Athletic Trainers in Kansas are Governed By the Kansas Board of Healing Arts

/in /by

Athletic trainers are an indispensable component to scholastic athletes’ health and well-being in Kansas. Recognizing their importance, athletic trainers in the state of Kansas fall under the purview of the Kansas Board of Healing Arts. The Board of Healing Arts (“the Board”) has the authority to license, investigate, and discipline athletic trainers in the same manner as physicians, psychologists, and other health care professionals. The Board’s supervision ensures all athletic trainers are licensed and maintain the minimum level of competence required to treat athletes. Any athletic trainer falling below those standards or failing to satisfy other mandated requirements is subject to discipline. Professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger has vigorously advocated against discipline on behalf of professional licensees, including athletic trainers, in Kansas and Missouri.

Governance of athletic trainers in Kansas is bestowed upon the Board by statute. That statute, K.S.A. 65-6901 et seq., defines an athletic trainer and a trainer’s duties. Additionally, the statute authorizes the Board to minimum standards for an athletic trainer, licensing requirements, establish regulations governing the practice of athletic training, establish fees, and grounds for discipline. Discipline under the statute includes a criminal sanction for practicing as an athletic trainer without a license which is a class b nonperson misdemeanor. The statute authorizes additional, non-criminal discipline, depending upon the nature of the violation, as denial of licensure, revocation of license, public censure, probation, or any other discipline the Board deems appropriate. The Board also had the authority to apply for an injunction from a court having jurisdiction to immediately stop a violation of the rules and regulations.

The Board is permitted to issue discipline for a number of violations. Violations under the statute are:

  • Use of alcohol and/or drugs to the “extent that it impairs the individual’s ability to engage in athletic training”;
  • Felony conviction or other action that betrays the public trust;
  • Committing fraud or misrepresentation to obtain or maintain a license;
  • Committing fraud or misrepresentation to obtain a fee or other economic benefit;
  • Incompetence, fraud, or other misrepresentation while practicing as an athletic trainer;
  • Violating, or helping someone else violate, any rule or regulation established under the statute;
  • Impersonating an athletic trainer;
  • Intentionally or negligently violating rules or regulations established by statute;
  • Violating the public trust; or
  • Professional misconduct as defined by the rules and regulations established by the statute.

To this point in 2015, the Board has levied discipline against three athletic trainers. One applicant for licensure as an athletic trainer disclosed that he had acted as and held himself out as an athletic trainer in 2014 for the Wichita High School system as well as a semi-professional soccer team without being licensed. The Board issued discipline in the nature of a public censure.   The Board also ordered the applicant to research and draft an essay on the importance of an athletic trainer’s licensing requirements and delineating the scope of practice for an athletic trainer.  

Another athletic trainer faced discipline for failing to timely renew her license.  The trainer practiced athletic training during the months in which she was unlicensed. The Board found she committed misconduct by practicing athletic training without a license. She was publically censured for her transgressions.

A third trainer was disciplined for practicing without a license. This trainer held himself out as an “Interim Head Athletic Trainer” for a community college athletic program despite failing to timely renew his license. This trainer was subject to public censure and ordered to research and draft an essay to be published for public review discussing the importance of licensing and scope of the athletic trainer’s practice.

Professional Licensing Attorney Ready to Help Fight for You

Although public censure and writing an essay does not appear to be serious punishment, any public reprimand against a professional license could have disastrous consequences. Contact Kansas Professional Licensing Defense Lawyer Danielle Sanger if you are facing discipline in Kansas or Missouri. Attorney Sanger is renowned for tirelessly fighting for her clients and obtaining just results. Call Attorney Sanger today at 785-979-4353 today to schedule a consultation.

 

Kansas Board of Healing Arts Has Authority to Investigate Physician’s Conduct Occurring in Missouri

/in /by

Physicians who practice medicine in multiple states may be subject to investigation and discipline for conduct occurring outside of Kansas.  The Kansas Supreme Court conferred jurisdiction to the Kansas Board of Healing Arts to investigate physicians and potentially discipline Kansas physicians for conduct outside of Kansas. As an experienced professional licensing attorney in Kansas and Missouri, Danielle Sanger, Esq., is well versed with defending physicians facing discipline.

The Kansas Board of Healing Arts has jurisdiction to sanction a physician’s license despite the actionable conduct occurring in another state.  In Ryser v. State of Kansas et als., 284 P. 3d 337 (Kansas 2012), the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the Kansas Board of Healing Arts (“Board”) has the jurisdiction, or the legal authority, to regulate the practice of medicine even if the questioned conduct occurred in another state. In so ruling, the Kansas Supreme Court indicated that the Board has “broad authority to regulate the practice of medicine.”   As part of that authority, the Board “shall undertake investigations regarding its authority to regulate medical practice in Kansas under the “Healing Arts Act (‘the Act’).”  

At the time the litigation commenced, Carol Ann Ryser, M.D., was licensed to practice medicine in both Kansas and Missouri. The Board issued a subpoena for medical records for a patient of Dr. Ryser’s pursuant to its subpoena authority conferred under the Act after Dr. Ryser was sued for malpractice in Missouri. Dr. Ryser moved to quash the subpoena. Dr. Ryser argued that the Act did not grant the Board jurisdiction to investigate claims of malpractice that occurred in Missouri. Dr. Ryser sued in the district court to quash the subpoena and the district court denied her motion. Dr. Ryser appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court.

The Kansas Supreme Court upheld the district court’s ruling ordering the subpoena to issue. In ruling against Dr. Ryser, the Court was forced to decide whether the Board possessed jurisdiction over the matter. The Court considered what authority the Act conferred to the Board to investigate. Under the Act, the Board has the duty to investigate matters involving competency, unprofessional conduct, or “any other matter which may result in disciplinary action against a licensee.”  While Dr. Ryser admitted she was licensed to practice medicine in Kansas (because she was in fact licensed in Kansas), she argued that she was not practicing under the Act because the alleged incident occurred while she was treating the patient in Missouri.

The Court thoroughly examined the term “licensee” as it applies to the Act.  The Act itself fails to define what it means to practice under the Act. The Court examined other terms and definitions of other terms within the Act to assist with the interpretation of what it means to “practice.” Consequently, the Court turned to the definition of “healing arts.” The definition of “healing arts” under the Act includes numerous practices and treatments but also without “limitation to the practice of medicine and surgery.”

The Court next turned to the Act’s definition of the “practice of medicine and surgery” to further explicate the meaning of “practice.” The Court was persuaded that “persons deemed to be engaged in the practice of medicine and surgery” are individuals who hold themselves out to the public as physicians or surgeons.  Because the Act, by its own terms, fails to include a geographical limitation upon the practice of medicine, the Court concluded the Board may investigate actions occurring in another state.

Physicians Facing Discipline Must Hire a Zealous Advocate

Danielle Sanger, Esq., has fought to protect the livelihood of Kansas and Missouri physicians facing discipline.  Kansas Professional Licensing Defense Lawyer Danielle Sanger is a zealous advocate who will fight to defend you against allegations of misconduct in the practice of medicine. Call attorney Sanger today at 785-979-4353 for your free consultation.  

An Overview of the Missouri State Committee of Marital and Family Therapists Standards for Ethics

/in /by

In Missouri, the State Committee of Martial and Family Therapists governs all licensees practicing marital and family therapy. The State Committee of Marital and Family Therapists (“the Committee”) is established by statute and is charged with passing regulations establishing the ethical standards of marital and family therapy, among other issues involving marital and family therapists. The regulations provide minimum professional standards for therapists and delineates specific concerns regarding client welfare. The regulations seek to maintain the public trust in the profession as well as protection of the individual patient. A violation of the ethical standards allows the Committee to seek discipline against a licensed therapist.  Professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger is a skilled advocate for licensees facing discipline resulting from an alleged violation of ethical standards of therapists.

Chapter 3 of Division 2233 of the Code of State Regulations for Missouri codifies the ethical standards of marital and family therapists. Not only does Chapter 3 regulate the general practice of marital and family therapy, it also purports to establish the minimum requirements to which a therapist must adhere to protect a patient’s welfare. Although seemingly rudimentary, failure to adhere to these standards is grounds for discipline. All of the regulations are designed to protect the best interest of the patient.

Section .010 of Chapter 3 delineates the competency requirements of a martial and family therapist. A marital and family therapist must limit his or her practice to those areas in which the therapist has studied and trained. The therapist is required to maintain competence by attending continuing educational classes, trainings, and supervision that meets current scientific standards in the profession.  A therapist is not limited to practicing only what they studied. If they do wish to employ a therapeutic technique new to them or practice in a new area, they must educate and train themselves in that new technique or service. The therapist must obtain informed consent from the patient before using the technique or service by warning of the process as well as any potential risks associated with the technique or service.

Section .010 also guides the therapist as to when counseling may not be commenced or must be terminated. Counseling must be terminated if the therapist is unable to perform his or her duties owning to emotional, psychological, or addiction concerns.  Also, a therapist cannot accept a patient or continue to counsel a patient if the therapist’s objectivity or competency is compromised by emotional, sexual, familial, or other relationship with the patient. The therapist is expressly prohibited from making sexual advances, having a sexual relationship, or sexually or suggestively touch a patient. Section .010 contains other patient protections. The therapist must not take financial advantage of a patient and must always maintain strictest confidentiality. 

The patient welfare component of Chapter 3 is set out in Section .020. This section requires that the therapist must advise and obtain informed consent of the patient prior to commencing therapy. Informed consent, in this context, requires advising the patient about the specific form of therapy, the goals of therapy, the benefits and risks involved in therapy, the therapist’s credentials, the financial consideration, and the limits of confidentiality. Additionally, therapists are required to obtain a substitute therapist in the event of lengthy absence from practice. Therapists must also explain the patient’s diagnosis and condition to the patient in terms the patient can understand.

An accusation of unethical conduct is harmful.

If you have been accused of unethical conduct as a marital or family therapist, call Kansas Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger. She is a tireless advocate for professional licensees. She will fight to protect your livelihood. Her experience in defending ethical violations is unparalleled. Call Attorney Sanger today at (785) 979-4353 today to schedule a no-obligation consultation and learn what a difference experience makes.

Healthcare Providers Risk Suspension for Overprescribing Opiates in Kansas

/in /by

Healthcare providers who have prescription writing privileges may suffer discipline for overprescribing narcotics in Kansas. Physicians and other healthcare providers must be vigilant against prescribing narcotics to patients exhibiting drug-seeking behavior.  Given the opiate epidemic currently plaguing the United States, physicians’ drug-prescribing tendencies may be scrutinized.  Any irregularities may subject the physician to discipline, including suspension from practice and substantial monetary fines. Healthcare providers must carefully notate the patient record and medically justify dispensing narcotics. Professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger tenaciously defends physicians, osteopathic doctors, and other healthcare professionals who are facing disciplinary proceedings resulting from alleged malpractice or unethical practices.

The Kansas Board of Healing Arts (“the Board”) is the administrative agency responsible for ensuring Kansas physicians and other healthcare providers comply with ethical, educational, and licensing standards. Physicians’ ethical standards are delineated by statute. A violation of the law may result in revocation, suspension, or limitation in practice, censure, or denial of renewal of license. The law defines specific ethical violations, including those related to dispensing medication. Under the law, a physician has violated the ethical standards of Kansas physicians if a doctor prescribes, sells, or otherwise dispenses a controlled substance that is not medically required.  In addition, a physician commits an ethical violation if the physician violates a federal law relating to controlled substances.

The Board has found that overprescribing of opiates is grounds for suspension. In 2014, the Board investigated a doctor of osteopathy for overprescribing Oxycontin. The Board found that the doctor overprescribed Oxycontin to 14 patients. Specifically, the investigation conducted by the Board revealed that the doctor saw many patients who complained of pain in different parts of the body. In most cases, the doctor failed to timely order further diagnostic testing to determine the cause of the pain. Instead of ordering appropriate testing, the doctor would prescribe Oxycontin for the pain. The Board’s investigation revealed that many patients returned to the doctor to renew prescriptions before the prescription, if taken according to the doctor’s orders, should have been renewed.  Although the doctor noted the patient returned early and asked his patients for explanations, the doctor failed to investigate the explanations. The Board concluded that the doctor should have investigated the excuses proffered by the patients. Furthermore, the Board concluded that the doctor should have requested his new patients’ medical records from previous healthcare providers who fired the patient for drug-seeking behavior.

The Board reached the conclusion that the doctor violated Kansas’s ethical standards. The Board ruled that the doctor violated Kansas Statute 65-2836(b) by dispensing or prescribing a controlled substance in an improper or inappropriate manner. The Board also ruled that prescribing medication in this manner is also “unprofessional conduct” according to Kansas Statute 65-2837(b)(23).

The Board and the doctor entered into a consent order as to the nature of the discipline. The Board ordered that the doctor should be suspended from practice for a period of 6 months and pay a $5000 fine. Additionally, the doctor was prohibited from prescribing controlled substances for 3 years. The Board obligated the doctor to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that the doctor was rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the 3-year ban to reinstate prescription privileges.  Lastly, the Board banned the doctor from supervising other practitioners for 3 years.

Contact an Experienced Professional Licensing Attorney for Consultation

If you are a healthcare professional who is being investigated for overprescribing narcotics, immediately contact Kansas Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger.  As a former assistant attorney general, Attorney Sanger has the experience to defend your professional license against allegations of overprescribing medication. Attorney Sanger will vigorously and zealously fight to defend against these allegations and protect your professional license. Call Attorney Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule your free consultation.

Pleading the “Fifth” in Missouri May Not Protect You from an Adverse Decision by the Administrative Hearing Commission

/in /by

Invoking one’s right to not to self-incriminate is colloquially known as “pleading the Fifth.”  The colloquialism refers to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which preserves one’s right to be free from government compulsion to give evidence against oneself. Although the Fifth Amendment is most closely associated with criminal matters, it has frequent application in other contexts.  In Missouri, appearing before the Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) may require the litigant to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination during questioning, depending upon the allegations. Although such an invocation cannot be held against you in criminal court, a different result may be reached outside of criminal court. If you find yourself in this position, Attorney Danielle Sanger, a professional licensing attorney in Missouri and Kansas, has the knowledge and experience to defend you in hearings before the AHC in Missouri and will advise you on the implications of invoking your right to remain silent.

In Missouri, the AHC is the administrative hearings body that adjudicates disputes between licensee and licensing boards. This administrative remedy must be exhausted prior to litigating the case in court. Frequently, licensees find themselves in a position where criminal liability may attach–even if only a remote possibility–in addition to the adverse licensing action.  Accordingly, Missouri law affords the licensee the right to refuse to answer questions because the answer may be incriminating. Permitting an invocation prevents collateral use of a party’s statements in a disciplinary action relating to a professional license in criminal court.

The Missouri courts have stated that the decision to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination is a personal choice. The choice to be made depends on the facts of the case.[1] At a hearing, the litigant must weigh the right to remain silent against the right to tell one’s side of the story.  Either decision has potential adverse consequences.

In Missouri, “pleading the Fifth” does not insulate a party in civil litigation. In civil litigation, the finder of fact is permitted, in many occasions, to make an adverse inference against the person invoking their right to remain silent if the question is relevant to the litigation.  Allowing the fact-finder to draw the inference against the party invoking their privilege promotes fundamental fairness in civil litigation. Otherwise, a party could hide behind the privilege without any recourse to the opposition.

Missouri law places limitations on the adverse inference a fact-finder may make against a party invoking their right to remain silent.  The fact-finder is permitted to make the inference: it is not mandatory. In the context of a particular case, the fact-finder can disregard the inference. A party invoking the privilege is not prevented from offering evidence.  The invoking party can still offer evidence in support of their position even if they refuse to testify. Furthermore, claiming the privilege is not to be taken by the fact-finder as an admission of guilt. The opposition is not relieved of its burden to produce affirmative evidence at the hearing if a party invokes the privilege.  If the opposition offers enough evidence to prove its case at the hearing, then the inference “shifts the burden” to the party invoking the privilege to rebut the evidence.

Missouri Licensing Defense Lawyer Danielle Sanger recognizes the difficult choices a professional licensee must make when facing a complaint. If you are facing that situation in Missouri or Kansas, you need an attorney who will stand by you and guide you to make the best decisions for you personally and professionally. Call professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule your free consultation. Attorney Sanger will fight to protect you.

Frequently Asked Questions about Nursing Board Hearings in Kansas and Missouri

/in /by

The nursing profession is committed to assisting in the care and to easing the suffering of patients stricken with physical and emotional illnesses and injuries.  The road to service in this noble health care role involves a commitment to education, practical training, and experience that often entails significant individual and family sacrifices.  Given the obstacles and challenges that must be overcome on the road to obtaining a nursing license in Kansas or Missouri, nurses facing allegations that jeopardize their professional license and livelihood should never have to confront such charges alone.

Lawrence Kansas Nursing License Attorney Danielle Sanger draws upon her extensive experience in the Kansas Attorney General’s Office as an Assistant Attorney General. She handled many professional licensing and disciplinary issues on behalf of the Kansas State Board of Nursing.  Our Kansas and Missouri Professional License Defense Law Firm has provided answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) from nurses facing investigations and proceedings related to professional discipline and licensing:

How do unfounded charges become leveled against nurses?

The Kansas State Board of Nursing and the Missouri Board of Nursing is focused on its primary objective of protecting the public.  Unfortunately, overzealousness in pursuing this function can result in the rights of individual nurses being trampled.  Consequently, you need an attorney with experience handling nursing board cases defending your license and rights in front of the nursing board.  Because Ms. Sanger has extensive experience prosecuting these case, she has the experience and expertise to diagnose and defend against unjustified charges and to prevent disproportionate penalties.

What penalties can be imposed for nursing board violations?

A nursing board has fairly wide discretion when imposing penalties, but punishments most typically imposed include:

  • Public reprimands
  • Monitoring
  • License revocation
  • Monitoring
  • Restrictions on nursing activities
  • Probation of a license suspension
  • Administrative fines

What are the most common grounds for discipline imposed by the nursing board?

Broadly, the Nursing Board investigates two types of cases: (1) behavioral cases; and (2) practice-related cases.  While there are a wide range of facts and circumstances that might result in disciplinary charges, some of the more common examples include:

  • Drug and alcohol dependency
  • Falsification or lying
  • Standard of care violations
  • Engaging in a criminal offense
  • Theft
  • Other Acts intended to or likely to defraud the public
  • Mental health or psychiatric disorders

How do investigations by the Kansas State Board of Nursing (KSBN) get initiated?

The majority of disciplinary complaints against nurses are initiated by employers pursuant to the Risk Management Act.  Hospitals and other employers are required to report nursing conduct that deviates from the appropriate standard of care.  The reported conduct must have a reasonable probability of resulting in harm to a patient.  Employers also are obligated to report any conduct that might constitute a basis for discipline.  However, there are many other sources that can spur complaints including news media reports, law enforcement, court proceedings, family members of patients, individual health care providers, other agencies, and neighbors.  However, these reports can be used as a means of pursuing a personal vendetta since the agency does not identify the sources of reports.

Who conducts the investigations?

Complaints investigated by the KSBN are actually investigated by licensed nurses.  Each case is assigned to one of several investigators.

How long does the disciplinary process take?

The general rule is that the process will be wrapped up within approximately 6-9 months, but the process can drag on longer depending on the specific facts and circumstances.  Factors that can slow the resolution process include uncooperative witnesses, slow responses to requests or subpoenas for records and documents, challenges in locating witnesses, and similar issues.

Kansas Professional Licensing Lawyer Danielle Sanger is prepared to investigate the allegations against you and aggressively pursue available defenses to protect your nursing license.  If you are facing allegations of misconduct or substandard care by the nursing board, Attorney Danielle Sanger represents attorneys facing disciplinary proceedings in Missouri or Kansas.  We invite you to call us today for a free consultation at 785-979-4353.

Understanding Your Rights and the Administrative Process in Kansas KSBN Discipline Proceedings

/in /by

If you have dedicated the time and effort to obtain a license as a Registered Nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse, or Licensed Mental Health Technician in Kansas, you understand the sacrifices involved in joining the nursing profession.  Unfortunately, the Kansas State Board of Nursing (KSBN) investigates 2,300 disciplinary cases per year.  Since there are about 70,000 individuals currently licensed by the KSBN, the agency investigates allegations and potential discipline against 3 percent of its licensees annually.  If you are facing the prospect of disciplinary action against your license, it is important to understand the process and your rights.  Because Danielle Sanger often represented the KSBN when she was an Assistant Attorney General, she understands the disciplinary process, potential resolutions of allegations, and the best strategy to oppose or mitigate licensing penalties.

The KSBN might receive a complaint or notification that indicates a licensee might have committed a violation of the Kansas Nurse Practice Act (KNPA), which defines the scope of nursing practice and delineates impermissible acts.  If the actions of a nurse are alleged to be inappropriate, the KSBN has the legal power to gather information and investigate the allegations.  When the KSBN receives a sworn complaint, investigation of the allegations is mandatory.  The agency will commence an administrative action against the licensee if the investigation yields evidence that the allegations have merit.  The board can impose a range of penalties depending on the facts and circumstances, which include denying, limiting, suspending, revoking, and/or publicly or privately censuring a licensee.

While the impact of adverse action against an individual’s license can have a devastating impact, the financial impact can be even more damaging because significant fines can be imposed. A nurse hit with a first offense can face a $1,000 fine.  This fine amount doubles for a second offense and rises to $3,000 for subsequent offenses.

Because a nursing license is a “property right,” a licensee is entitled to certain constitutional protections.  Hearings and procedures involved in disciplinary proceedings against a licensee are governed by the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act (KAPA).  The KAPA is a group of statutes that articulate the procedures by which the KSBN should abide. The procedures specified are designed to ensure that an individual threatened with loss of a nursing license, which is a protected property right, receives due process.  Ms. Sanger tenaciously defends these rights, which include but are not limited to the following:

  • Right to a fair and impartial hearing
  • Right to cross-examine and subpoena witnesses
  • Right to offer and attack evidence
  • Right to legal representation
  • Right to reasonable notice

The formal disciplinary process can begin in one of two ways.  The first process involves the licensee receiving a “Summary Order” document.    This form will specify the alleged factual and legal basis for potential discipline against the licensee.  If you disagree with the allegations, you have the right to request a hearing to challenge the complaint.  Alternatively, you might receive a petition making legal and factual allegations and requesting that specific penalties be imposed.

Sometime after the request for a hearing or the Petition from the Attorney General’s office, the licensee will receive a notice of hearing. This notice of hearing is extremely important and must be dealt with promptly.  The document will indicate a date and time to appear to oppose the allegations made against the licensee.  Failure to appear, obtain a continuance, or contact the KSBN will result in the matter proceeding on a default basis, so penalties are imposed without you ever having your side of the dispute considered.  Discovery occurs in the administrative proceedings similar to litigation, so you have the right to request statements and documents that provide relevant information and evidence.

While the evidence that will be considered will depend on the specific case, the types of information that will be weighed if the allegations involve fitness to practice include but are not limited to the following:

  • Current moral fitness
  • Potential risk to public health and safety
  • Maturity, experience, and character
  • Efforts toward rehabilitation
  • Skill and competence
  • Type and severity of alleged misconduct
  • Consciousness of any wrongdoing and impact on the profession
  • Present conduct
  • Amount of time since alleged misconduct or a criminal conviction

Based on the evidence introduced, the entire board, a panel, or hearing officer will provide a written order that includes factual findings and conclusions of law to support any sanctions imposed, which will be served on both parties.  The notice will indicate an effective date and provide a timeline for submitting a notice of appeal.

If your nursing license is in jeopardy, Kansas Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger is prepared to investigate the allegations against you and aggressively pursue available defenses to protect your law license.  If you are facing a complaint in front of the Kansas State Board or Nursing or Missouri State Board of Nursing, Attorney Danielle Sanger represents nurses facing disciplinary proceedings, so call us today for a free consultation at 785-979-4353.

 

Kansas Professional Licensing Defense Attorney Recent Examples of License Revocations by Missouri State Board of Nursing

/in /by

There are many reasons that nurses can have their license threatened, but the grounds usually involve standard of care issues, substance abuse, and/or criminal convictions.  We have discussed these types of scenarios in a hypothetical sense in past blog posts.  However, sometimes the best way to develop a genuine feel for scenarios that end up resulting in a license suspension or revocation is to look at actual adverse actions taken by a nursing board.  This blog provides an overview of actual recent administrative cases that resulted in the suspension or revocation of a nursing license.  Because there are so many cases involving the theft or misuse of narcotics with similar fact patterns, these cases are not discussed below.

Failing to Respond to a Complaint

A nurse’s license was revoked by the Florida nursing board when she ignored an administrative complaint.  The actions constituted conduct that would merit discipline in Missouri where she was currently practicing.  The nurse contended that she did not oppose or respond to the allegations because she had no plan to return or ever practice nursing again in Florida.  She also contended that she thought the Missouri Board of Nursing would reinvestigate the issues, relieving her of the need to respond to the Florida complaint.

Fraud or Misrepresentations of Licensing

Example 1: During 2011, the facility that employed a nurse discovered that her license had lapsed during a routine license check of employees.  The check, which was performed in 2011, revealed that the nurse’s license on file expired in January 2009.  The nurse submitted a “copy” of a purported “license” that was allegedly issued by the Missouri State Board of Nursing with an expiration date of May 31, 2012.  However, the document was determined to be falsified because the board stopped including dates on licenses on January 1, 2010.  Further, the person named as the Director of the Division of Professional Registration, who signed the document, actually left the agency prior to the date the license was allegedly executed.

Example 2: The licensee voluntarily surrendered her vocational nursing license in Texas.  When re-applying for a practical nursing license in Missouri, the licensee indicated she held a license in Louisiana with no disciplinary actions against the license but failed to disclose the Texas license and discipline.

Failing to Call NTS or Provide Samples for Drug Testing

There are many license suspensions and revocations based on the failure to call into the NTS in a timely manner and failing to provide a urine sample for screening when designated to provide such an exemplar.  The failure to comply with probation terms after an initial disciplinary matter constitutes the largest number of actual cases of license revocation in Missouri.

Criminal Convictions

Example 1: The Licensed Practical Nurse pled guilty to a misdemeanor for passing a bad check and was convicted based on the entry of two separate guilty pleas on separate occasions within a seven month period.  The criminal convictions came to light when the nurse failed to comply with a hospital policy requiring two nurses to sign off on the delivery of narcotics.  The nurse also charted the administration of hydrocodone on multiple occasions before the prescribed period of time had elapsed without a 2nd nurse’s signature.

Example 2: When her original application for a license was submitted, the nurse failed to disclose that her license had previously been revoked for a criminal conviction. After her license lapsed which necessitated an application for renewal.  The renewal was granted based on misrepresentations and fraud.  Her license was eventually revoked after NURSYS submitted a complaint because of her previous out-of-state convictions for possession of a controlled substance and carrying a concealed weapon.

Example 3: The respondent was accused of using the social security number and identification information of three patients.  One of the patients reported that the nurse used the information of a deceased relative to open a cell phone account.  The nurse’s license was revoked after the nurse was convicted of the Identity Theft, which constitutes a Class C Felony.

These are just a handful of examples of license revocations recently issued in Missouri.  If you have questions about your specific situation, we invite you to contact us for a confidential initial consultation.  If your nursing license is in jeopardy, Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger is prepared to investigate the allegations against you and aggressively pursue available defenses to protect your nursing license.  If you are facing a complaint in front of the Kansas State Board or Nursing or Missouri State Board of Nursing, Kansas Professional Licensing Defense Attorney Danielle Sanger represents nurses facing disciplinary proceedings, so call us today for a free consultation at 785-979-4353.

 

 

Lessons Legal Malpractice Trends Provide Regarding Future Professional Discipline Allegations

/in /by

State bar complaints in Missouri or Kansas can be based on conduct that violates ethical rules even if the acts or omissions do not rise to the level of a criminal offense or a legal malpractice claim.  However, legal malpractice or a criminal offense that constitutes an offense moral turpitude comprises common paths to becoming embroiled in state bar disciplinary proceedings.  Because a high volume of bar complaints arise out of allegations of legal malpractice, a recent report discussing legal malpractice claim trends provides guidance on future patterns in disciplinary charges.

The recent report published in the Insurance Journal acknowledges that law firms are confronted by more extensive liability risks as they adapt to the realities of the present business environment.  The recent study by a major legal malpractice carrier reports a steady flow of legal malpractice claims, including claims in excess of $50 million.  The notion that professional discipline tends to involve solo practitioners and small law firms is refuted by this report.  The study focused on claims handled by ten of the largest legal malpractice insurers, representing three-fourths of AM Law 100 law firms.  Some of the findings that can guide attorneys looking to avoid malpractice complaints and professional discipline include:

Areas of Practice Most Frequently Subject to Malpractice Claims: When it comes to conduct that constitutes ethical violations or malpractice, all areas of law are not created equal.  Two in three malpractice insurers reported that probate and estate planning matters constituted the most common legal matters involved in claims.  This represents a change because real estate law has fallen to fourth after amounting to the leading cause of malpractice lawsuits during the prior four years.  Corporate and securities law constitutes the second highest practice area subject to malpractice claims while business transactions is the third leading cause of claims.  The drop in real estate claims is assumed to reflect the changed market and the resolution of many allegations made against law firms in the wake of the real estate market meltdown.

Volume of Claims Remained Reasonably Stable: The report notes that claims rose to an all-time high during 2011 and 2012 when law firms grew rapidly and merged in attempts to respond to an environment of intense competition.  The authors of the report indicate that law firms need to focus on the expanding and evolving risks associated with growth and expansion.  As the concentration of law firms had slowed, so have malpractice claims.  Half of the insurance carriers reported that claims against law firms in 2014 remained consistent with the volume from the previous year.  Two of the remaining firms saw greater claims activity while two others saw less claims activity.  The overall conclusion was that malpractice claims remained essentially constant from 2013 to 2014.

Legal Issues/Matters Causing Highest Number of Claims: Conflict of interests are consistently the leading cause of claims, especially as law firms seek to expand through mergers and acquisitions or lateral hires from other firms.  The conflicts created by such combinations are often not identified early enough, or they are disregarded.  While cyber exposures have not been as prevalent, three malpractice insurers identified cyber or network security events as the basis of malpractice claims.  Given the rising issue of cyber security and professional obligations regarding attorney-client privilege and confidentiality, this an area expected to see significant future growth in terms of malpractice claims.

Kansas Professional Licensing Lawyer Danielle Sanger is prepared to investigate the allegations against you and aggressively pursue available defenses to protect your law license.  If you are facing a state bar complaint, Attorney Danielle Sanger represents attorneys facing disciplinary proceedings in Missouri or Kansas, so call us today for a free consultation at 785-979-4353.

Approaches to Defending Against Alleged Nursing Board Violations

/in /by

When Kansas Nurse Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger represents clients in proceedings over alleged misconduct in Kansas and Missouri, our office may take several approaches.  The specific defense strategies will be influenced by the facts and evidence, past record of our client, and a range of other factors.  Every situation is unique, so we tailor our defense strategy to the facts and circumstance of a particular case.  However, the nature of the facts and evidence may influence our strategy in terms of the stage at which we attempt to resolve a nursing board violation case in Missouri or Kansas.

Weak Evidence Might Result in Immediate Resolution

Sometimes a nurse comes under investigation for a nursing board violation based on fairly weak facts and/or shaky evidence.  If we represent a nurse who has been instructed to self-report an alleged nursing board violation, we will conduct an investigation.  If we have access to evidence that will disprove the charge, Ms. Sanger might immediately schedule a meeting with the investigator to present our client’s perspective.  The benefit of this immediate intervention is to influence the report prepared by the investigator before it is submitted to the nursing board prosecutor.

Once the report has been forwarded to the prosecutor for the nursing board, Ms. Sanger can schedule a meeting to seek to have the matter closed.  This approach means that the prosecutor never files a formal petition against our client.  The basic gist of this strategy involves cooperating and providing information when the evidence supports facilitating an immediate termination of the matter.

Less Favorable Facts Might Merit a Full Hearing

When there is strong evidence proving facts against our client, this situation often merits a more cautious “wait and see” approach.  In this situation, we might elect to delay discussing the facts of the case to avoid potential disclosure of details that ultimately end up being damaging.  If a nurse has failed a drug test or failed to properly document medication, Ms. Sanger might be inclined to anticipate a full hearing and aggressively conduct discovery.  This “wait and see” approach can facilitate continued employment and prevent risking an unnecessary loss of our client’s nursing license.

Since no two nursing board violation cases are identical, our Kansas Nurse Licensing Defense Law Firm’s strategy must be customized to fit the facts and circumstances.  However, an initial assessment of the strength of the evidence and favorability of the facts can determine whether to cooperate to prevent a formal petition or to delay communication with the investigator and/or prosecutor.

Negotiating a Favorable Resolution

If evidence proving a serious violation exists, a nurse may benefit from a Nursing License Revocation Lawyer negotiating with the prosecutor for the nursing board prior to a formal hearing.  These discussions can result in less harsh discipline than revocation of an individual’s nursing license.  Ms. Sanger might offer an explanation for the alleged improper conduct or evidence to mitigate the penalty.  In the case of allegations regarding a positive drug test, evidence might be presented of subsequent enrollment and participation in a drug treatment program.  However, the best defense strategy must be prepared even if such negotiations occur because a favorable agreement might not be possible.

Many good nurses make isolated mistakes or face unjustified disciplinary proceeding.  If you are facing a complaint, Kansas Professional Licensing Defense Attorney Danielle Sanger represents nurses facing disciplinary proceedings in Missouri or Kansas, so call us today for a free consultation at 785-979-4353.