Tag Archive for: Kansas And Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney

Kansas And Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Explains A Recent Decision Issued By The Kansas Board Of Healing Arts

/in /by

Kansas and Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger represents professional licensees facing discipline before their respective licensing authorities. She has appeared before the Kansas Board of Healing Arts (“the Board”) to defend clients facing potential suspension, revocation, or another form of supplemental discipline. As such, Attorney Sanger is a close observer of the decisions issued by the Board and believes that making her clients, other professionals licensed by the Board, and the public aware of the Board’s decisions helps them understand the disciplinary procedure. Furthermore, the decisions can be used as precedent for future disciplinary decisions.

In a March 2017 decision, the Board revoked the license of a Kansas physician’s assistant. The Board issued a default order against the physician’s assistant (“Respondent”) for failure to defend the case. A default order can enter if the Respondent fails to appear when summoned. In the case at issue, the Respondent refused to appear for a deposition after the prosecuting authority rescheduled the deposition at the Respondent’s request. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to appear at conferences as required by the Board during the pendency of the litigation. In an email exchange with the prosecutors, the Respondent acknowledged that he would not appear to be deposed and he understood that refusal to cooperate would likely result in revocation of his license.

Kansas’ Administrative Procedure Act permits a licensing authority to enter a default when, in the circumstances such as those described, a respondent fails to appear. Kansas’ Administrative Procedure Act permits the Board to make findings that by virtue of the Respondent’s default, the Respondent admits the factual allegations contained in the complaint and waives any defenses he might otherwise assert.

Notwithstanding the procedural posture of the present inquiry, the administrative law judge made findings of fact and rulings of law. There were three counts of alleged misconduct contained in the complaint. The first count alleged that the Respondent practiced as a Physician’s Assistant in violation of Kansas law. According to the findings by the administrative law judge, the Respondent treated four hundred, twenty-one patients without a supervising physician’s oversight. This conduct defrauded the public and endangered them as well. Accordingly, the judge found that this conduct by the Respondent was willful and intentional.

In count 2 of the complaint, the prosecuting authority alleged that the Respondent filed insurance claims for nineteen patients when he did not treat those patients. The administrative law judge ruled that this practice violated not only the physician’s assistants act, but also the pharmacy act, and the controlled substances act. Once again, the judge ruled that this conduct is fraudulent and endangers the public.

Count 3 alleged that the Respondent perpetrated a fraud by administering Botox that was not approved for use in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). The Respondent received warnings not to administer this unapproved form of Botox to his patients. The Kansas Attorney General’s Office filed an ex parte request with a Court to enjoin the Respondent from treating his patients with the unapproved Botox. The Respondent willfully and intentionally ignored those warnings by continuing to treat patients with unapproved Botox. One hundred seventy-five patients received treatment by the Respondent with the unapproved drug.

In the end, the Board was left with no choice but to revoke the Respondent’s license to practice as a physician assistant in Kansas.

Contact Counsel Immediately If You Learn You Are Facing An Investigation

Do not try to tackle the government alone. You need experienced and effective representation from the beginning of any investigation into your conduct. Kansas and Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger has the experience you need to protect your rights effectively. Call Attorney Danielle Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule an appointment.

Kansas And Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Discusses The Importance Of Effective Doctor-Patient Communication

/in /by

Kansas and Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger has vast experience representing medical professionals who are facing professional discipline. Through her experience, she has learned that effective communication between the healthcare provider and the patient is essential. Physicians and other medical professionals have an obligation to communicate with their patients. Patients need to know their diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment options.  Those concepts must be communicated to the patient to help them make an informed decision about their health.  Some doctors refuse to discuss those options with their patients. To be sure, some patients do not want to hear what the doctor has to say.

According to a recent story by CNN, many cancer patients do not know the options they have or their exact prognosis. Oncologists are not providing their patients with information to help them make an informed decision on their care. Cancer patients have more treatment options now than ever before, yet many do not know about them. Their doctors have refused, for whatever reason, to tell them about potential life-saving or life-prolonging treatment options.

Some experts have opined that doctors cannot effectively communicate with their patients. Doctors can say a lot; they can use copious amounts of words. But they do not actually say anything meaningful to the patient. Communicating effectively necessarily includes talking with a patient to help them understand the situation in words that they can understand. Communicating effectively also entails taking the appropriate amount of time for the patient to ask questions and digest and figure out what is happening. Emotions can run high. The doctor can use clinical terminology and precisely describe, as only a medical practitioner can understand, the patient’s predicament. Speaking in that manner is of little to no utility to the patient. Talking to someone about the disease that can kill them is not a time for the physician to demonstrate their intellect. It is about the patient, not them.

Many cancer patients do not know their prognosis and how much time they have to live or whether their condition is curable. One physician interviewed for CNN’s article describes that situation as utterly irresponsible on the doctor’s behalf. But, in the doctor’s defense, they might not know about the patient’s lack of information because they might have had the discussion with their patient. Their patient might not have had the capacity to understand because of their emotional state. Concomitantly, their patient might not have asked to clarify if they did not understand. Effective communication is a two-way street.

The failure of communication between patient and oncologist is more rampant than one would initially estimate. CNN cited a study that concluded only 5 percent of cancer patients with less than six months to live accurately knew their dire situation. According to that same study, an unbelievable Thirty-eight percent of patients could not recall talking with their doctors about how long they could live. A similar study from 2012 cited by CNN concluded that 81 percent of people who have advanced colon cancer and 69 percent of lung cancer patients whose cancer metastasized thought they could be cured. There is no excuse for that misunderstanding: both of those conditions are understood to be inexorably fatal.

Healthcare providers should take great pains to explain their patient’s situation thoroughly. Even if they have to be the bearer of bad news, a physician owes it to a patient to tell them so they can understand what is happening. Conversely, the failure to do so could result in a malpractice claim or an investigation into an ethical violation by the Board of Medical Arts.

Professional Discipline Attorney With Proven Results

Kansas and Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger will vigorously defend your rights in a disciplinary investigation and proceeding. Call Attorney Danielle Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule an appointment.

Kansas And Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Asks Whether It is Ethical To Hasten One Death To Save Another Person?

/in /by

Kansas and Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger believes this is an important question to ask even if the answer at first blush might be repugnant. However, police are investigating an anesthesiologist in Los Angeles, CA for doing just that. The Los Angeles County coroner is conducting an investigation, in conjunction with local law enforcement authorities, into whether the physician gave a high dose of a powerful painkiller to kill an 8-year-old child faster so that the child’s organs could be harvested and sent to transplant patients.

According to Foxnews.com, in 2013, the 8-year-old child suffered cardiac arrest when the child was found hanging out of a washing machine. The child nearly drowned. Notwithstanding the heroic efforts of medical technicians, the child was saved; however, the child was placed on life support. The child’s family decided to remove the life support apparatus and subsequently the child passed away. The initial coroner’s report ruled the death an accident by near drowning. The child also suffered from “fragile x syndrome” which is a genetic abnormality causing developmental and intellectual deficiencies.

One of the L.A. County coroner’s investigators questioned the medical procedure that child received. The investigator wanted to delve into the reasons the anesthesiologist at Ronald Regan UCLA Medical Center administered a very high dose of fentanyl. The medical examiner at the time did not indicate a further investigation was necessary. A new chief medical examiner for the L.A. County coroner’s office subsequently added fentanyl overdose to the child’s cause of death but only after the investigator pushed for the change.

The issue came to light recently in a “whistleblower” lawsuit. The investigator sued L.A. County for damages claiming she was fired as retaliation for her persistent pursuit of what she believed was a contributing cause of death of the child. The lawsuit revealed the question asked by the coroner’s investigator.

The young boy was never going to regain consciousness or brain function after spending 25 minutes face down hanging out of a washing machine. The boy’s heart stopped, but paramedics were able to restart it. Unfortunately, the brain was irrevocably damaged. The child was not clinically brain dead, but his parents knew he would never awaken. They decided to remove him from life support and donate his organs.

Physicians could not harvest the boy’s organs until his heart stopped beating even though the ventilator was removed. Organs begin to decay only after 30 minutes of oxygen deprivation.  During that time, the anesthesiologist attending to the child gave a dosage of the powerful painkiller fentanyl. Physicians do not know whether people in the state in which the child lay feel pain. Consequently, physicians order painkilling medication just in case.

UCLA Medical Center policy approves using painkillers in a situation such as this. However, hospital policy expressly forbids hastening a death to preserve organs. Medical records produced in the lawsuit only indicate that the dying boy received comfort measures. No reference was made to the use of Fentanyl. However, the coroner’s office determined that the boy received 500 micrograms of the drug despite his tiny frame which carried merely 47 pounds.

Additional evidence leads one to question whether the anesthesiologist violated hospital policy and the ethics of her profession. According to the lawsuit, after doctors removed the ventilator, the boy gasped for air until the anesthesiologist administered the pain medication. Then, the boy peacefully slipped away.

Zealous Representation For Medical Professionals Facing Discipline

Kansas and Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger is a zealous advocate for professional licensees. She has dedicated her practice to fighting for people to keep their livelihood and their careers when facing discipline. Contact Attorney Sanger today at 785-979-4353.

Kansas And Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Discusses Bullying In The Medical Field

/in /by

Our children’s schoolyards are not the only place bullying occurs. Bullying is a significant problem in the medical profession, especially among doctors and nurses. Bullying can lead to more significant problems in the workplace and can jeopardize the performance of healthcare professionals. Bullying can cause substantial job dissatisfaction as well as create or exacerbate the victim’s mental health issues by causing anxiety and depression.

It is the patients, however, who stand the most to lose. The sole reason doctors, nurses, and the myriad healthcare professionals have their positions is to treat patients. Healthcare professionals must realize, therefore, that creating a hostile work environment through bullying endangers patients.

Bullying in a hospital or healthcare setting starts at the top with the physician. Not every physician is a bully to their subordinates. On the contrary, most physicians treat their subordinates as part of a team with one goal in mind: to treat their patient to the best of their skill and ability. Bullying is not simply a matter of being bossy or sometimes condescending. In fact, treating the patient might require the physician to take charge and order people around to meet the challenge with which the medical team faces.

Bullying, on the other hand, is persistent and unwarranted condescending, berating, and abhorrent behavior by one person to their perceived subordinates. A physician is not the only person with a position in the healthcare field to have the opportunity to bully others. Nurses can bully other nurses or other positions that are perceived to be less prestigious. A hierarchy must exist to be sure. When life or death of the patient hangs in the balance, there is no place to have thin skin. As long as everyone is acting professionally and within the bounds of reason, problems may be avoided.

Unfortunately, statistics prove that many doctors are difficult to work with, especially nurses. Consider the results of a recent survey. Among the respondents, all of whom were nurses, 87 percent said that they work with physicians who will not answer their questions or return phone calls. That same survey revealed that 74 percent of nurses have dealt with physicians who were condescending and insulting. Additionally, doctors threw things at nurses 26 percent of the time. This is behavior which could be labeled as a criminal assault. Furthermore, 42 percent of physicians spread rumors, humiliated, or shamed nurses. That behavior, which is bordering on violating the criminal law, may be unethical.

Medical facilities tend to avoid confronting the issues of subordinate bullying. Whistleblowing comes at a risk for nurses. Although states have laws protecting whistleblowers from suffering negative treatment for their efforts, a nurse’s reputation could be tarnished. Furthermore, the hospital administration has an incentive not to reprimand the very physicians that give the medical facility its distinguished name. Those scenarios serve to protect physicians while making nurses expendable.

On the other hand, nurses have a duty to speak out against bullying. Failure to do so compromises patient safety. Bullying leads to increased health care costs and errors that ultimately harm patients. Nurses must not become too intimidated to ask questions. Doctors must learn to be receptive to nurses’ questions in the name of providing the level of health care the patient requires. Failure to do so has dire consequences. A recent study showed that 63 percent of all unanticipated deaths and permanent disability caused by malpractice could be directly linked to the failure of communication between doctor and nurse.

For Help With Professional Licensing Issues

Kansas and Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger dedicated her practice to representing professional licensees like doctors and nurses who are in danger of losing their license to practice medicine. Call Attorney Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule a consultation.

Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Talks About Dry Needling In Kansas

/in /by

The Kansas Board of Healing Arts scheduled a public meeting to discuss an amendment to the state’s physical therapy regulations. The Board is seeking public comment and testimony regarding the physical therapy treatment known as “dry needling.” The public hearing is scheduled for February 7, 2017. Dry needling is a relatively new and controversial treatment akin to acupuncture but is not identical to acupuncture. As of this writing, 25 states have permitted dry needling as a practice by physical therapists. States such as Tennessee, New York, Idaho, Hawaii, and South Dakota forbid the practice by physical therapists. Missouri has yet to rule on the issue. Performing functional dry needling (FDN) without express statutory or regulatory authority may be an ethics violation.  Kansas and Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger has extensive experience representing physical therapists, and other healthcare professionals, facing disciplinary action.

FDN is a modality for myofascial release. The therapist uses a slender, dry, sterile needle to penetrate the skin and go directly to a trigger point.  The practice is useful for treating muscles, ligaments, and tendons as well.  Practitioners use FDN to treat neuromuscular pain and have done so successfully in numerous cases. Therapists have reported success with FDN to relieve pain in which traditional practices such as manipulation failed to provide relief. The theory behind the treatment is what separates it from acupuncture. FDN is based upon western medicine’s understanding of the anatomy and scientific study. The two disciplines reportedly differ on diagnostic criteria, needle manipulation, and insertion points as well.

Proponents of the practice are vociferous in their praise and advocacy for permitting the practice. One source noted a physical therapist found that FDN works faster and has a greater track record of success for patients than traditional physical therapeutic modalities. The therapist characterized the patient’s increased mobility as “dramatic.” On the other hand, FDN was criticized for causing greater harm when an Olympic hopeful lost out on the chance to compete in the 2006 games due to dry needling causing a punctured lung.  FDN’s benefits seem to outweigh the risks, and the resistance seems to be coming from currently licensed acupuncturists.

The Kansas Board of Healing Arts proposes to amend K.S.R. 100-29-18 though 20. The proposed section 18 would allow physical therapists licensed in Kansas to practice FDN if the measure passes. The physical therapist must pass the prescribed educational requirements to use FDN on patients. The proposed legislation prohibits on-line, and self-study as a means to become certified in the practice. Additionally, the physical therapist must pass a practical and written examination before the Kansas Board of Healing Arts certifies the physical therapist in FDN treatments if such a course was not a mandatory component of medical study before becoming licensed. Once certified, the therapist is only permitted to practice FDN in those anatomical areas in which the practitioner is certified.  Furthermore, the proposed legislation prohibits the therapist from delegating dry needling to a non-certified individual.

The proposed section 19 involves the informed consent of the patient. The therapist must obtain the informed consent in writing from the patient before performing the procedure. The therapist must obtain written informed consent from the patient for each anatomical location upon which the therapist proposes to carry out the procedure.  Additionally, the therapist must maintain precise and accurate records regarding the areas in which the patient received FDN.

Experience Fighting For Professional Licensees

Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger is a committed and ardent advocate for professional licensees. Call Attorney Sanger at 785-979-4353 to schedule a consultation if you are facing professional discipline or are the subject of an investigation into unethical practices in Kansas or Missouri. Attorney Sanger’s experience and determination can protect your livelihood.

Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Discusses Intersection Of Video Surveillance And A Patient’s Right To Privacy

/in /by

In Kansas and Missouri, video surveillance is more pervasive than ever. Surveillance cameras were once only found in convenience stores and retail outlets as a means to curtail robbery and shoplifting. With the advent of less expensive yet highly sophisticated surveillance equipment, you should expect to be captured by the eye-in-the-sky. Video monitoring can be found in places in which you would not expect surveillance such as doctors’ offices, dentists’ offices, and therapists’ offices. Conducting surveillance of the movements of patients in a setting in which the right to privacy is sacrosanct at first blush seems to be the ultimate invasion of privacy. However, the health care provider need not sit idly by if unscrupulous employees or patients plunder their business and may take steps to prevent or record criminal behavior. If you are a healthcare provider in Kansas or Missouri, professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger can guide you toward creating a safe environment which does not compromise the privacy of your patients while maintaining the security of your business.

The electorate in Kansas and Missouri enacted similar criminal statutes prohibiting invasion of a person’s privacy through electronic means by capturing audio, or photographic depictions of a person in a place in which the person would believe is private. A criminal invasion of privacy in either state by capturing a person’s likeness involves filming someone in a state of undress or in such a manner as to see through clothing or under it. The statutes focus on prohibiting recording people unwittingly. These laws do not prevent recording people with their consent or in areas in which they do not reasonably expect absolute privacy. Consequently, a surveillance camera in the examination room that captures a person undressing or in a state of undress would violate the statute and be grounds for criminal prosecution. In 2011, a Long Island, NY physician faced criminal charges for installing cameras in exam rooms. The cameras captured the doctor sexually assaulting his female patients. Such behavior is quite obviously criminal and violative of any ethical rule.

Recording common hallways, cash registers, checkouts, medicine cabinets and the like would not be cause for criminal sanction under the current statutory scheme in either jurisdiction. The more probing question is whether doing so violates patients’ rights to privacy, amounting to an ethics violation.  The short answer is: it depends on the circumstances on how the cameras and the recorded information is used, bearing in mind the obligation to prevent unauthorized access to recorded materials.

Medical and mental health practitioners understand that the duty to maintain the privacy of their patients is sacrosanct.  The healthcare professional may face ethical sanctions for a violation of privacy. Additionally, the healthcare professional may suffer ethical penalties for committing unprofessional behavior or acts that call into question whether the public may trust the healthcare provider. Consequently, any covert recordings that compromise a patient’s rights to privacy may amount to an ethical violation. Hypothetically, if a physician’s surveillance system captured a patient’s medical records, the physician could be in danger of facing an ethics inquiry because the patient has a right to privacy in the information contained within those records. Further complicating matters is the question of storage and surveillance video maintenance. The healthcare provider must maintain the video records in a manner that does not disclose private patient information. Consequently, healthcare providers must guard against illegal access to electronic video files.

Consult With An Experienced Professional Licensing Attorney Before Installing Surveillance Cameras In Your Office

In most instances, maintaining surveillance cameras in a healthcare providers’ office will not create an ethical violation, especially if the providers conspicuously posts a notice of surveillance in common areas. Do not act before having all of your questions resolved. Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger possesses vast experience in representing healthcare professionals. Call Attorney Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule a consultation to learn how you can ethically protect your business assets.

Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Examines The Intersection Of Architecture And Ethical Responsibilities

/in /by

Kansas And Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Reminds Radiologists Of Their Ethical Obligations When Testifying

/in /by

Professionals from all walks of life can lend their expertise to the judicial system as an expert witness. In Kansas and Missouri, as well as in other courts across the country, courts allow experts to give evidence about matters of which they have superior knowledge that the average person, i.e. juror. The expert must be qualified to give an opinion based upon their academic study and practical training. In fact, anyone can be an expert witness and the expert witness responsibility is to educate the jury or judge about a topic.  To prove that point “Mona Lisa Vito” from the comedy My Cousin Vinny comes immediately to mind. Ms. Vito, however, was not bound by ethical rules as are professional licensees. The failure to adhere to the ethical standards of a profession when testifying is cause for professional discipline. Great care must be given, therefore, to the rules when testifying. If you must contact a professional licensing attorney if you are facing professional discipline based on testimony, you have given in court.

The American College of Radiologists (ACR) is a professional organization to which licensed radiologists belong. The ACR published the ethical rules a radiologist must follow when performing her duties. The ACR also promulgated ethical considerations for radiologists when testifying as an expert witness. The radiologist expert witness must review these rules before testifying. It is advisable that the radiologist digests these rules soon after they have been retained to testify. Learning the rules early in the process will avoid ethical questions during the discovery phase of the case, such as a deposition or during the trial itself.

Testifying requires bearing in mind several considerations the ACR believes is necessary to uphold the ethical standards of the profession. Even though the expert witness is retained by one of the parties to a case, the ACR requires the radiologist to remain fair and impartial at all times. The ACR stated its desire to have unbiased witnesses testify. Impartial witnesses lend instant credibility to the expert’s opinion. Additionally, the radiologist must be familiar with the standard of care in the community, if the case involves medical liability, such as in a malpractice case.  Additionally, the expert must review all of the necessary materials to be well educated on the subject matter which is the topic of the testimony. The radiologist should review all original copies of images to be certain that the image is the highest quality available. If not, the radiologist must review clean and clear copies of the original.

One of the duties of an expert witness is to provide an opinion and be fully prepared to defend their position.  Consequently, the ACR demands that the expert must make certain the opinion is scientifically valid. Additionally, the opinion must be one that is capable of peer review and has been tested. Most importantly, the radiologist must correctly apply the scientific theory correctly to the facts of the case.  The expert has an obligation to testify about his or her limitations on their personal knowledge as well as the general acceptance in the medical community of her opinion.

Compensation of the expert is always a live issue. Compensation must be reasonable and reflect the time and effort put into the case. Testifying on a contingent basis, i.e. getting paid only if the party who retained the expert is successful is unequivocally unethical.  ACR members must also be aware that peers may review their testimony from the ACR.

A Professional Licensing Attorney Understands The Role Of An Expert Witness

Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger is dedicated to defending you if you face professional discipline. You should contact Attorney Sanger immediately if you received notice that you face professional discipline. Call Attorney Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule a consultation.

Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Discusses Ethics Involving Life-Sustaining Treatment

/in /by

Occasionally, physicians are called upon to make a difficult decision whether to administer life-sustaining treatment to a patient.  Physicians have an obligation to preserve life, to respect life, and to do everything in their power to protect the fragility of the human condition. Equally compelling is the patient’s right to make decisions regarding their healthcare. The patient has an absolute right to autonomy in the decisions that affect their health, even if it results in death. The doctor has the duty, however, to render an accurate medical opinion so that the patient can make an informed decision. If the patient’s choice is made because of a misdiagnosis or prognosis, then the doctor makes could face claims of malpractice. Similarly, if the patient’s family and physicians disagree about life-sustaining treatment, the dispute can lead to allegations of misconduct. The doctor may face charges of incompetence before a state board of medical arts as a result of the opinion. Kansas and Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger understands the difficulty of the situation and will fight to protect you and your livelihood from adverse licensing consequences.

In the situation wherein the physician and patient disagree about treatment, the physician must defer to the patient or the patient’s healthcare decision maker such as a health care proxy or guardian.  The physician must comply with a court order if one exists. Accordingly, if the patient wishes to receive artificial ventilation, a feeding tube, or forced hydration, then the doctor may do so with the patient’s or the patient’s proxy consent.

The patient’s decision is valid to the extent that the physician’s opinion is correct or accurate. Physicians must give proper medical advice to their patients. The doctor must base an opinion of the current standard of care in the medical community. Additionally, the physician must properly advise the patient of his or her treatment options. Failing that, the doctor has rendered incompetent medical advice and may face discipline before the board of healing arts.

Additional concerns arise when the patient is unable to make a decision regarding the patient’s health care. The family of the patient may wish to see the patient slip away without the obtrusive life-sustaining equipment. The physician, however, sits in a different posture. The physician cannot accede to the family’s wishes. The physician has an obligation to keep the patient alive by all means necessary unless and until a court intervenes and orders a contrary course of action. In that case, the physician may ethically act because the court is making a decision as though the patient was making a choice. Furthermore, the physician can face contempt of court charges for refusing to obey the court’s order and face licensing discipline because being found in contempt may indicate a lack of fitness to practice medicine.

The American Medical Association (AMA) counsels doctors to respect the dignity of the patient’s life, the patient’s right to privacy and their right to autonomy.  The AMA recommends that physicians counsel their patients to execute legally enforceable documents such as advanced directives, health care proxies, and living wills to guide the physician and the patient’s family. Knowing the patient’s preference before the decision must be made will ease the burden on a grieving family who may be too distraught to make an informed decision and the physician who can act in accordance with his or her patient’s wishes.  Treating patients in this manner can avoid needless legal battles after the loved one has passed away.

Physicians Should Seek Legal Advice If They Are Under Investigation For Misconduct

If you receive notice that you are facing discipline before the Kansas Board of Healing Arts or the Missouri Board of Healing Arts resulting from a decision relating to life-sustaining treatment, or any other allegation of unethical conduct, call Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger immediately. Attorney Sanger has vast experience defending physicians against licensing discipline. Call Attorney Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to discuss your options.

Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Discuses Addiction Counselor Ethics

/in /by

Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Discuses Addiction Counselor Ethics

With the high number of people addicted to some form substance in this country, people need a place to turn for help. Addiction counselors can provide the help a person needs to kick their habit. The Kansas Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board (the Board) issues licenses to addiction counselors. The Board possesses authority to discipline a licensee who violates Kansas law or the Board’s regulations. Consequently, licensees must be vigilant in maintaining an ethical practice. Addiction counselors serve a very vulnerable population who are in a compromised situation because of their addiction. Kansas professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger zealously defends addiction counselors facing discipline before the Board.

Kansas’ state statute authorizes the Board to discipline an addiction counselor’s license for any number of reasons. The statute authorizes the Board to deny licensure or license renewal for the same reasons. The statute grants the Board discretion to revoke a license, suspend a license, deny an application for a license, refuse to re-issue a license, limit a license, or place conditions of practice upon a license if the licensee runs afoul of the statute.

A general reading of the statute proves that the rules are designed to protect the public from unethical or unscrupulous practices by an addiction counselor.  The statute also endeavors to protect the consuming public from the negligence of an addiction counselor as well. The Board may discipline a licensee if the licensee becomes addicted to drugs or alcohol and the counselor’s substance abuse problem negatively affects the counselor’s ability to practice.  Additionally, the Board may discipline an addiction counselor for committing a fraud, deceit,  or misrepresentation of fact in obtaining an addiction counselor’s license.  Furthermore, the Board may take adverse action against a licensee if the counselor was convicted of a felony charge. In that instance, the Board must make an independent investigation to ascertain whether the licensee is rehabilitated to be worthy of the public’s trust. Notwithstanding, Kansas’ regulations permit the Board to take adverse action if any criminal conviction related to the practice of the addiction counseling.

The Board has authority to sanction an addiction counselor for other reasons. The Board may discipline an addiction counselor for committing fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in the performance of their duties as an addiction counselor. Dishonesty in the profession is another ground for discipline. The statute does not closely define dishonesty. However, one can expect that the Board would discipline a licensee for dishonest act ranging from dishonest communications with a patient to dishonest billing practices.

The Board can discipline a licensee for incompetence as well. The Board has a vested interest in making certain all of its addiction counselors are competent to serve the public. Also, the Board must ensure that practitioners are mentally and physically competent to perform the tasks required by the profession.  The Board cannot take adverse action against a licensee in this instance unless the mental or physical frailties of the counselor negatively affect the person’s ability to competently perform their function as an addiction counselor.  Additionally, Kansas’ regulations require an addiction counselor to stop practicing or seek treatment if their stress, personal problems, or other difficulties interfere with their professional judgment or ability to act in the patient’s best interests. In addition, the counselor is forbidden from taking advantage of their patient or exercising undue influence over them. This prohibition includes engaging in any romantic or sexual relationship with their patients. Moreover, addiction counselors must maintain the strictest level of counselor-patient confidentiality.

Addiction Counselors Need Help Too

Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger understands the personal sacrifice an addiction counselor must make to become licensed and maintain an ethical practice. Even the most scrupulous and careful make mistakes. Do not allow one mistake to derail your career. Call Kansas professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule your free consultation.