs about the prisoners, some of whom are serving sentences for ghastly crimes of a violent or sexual nature. In prison, despite controlled environments, a nurse’s own safety is at risk. Nonetheless, nurses must conduct themselves with the highest degree of ethical behavior to provide the requisite level of health care to the incarcerated. Professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger understands the strain under which correctional nurses toil and will provide zealous legal defense for any nurse whose ethics are questioned.

Nurses are a critical component of our health care system. Adherence to the principles of justice, fidelity, veracity, autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence guide the nurse’s actions in providing health care to the sick or injured. A correctional setting can challenge those ideals. While nurses are “bound” by the “Code of Ethics and Interpretative Statements,” they must also balance “the goals of corrections and the incarcerated person’s rights to appropriate health care.” Thus, the nurse must perform a nurse’s duties without regard for who the person is and what the person did. Said another way, the nurse must view and treat the prisoner as a person.  Notwithstanding the adherence to this lofty standard, the correctional nurse is encouraged to maintain “safe boundaries” in the institution for their own protection and well-being.

The corrections environment completely distinguishes correctional nursing from nursing care in a strictly medical environment. In fact, correctional nurses are prohibited from engaging in behavior that is related to a corrections function; their mandate is to treat the inmates’ health concerns and those alone. Consequently, the nurses are prohibited from participating in any function of capital punishment because capital punishment destroys life and the nurses’ goal is to preserve life. Furthermore, the American Nurses Association (ANA) prohibits nurses from assisting in investigations such as body cavity searches and other court-ordered procedures, like lethal injection, which lack any health care benefit and are performed without regard to the patient’s “informed consent.”  Correctional nurses are further prohibited from performing any function relating to discipline of inmates or serving on any penal committees. Although from a corrections and rehabilitation standpoint having a nurse serving on such boards may provide the board valuable insight into the inmate’s health concerns upon re-entry into society, such advisory roles are not permitted according to ANA standards.

The correctional nurse will confront diverse medical issues when treating inmates. Health issues relating to juvenile care; health issues specific to females, including treating pregnant incarcerated females and their children; geriatric and end-of-life care are also some of challenges a corrections nurse may face. Additionally, the corrections nurse will face public health issues, such as communicative diseases, as well as issues related to substance abuse and withdrawal all while endeavoring to follow the ANA Correctional Nurses Standards by incorporating the patient’s cultural preferences in the health care equation. The corrections nurse is also burdened with the ethical obligation of ensuring inmates’ access to health care in the facility. The nurse, when informed of a medical issue, must promptly and properly evaluate the inmate’s health care needs and take the proper course of action. The nurse must engage the inmate, bearing in mind safety concerns, personally to properly assess the level of health care required.  Failing to do so may cause the inmate to file a malpractice lawsuit or file a complaint against the nurse’s license to practice.

Professional Licensing Attorney Assisting Those Who Assist Others

Kansas Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger is dedicated to fighting for professional licensees who are facing an ethical complaint in Kansas or Missouri. Attorney Sanger understands the level of dedication and sacrifice nurses make every moment of their careers. That is why Attorney Sanger will vigorously fight for you to defeat ethical complaints.  Call professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger at 785-979-4353 today for your free consultation.

Kansas Professional Licensing Attorney Summarizes the Ethical Duties of a Physical Therapist

/in /by

Physical therapists profess to treat a multitude of common ailments by increasing mobility and motion in lieu of medical intervention. Physical therapy as a healing art is premised on the principle that moving “pain-free” is essential to good health and is a cost-effective alternative to other medical modalities. Physical therapists work with patients to increase strength and flexibility thereby increasing, depending upon individual circumstances,  the quality of one’s daily life.  Because a physical therapist provides a vital medical service to the public, the physical therapist must be duly licensed to practice. In Kansas, the Kansas Board of the Healing Arts (“the Board”) oversees physical therapist licensing and ethical practices.  Kansas professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger devotes her practice to the representation of licensed professionals, such as physical therapists, who face disciplinary proceedings in both Kansas and Missouri.

Physical therapy provides the opportunity for patients suffering from pain or lack of mobility to reverse those ailments without prescription drugs or surgery.  For example, the American Physical Therapy Association (“APTA”) explains that freedom of movement will help reduce obesity, reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke as well as fracture and arthritis risk. The APTA further explains that increased mobility—one of the primary benefits of physical therapy—decreases the risk of falling by encouraging consistent movement to benefit our sense of balance. In addition to increased mobility, decreased pain is another perceived benefit of physical therapy.  The APTA cites a Journal of the American Medical Association study that concluded that back-pain is “over-treated” by physicians ordering costly diagnostics and treatment, such as “imaging” and surgery.  According to the APTA, physical therapy is a “cost-effective” alternative to “surgery and injections” to treat back-pain and other ailments, such as torn rotator cuffs, meniscus tears, and degenerative disc disease.

To ensure that physical therapy is practiced ethically, the APTA promulgated the “Code of Ethics for the Physical Therapist.”  The Code of Ethics establishes an industry standard of the physical therapists’ role in treating a patient, minimum standards of care, while promoting a patient-centric approach to health care. The APTA delineated 10 principles of physical therapy to guide the practitioner in providing health care in the Code of Ethics. Accordingly, physical therapists are implored to respect their patients and communicate well with them; practice with integrity; avoid misrepresenting their credentials and potential outcomes of treatment; and use sound professional judgment that is in the best interest of the patient at all times. Specifically, the Code of Ethics obligates practitioners to obey federal and state laws and regulations.

In Kansas, the Board of Healing Arts is the licensing authority for physical therapists. The Board of Healing Arts (“the Board”), by authority conveyed by statute, may deny licensure, renewal, or may take adverse action against a physical therapist’s license for conduct including but not limited to alcohol or drug dependency, felony conviction, or unprofessional conduct as defined by the Board’s rules and regulations. The regulations are consistent with, although more specific than, the APTA’s Code of Ethics. In Kansas, unprofessional conduct is defined as, for instance, failing to practice skillfully due to alcoholism or drug dependency and/or mental illness; committing gross or ordinary negligence; demonstrative incompetence; “advertising a guarantee” relating to physical therapy; making false or misleading claims in advertisements, including misrepresenting one’s own credentials; continuing unwarranted treatment or ordering useless tests or procedures; and charging excessive fees.

What To Do If You Are A Physical Therapist Facing An Ethical Investigation

If you are a physical therapist facing an investigation or complaint for unethical practices, contact Kansas Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger immediately at 785-979-4353 to discuss your options and defenses. Attorney Sanger has vast experience defending professional licensees in Kansas and Missouri against alleged ethical violations. Attorney Sanger is a zealous and tireless advocate who will pursue every available defense on your behalf. Call Attorney Sanger today for your free consultation.  

Practitioners of the Chiropractic Arts Must Maintain Highest Ethical Standards in Missouri

/in /by

Chiropractic care continues to suffer from an image problem. Some believe that the chiropractic arts are a bit of witchcraft or voodoo because they are skeptical of its benefits as a healing art. Notwithstanding, given the proliferation of chiropractors in the United States, and in Missouri in particular, chiropractic care continues to grow as a legitimate health care alternative, despite its image problem. Chiropractors must be vigilant to uphold the highest duty of care to their patients as well as their ethical duties so the credibility of the healing art may progress. Any deviation from that high standard can have disastrous consequences for the practitioner. The potentially disastrous consequences is why Professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger is committed to defending actions against chiropractor’s licenses.

In 2011, the Missouri Bar Association published an article relating to the proper evaluation of chiropractic malpractice relating to strokes purportedly caused by neck manipulation. The risk of stroke, incidentally, the existence of which is conceded by chiropractors, is caused by the twisting of the neck, or cervical spine, which can create a shearing of the major blood vessels leading to the brain. The shearing deprives the brain of necessary blood resulting in a stroke. The article cites a study conducted by medical doctors concluding that manipulation of the neck causes stroke in nearly 1 out of every 40,000 manipulations. By stark contrast, studies advanced by chiropractors conclude the risk of stroke by neck manipulation is 1 in 5.85 million.

The article cautions the legal practitioner on properly evaluating whether the chiropractor committed malpractice causing a stroke. In fact, the article discusses how a plaintiff’s potential expert at trial, i.e., a neurologist, has a natural bias against chiropractic care, which diminishes their credibility as an expert.  That’s on the one hand. On the other, the author instructs the case evaluator to consider the promises and rhetoric a chiropractor uses to convince a potential patient that there is a dire need for chiropractic care vis-a-vis traditional medical care. The author advises that a chiropractor’s website and advertisements are filled with information that can be used against the practitioner.

Ensuring the ethical practice of chiropractic care can only serve to advance the public perception and benefit of chiropractic care. Thus, a chiropractor who truly believes in the healing arts will benefit from closely following the ethical guidelines delineated by the Missouri State Regulations as well as the American Chiropractic Association Code of Ethics. The Missouri State Regulations (“the Regulations”) require a chiropractor to inform the patient of the patient’s “abnormalities” and provide an honest assessment of whether chiropractic care will benefit the patient. Similarly, the American Chiropractic Association Code of Ethics (“Code of Ethics”) mandates a chiropractor to build “trust” in a clinician–patient relationship. Consistent with the Regulations, the Code of Ethics instructs the chiropractor to be completely honest with the patient about the causes of the ailments for which treatment is sought and the possible outcomes as well as the chiropractor’s skill and education.

As the article referenced above indicates, the competition for chiropractic patients is greater than that of a medical doctor’s. Accordingly, chiropractors who choose to advertise must do so without being false or misleading. For instance, promising or guaranteeing certain results will be reached is strictly prohibited by both the Regulations and the Code of Ethics. Preying upon a vulnerable population, such as people suffering from chronic pain, or solicitation of business in the immediate aftermath of an accident, is also prohibited.

Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger has devoted her career to defending professional licensees, such as chiropractors, in both Missouri and Kansas. Attorney Sanger, with her experience as an assistant attorney general, will represent you with zeal to protect your license from discipline should you be accused of violating an ethical rule. Call Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger at 785-979-4353 to schedule your free consultation and learn what a difference dedication and experience can make for you.

Decisions in 2015 by the Missouri Board of Healing Arts Lead to a Number of Physicians Losing Their License to Practice Medicine

/in /by

The Missouri Board of Registration for the Healing Arts has disciplined several medical doctors in 2015 for ethical violations. Most disciplinary actions resulted in a public reprimand or probation, while others have led to suspensions from practice for a given period of time. Some physicians have suffered catastrophic outcomes. To this point in 2015, five physicians have lost their license to practice medicine in Missouri. While the reasons for license revocation vary, the transgressions the Board of Registration for the Healing Arts (“the Board”) found that the physician committed were extremely serious and warranted license revocation. The potential for severe, career and potentially life-altering disciplinary action requires hiring an experienced professional licensing attorney to defend you in disciplinary investigations and hearings.  Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger has the experience to vigorously protect you from potentially irreparable disciplinary action.

Physicians, as well as all other licensees who are investigated for unethical conduct by the Board, enjoy certain rights if the investigation leads to a formal disciplinary hearing. The rights granted to physicians facing a disciplinary action ensure that the physician is protected by due process of law before adverse action is taken against the physician’s license. Accordingly, physicians have the right to be present and hear evidence presented at a hearing, to be represented by counsel, to have the allegations proven by “competent and substantial evidence,” the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses present in support of the allegations, the right to present evidence in the physician’s own behalf, as well as the right to a fair and impartial hearing conducted by an administrative hearings commissioner.  The rights are personal to the physician. Accordingly, the physician may waive the enumerated rights and enter an agreement with the Board. The physician may wish to challenge the Board’s evidence and contest the allegations levied at a hearing.  Failure to appear and defend will result in a default judgment against the physician and the Board will conclude that all of the allegations are true.

The Board has the statutory authority to discipline a physician licensed in Missouri for disciplinary action occurring in another state. Thus, the Board revoked the license of a Missouri physician for seven years based upon disciplinary action in Tennessee. Tennessee’s disciplinary tribunal revoked the physician’s license for a period of not less than two but no more than seven years.  Similarly, the Board revoked a Missouri physician’s license for seven years who voluntarily and permanently surrendered his medical license to the Texas Medical Board. This physician was found responsible for unethically dispensing controlled substances to seven patients in Texas.

Three additional investigations by the Board resulted in the revocation of Missouri physicians’ licenses. One physician voluntarily surrendered his license in lieu of other discipline for positive drug screens. The physician admitted to taking morphine pills that were not prescribed for him. This positive test caused the physician to voluntarily surrender his rights to prescribe controlled substances monitored by the State of Missouri and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”). Surrender of his privileges to the DEA constitutes “final action” giving the Board grounds to seek disciplinary action. Another physician voluntarily surrendered his “controlled substance privileges” to the DEA during the Board’s investigation. This physician also voluntarily surrendered his license in lieu of other discipline. In another case, the Board, after a full hearing, found that the physician failed to comply with his terms of probation on his license resulting from previous disciplinary action for substance abuse. The Board ruled that to preserve the public safety, the physician’s license must be revoked for seven years.

Professional Licensing Attorney Will Fight To Protect You And Your Livelihood

Kansas Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger is a zealous advocate for professional licensees, including physicians. Attorney Sanger’s experience as an assistant attorney general, coupled with her extensive accomplishments in private practice, provide her with the knowledge to zealously defend against any disciplinary action or investigation. Call Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger at 785-979-4353 to learn how experience and determination can preserve your career and your livelihood.

Recent Examples of Disciplinary Actions Levied by the Missouri Committee of Psychologists

/in /by

The Missouri Committee of Psychologists is the governing administrative agency for psychologists in Missouri. The Missouri Committee of Psychologists (“the Committee”) regulates the practice of psychology by ensuring proper licensing by people holding themselves out to the public as psychologists, and making certain that psychologists meet proper educational requirements, as well as continuing educational guidelines. The Committee is also charged with investigating psychologists who have allegedly violated the governing rules of ethics or for other forms of misconduct. Professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger is a zealous advocate for licensees facing disciplinary actions in Missouri.

The authority to investigate psychologists is conferred by statute in Missouri. Missouri Revised Statutes section 337.035.1 et seq. delineates numerous grounds upon which the Committee may investigate for disciplinary reasons, including but not limited to ethics violations, criminal convictions, failure to pay taxes, and the like. If the Committee finds evidence of one or more grounds for discipline, then the Committee may file a complaint with the Missouri Administrative Hearings Commission. If the Hearings Commission rules that the Committee met its burden, the Hearings Commission may levy discipline.

The Hearings Commission is authorized by statute to hear the allegations brought by the Committee against the licensee. The Hearings Commission then refers the matter back to the Committee if the Committee has met its burden to prove the allegations at the hearing. The authority conferred by statute to the Committee permits discipline in the nature of censure, probation of a license with appropriate conditions not to exceed five years, suspension of a license for no longer than three years, or revocation of a license.

An examination of recent disciplinary rulings is instructive to practitioners to help assess the prevailing rationale of the Committee. In one case, the psychologist was unable to satisfy the continuing educational requirements. The Hearings Commission found that the licensee was subject to discipline as a result of that failure. The Committee placed the licensee on probation for three years with numerous conditions. The licensee indicated to the Commission that his own mental state was not stable, which caused him to fail to meet continuing educational requirements. Those conditions included submitting to an evaluation to assess the licensee’s own mental condition for fitness to practice as a psychologist.

In another decision, involving more egregious facts, the Committee and licensee entered into a stipulation for discipline. The licensee became romantically involved with a former patient. The patient had sought counseling for a period of time and then failed to keep an appointment.  The licensee failed to send a termination letter or conduct a termination session. Shortly thereafter, the licensee and patient became romantically involved. The Committee and licensee reached an agreement wherein the licensee would be suspended for three years from practice and be placed on probation for three years if the license was reinstated. The Committee ordered the psychologist to submit to a psychological assessment and attend counseling if necessary.

In a very recent decision, the Committee accepted a stipulation for a psychologist who self-reported an ethical violation. The psychologist reported that he failed to maintain appropriate notes, referrals, examination tests, and other documentation required to be maintained by Missouri law. The licensee informed the Committee that adverse working conditions prevented the necessary record keeping. The Committee and licensee entered into a stipulation that the licensee would voluntarily surrender his license, “in lieu of other discipline.”

Contact an Experienced Professional Licensing Attorney for Assistance

Even trained professionals make mistakes. Do not compound the problem by representing yourself if you face a disciplinary complaint.  Kansas Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger has helped many clients keep their licenses despite facing disciplinary action. Attorney Sanger will tirelessly advocate for you to keep your license to practice. Call Attorney Sanger today at 785-979-4353 for your free consultation, and learn what a difference experience makes.

Kansas Professional Licensing Attorney Explains Due Process in Administrative Hearings

/in /by

Due process of law is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Each and every person is guaranteed due process protection every time life, liberty, or property is at stake.   Our system of law is premised upon the belief that life and liberty are fundamental to a free society.  Most associate this indispensable tenet of our law as applying to criminal trials but do not recognize the significance of due process in other areas of life.  Professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger is highly experienced in representing licensees to ensure they enjoy all of the due process protections guaranteed by the Fifth amendment to the United States Constitution.

Depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law is not just idle legal theory. Due process protects us from arbitrary governmental action taking away something of ours we value. A person charged with a crime enjoys the highest level of protection the due process clause offers because their liberty, and maybe their life, may be taken from them.  In that context, due process means ensuring that a person is represented by competent counsel, is tried publically by an impartial jury of his or her peers, has the opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses called to testify, and, significantly, is made aware of the charges the government has  levied against him or her.

A professional licensee also enjoys due process protections when the government seeks to deprive them of their license. This is true because a professional license is “property” within the meaning of the due process clause. Notwithstanding, licensees facing discipline do not enjoy the same protections guaranteed to criminal defendants. A licensee who may be deprived of a professional license is guaranteed due process of law; however, the rights of the licensee are not as extensive in an administrative hearing as are a criminal defendant’s at a criminal trial.

Procedural distinctions between criminal trials and administrative hearings exist. The government in an administrative hearing is not required to specifically plead certain allegations. Rather, the government must inform the licensee about the factual allegations contained in the complaint sufficiently to allow the licensee to form a defense. If the facts are clearly set out, then the licensee has notice of the charges.  Notwithstanding, if the government pleads a violation of specific rules, then the government must prove a violation of the specific rule. Furthermore, allegations amended to the complaint based upon a licensee’s testimony at the hearing violates the due process rights of the licensee.

Kansas passed a statute called the “Administrative Procedure Act (the “Act”), which governs administrative hearings. The Act codifies the procedural rights parties enjoy when facing an administrative hearing. Under the Act, all licensees are afforded the opportunity to be heard and present a defense against the allegations, including the ability to call witnesses to testify on their behalf.  Parties have the right to cross-examine witnesses appearing against them. The Act mandates administrative hearings must be open to the public unless there is a compelling reason to close the hearing.

Take Immediate Action to Preserve Your Due Process Rights

Call Kansas Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger today at 785-979-4353 if you have been notified of a complaint by a professional licensing board. With 10 years of experience as an assistant attorney general, and many more representing professionals, Attorney Sanger will fight to protect your rights. Attorney Sanger will make certain that any hearing you face will be conducted fairly and impartially. Act now to protect your rights. Call professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger today to schedule a free consultation.

Social Workers in Missouri Provide Expert Care While Maintaining High Ethical Standards

/in /by

Social workers provide an invaluable service to the community. Social work has been described as a “calling” rather than a “career.” Social workers provide care to those who are most in need of service. Many social workers dedicate their professional lives to serving the impoverished, the addicted, the helpless—such as children and the elderly—while fighting for “social justice.” The social worker toils at the intersection of an individual’s private matters and public welfare. Thus, social workers find themselves in a unique position and provide an invaluable service to our communities. Notwithstanding, social workers must adhere to the high standards of ethical behavior. Professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger understands the invaluable role social workers play in society and is ready to fight for those who fight for justice.

Social workers serve a vulnerable community. They are healthcare providers in terms of mental health counseling and addiction treatment. Social workers fill vital roles in the prison system as well. They assist incarcerated individuals in obtaining treatment, meeting educational requirements, and helping prepare prisoners for reintegration into society upon release. Social workers also fill a critical need at the family level by administering care to children in need and helping to protect them. They also play a similar role for the elderly.

In Missouri, social workers must adhere to high personal moral standards and competence. Social workers must adhere to Missouri’s licensing requirements. These are enumerated by statute. Missouri’s regulations for social workers mandate that social workers have an obligation to protect the public from incompetence, educational deficiency, lack of experience, or low moral standards by people attempting to practice social work. To protect the vulnerable from abuse and mistreatment, social workers must obey promulgated ethical rules, and be truthful. Failure to obey the rules and regulations will subject the social worker to disciplinary action against their license.

Social workers must be vigilant against developing personal relationships with their clients. Social workers are deeply involved in their patients’ lives. It is understandable if the patient develops personal feelings for their social worker. It is incumbent upon the social worker to maintain the highest degree of professionalism and not engage a patient in a personal relationship. Accordingly, a social worker is prohibited from sexually exploiting their clients. Furthermore, social workers may not enter into a personal relationship with a client and remain the client’s social worker in situations where the social worker has provided treatment or services for mental illness or emotional problems. Business relationships are also prohibited between social worker and patient. These prohibitions are in place to protect the patient and also to ensure that the patient receives the highest degree of care from the social worker. A social worker cannot provide competent care when the social worker cannot remain objective about the client.

A social worker must also maintain objectivity about the services they are asked to provide. A social worker must refer a matter to a colleague if they are not competent to handle the client or subject matter. Although it might be financially advantageous to serve clients outside of their main competency, social workers must be objective about their services and make referrals that are in the best interest of the patient. Furthermore, the social worker must terminate treatment when the patient has achieved their treatment goal or is no longer benefitting from services.

Call for Immediate Assistance if You Are Facing Disciplinary Action

Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger is a zealous advocate for professional licensees. Call attorney Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule a free consultation. Attorney Sanger will thoroughly analyze your case and provide you with the best defense against allegations of social worker misconduct in Missouri and Kansas. She will fight for those who dedicate their lives to fighting for others.