Tag Archive for: Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney

Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Explains Discipline Against Emergency Medical Technicians

/in /by

Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) and paramedics are unsung heroes in today’s world. Police and fire personnel are glorified (and vilified) for their actions. EMTs, on the other hand, get little thanks for the job they perform. They are on the front lines and a glimmer of hope for those in desperate situations. EMTs are inadequately compensated comparatively, yet they are required to maintain the highest ethical standards and competency standards as other more highly compensated professions in the medical field. EMTs study hard and train hard to obtain and keep their EMT license. If you or someone you love is an EMT or paramedic facing disciplinary action in Missouri, professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger can help.

Missouri legislature determined the qualification and ethical responsibilities for EMTs in their state. The legislature established a Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (“Bureau”). The Bureau has the authority to review the conduct of licensed EMTs.  The Bureau falls under the purview of the Department of Health and Senior Services (“The Department”). The Department has the power to authorize new licenses, renew licenses, and deny applications for new licenses and renewals. The department is authorized to suspend or revoke licenses as well.

The Department derives its authority from a state statute as well as the Missouri regulations. The Department may discipline an EMT for one or more of many specified reasons. Alcohol and drug consumption if such consumption affects the EMT adversely; being convicted or pleading nolo contendre to criminal charges if the criminal conduct relates to the duties of an EMT or the criminal conduct was fraudulent in nature are two of the reasons the Department may take disciplinary action against an EMT. The Department may also take disciplinary action against the EMT if the EMT becomes incompetent, commits fraud, gross negligence, or violates a professional trust or confidence. Furthermore, the Department is authorized to take disciplinary action on an EMT license if the EMT commits repeated acts of negligence.  The statute and regulations require compliance and cooperation with any investigation into wrongdoing conducted by the Department.

The Department must follow the established administrative procedure under Missouri law before taking disciplinary action. There is an exception. The regulations authorize the Department to take immediate adverse action against EMT and suspend the EMT’s license if the Department finds that there is an “imminent threat to the public health.” The Department must file a complaint with the Administrative Hearings Commission containing those allegations contemporaneous with the decision to suspend the EMT’s license.  The Department must give the EMT proper written notice. The notice must include a statement setting forth the reasoning for the Department’s action. Additionally, the notice must set forth the rights of the EMT to appeal the Department’s decision.

The imminent threat suspension appeal procedure is designed to move quickly. Once the Department files a complaint against the EMT alleging an imminent threat, then the EMT has ten days to appeal that finding to the Department.  The Department must conduct the appeal hearing within ten days of the notice of appeal. The Department’s decision remains in effect until a court or the Administrative Hearings Commission overturns the Department’s decision.

In the normal case, the Department files a complaint with the Administrative Hearings Commission and litigates the case. The EMT enjoys all of the rights a licensee has before the Administrative Hearings Commission. The EMT has the right to proper notice of the allegations, the right to discover the Department’s evidence and then to a fair hearing at which the EMT can cross-examine witnesses and put on evidence in his defense.  The Department has the authority to punish the EMT with a sanction such as a fine, additional educational requirements, probation, or suspend the license for up to three years. The Department may revoke the license as well.

Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Ready To Help

If you are an EMT or other medical professional facing discipline in Missouri, do not take the allegations lightly. Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger will thoroughly investigate allegations of misconduct so that you can put forth the best defense to save your career and your livelihood. Call Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger at 785-979-4353 today to schedule your free consultation.

Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Explains the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Role In Disciplining Healthcare Professionals

/in /by

The Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) is the agency dedicated to enforcing the federal drug laws in the United States. Most people associate the DEA with investigating illicit narcotic distribution. Healthcare professionals with the privilege of writing and dispensing prescriptions know that the DEA has wider jurisdiction than simply investigating street crimes. Any healthcare professional who writes prescriptions, drug distribution centers, pharmacies, and others must register with the DEA before they can write or fill a prescription. The DEA has the authority to investigate and discipline healthcare professionals who violate DEA regulations relating to dispensing prescription drugs. The DEA does not have unlimited power. A practitioner enjoys many due process protections when facing allegations of wrongdoing by the DEA. Kansas and Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger fights for professional licensees facing disciplinary action.

A licensee’s rights to a fair and impartial hearing when facing disciplinary action instituted by the DEA is protected by the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), a law passed by Congress delineating the procedures that must be followed in administrative hearings, also serves to protect the rights of a licensee facing discipline.  Due Process Clause jurisprudence and the APA work in conjunction with each other to ensure disciplinary proceedings are decided justly. Federal laws and rules control in DEA disciplinary action because the DEA is a federal, vis-a-vis, state agency.

The Due Process Clause and APA are not idle theories.  A licensee enjoys the protections those laws afford from the inception of disciplinary action. The agency instituting disciplinary proceedings may commence an action only after it gives the licensee proper notice of the factual allegations of wrongdoing.  Proper notice serves to give the licensee an opportunity to challenge the factual allegations and legal basis for discipline.  The factual allegations and legal basis must be timely given to the licensee. The notice, called pleadings, do not have the same rigorous formality of pleadings in a criminal case. Therefore, if a factual allegation arises after the agency initiated disciplinary proceedings, the law permits the agency to rely on such allegations so long as the licensee has a chance to respond timely and fairly to them.

Timely notice of the factual allegations serves a very important purpose. The timely notice of the allegations provides licensees with an opportunity to investigate the claims the Agency made and to prepare a defense. The licensee must be afforded every opportunity to offer an explanation of the allegations. A licensee’s defense is thwarted if they do not have a chance to explain what happened from their perspective.

Litigants must be careful not to waive any objections to late-disclosed factual allegations. A failure by the licensee to object to newly raised allegations indicates that they consent to litigate the new claims of wrongdoing.  The agency has an obligation in the initial pleadings and the pre-hearing statement to set forth all of the factual allegations it will rely on to convince the factfinder that the licensee must be disciplined. The licensee may consent to litigate the unpleaded issue if it is clear from the record that the licensee knew of the allegation and defended against it.  However, an agency’s decision to discipline a licensee may not be based upon evidence of wrongdoing that was incidental to the initial allegations.

Allegations Of Wrongdoing Can Destroy Your Livelihood

Revocation of your DEA registration, or any professional licensing discipline, will wreak havoc on your professional life and has the potential to do the same to your personal life as well. Do not trust your defense to anyone. Call Kansas Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule your free consultation if you are a licensed professional facing discipline.

Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Explains The Potential Ethical Dilemmas Health Care Professionals Face If A Death With Dignity Statute Passed

/in /by

According to Deathwithdignity.org, seven out of every ten Americans favor some death with dignity legislation. California enacted the most recent death with dignity statute. Their law went into effect on June 9, 2016. The statute’s enactment received enormous publicity.  The law on its face appears to conflict directly with a heath care professional’s ethical obligation to preserve life rather than end life. As death with dignity advocacy groups’ message gains momentum, there is a real possibility that other states, including Kansas and Missouri, will pass such laws. Kansas and Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger understands the ethical obligations of health care professionals. Attorney Sanger zealously represents professional licensee facing discipline against their license.

Kansas and Missouri had bills pending in their respective legislatures seeking to enact a death with dignity statute. Kansas’ Bill was originally filed on January 28, 2015, and referred to a Committee for Health and Human Services. The Committee delayed action on the Bill until 2016. The Bill is no longer viable because of inaction by the Committee, which caused the Bill to miss legislative deadlines and therefore is not viable.  A previous death with dignity bill expired in the legislature in 2013.  A Missouri legislator filed a death with dignity bill in 2015. The Bill was the first of its kind filed in Missouri. The legislature refused to consider the Bill and the proposed legislation lapsed. Notwithstanding, Kansas and Missouri can take the issue up again in the future.

California’s death with dignity legislation purports to guide health care professionals in making decisions consonant with their ethical obligations to their patients, fidelity to the oath they swore, and their moral understanding as humans. Notwithstanding, the law obligates the patient’s physician to give the person the opportunity to change their mind because a request for an aid-in-dying prescription may only be made by the patient, and not via a legal guardian or health care proxy.  The physician must make sure that the patient is of sound mind, or if there is a question, the doctor must make a referral to a mental health professional.  The person must be an adult who has a terminal disease, and the person makes the request voluntarily. The physician must comply with the reporting requirements prescribed by the statute. The physician must ensure the request is in writing on the prescribed form, signed by the patient and two independent witnesses.

The statute specifically protects the prescribing physician from certain civil, criminal, or licensing sanctions.  The health care provider cannot be sanctioned for merely being present when the patient ingests the aid-in-dying drugs. The health care provider may prepare the drugs for the patient but may not administer the drugs. The patient must do that alone. Additionally, a health care provider cannot be sanctioned for diagnosing a person with a terminal disease and informing the patient about the prognosis as long as the physician complied with the appropriate duty of care when reaching those conclusions. The health care provider may not be sanctioned for evaluating whether the patient qualifies for the aid-in-dying prescription.  The physician may provide information about aid in dying drugs without sanction. The physician may also refer the patient to another physician without fear of sanction. The health care provider always has a duty to act professionally and comply with the statute.

Kansas and Missouri Licensing Attorney Ready To Fight For You

Some ethical issues, like issues dignity in death statutes create, are not clear cut. You need a zealous advocate to defend your professional license. Call Kansas and Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule your free consultation.

Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Explains Appealing Restrictions On A New License

/in /by

The Missouri Board of Healing Arts (“the Board”) has the authority to place restrictions on newly issued licenses. The licensee has the right to appeal the Board’s decision to the Administrative Hearings Commission of Missouri (“AHC”). Successfully appealing an adverse decision by the Board will make a tremendous difference in your practice and well as your personal life. If the AHC decides against you, then you may appeal to the Courts of Missouri for relief. Danielle Sanger, an experienced professional licensing attorney in Missouri, explains the process of appealing an adverse decision made by the Board to the Circuit Courts, and then to the Appellate Courts if necessary.

The procedure for imposing discipline by the Board restricting or denying new licenses differs from the imposing discipline of an existing license. Disciplining an existing license is a two-step process. First, the Board determines the appropriate discipline after the AHC determines the facts of the underlying case.  The licensee appeals the Board’s decision to impose discipline to the Circuit Court. The Board may rely upon the same grounds to issue a new license with restrictions as it does when imposing discipline on an existing license.  The Legislature gave the Board discretionary power to deny licenses for various reasons. Those reasons include evidence of bad character, unprofessional conduct, and conviction of a felony, to list a few.

The AHC hears appeals from Board decisions on new licenses. The AHC hears the issue de novo, or anew. The AHC reviews the record from the hearing before the Board. The record contains transcripts of testimony given by the witnesses before the Board as well as properly admitted exhibits. The AHC then decides whether the conditions the Board attached to the license are appropriate based on a new review of the record. The AHC must make findings of fact as well as rulings of law on the issues presented on appeal. The AHC then makes its determination and actually “steps into the shoes” of the Board.  In other words, the AHC exercises the same authority as granted to the Board by the Missouri legislature.  Exercising the same authority necessarily carries with it the discretion afforded the Board by the Legislature.  The AHC does not merely parrot the Board’s decision.  The AHC review is not designed to overturn the Board only if the Board made an error.

The Missouri courts are permitted to hear the case only after the agency made its final decision. The applicant must exhaust all administrative remedies before resorting to the courts for relief. Missouri law places restrictions on the circuit court’s authority when deciding AHC appeals. The petitioner must file for relief no greater than 30 days after the final decision by the AHC. A judge alone must hear the case; the parties are not entitled to a jury. The judge limits review to constitutional compliance, whether the Board exceeded statutory authority, whether the Board’s decision was supported by competent evidence, the hearing was unfair, whether the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, or whether the Board abused its discretion when making its ruling.

The party aggrieved by the circuit court’s decision may file a further appeal. The appellate court reviews the Board’s action and not the circuit court’s decision. The issue the appeals court must address is very straightforward: whether the entire record supports the Board’s decision with substantial and competent evidence. The Board’s decision must be against the overwhelming weight of the evidence if the appellate court will overturn the agency’s decision.

Experienced Advocate Fighting For You Every Step Of The Way

Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger is an experienced and zealous advocate for licensees facing discipline. Call Attorney Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule your free consultation. Attorney Sanger will fight to protect you and your livelihood. Call today.

University of Missouri Hospital and Clinics School Offers Guidance On Withholding Futile Treatments

/in /by

Health care providers can grapple with the decision to withhold treatments that may be futile for their patients. The ethical decision influencing that decision can be daunting. Assisting patients, or their health care proxies, make these decisions must be made with consideration of several factors. If the patient reaches the point of “biomedical futility” the physician need not administer the treatment. Understanding “biomedical futility” and its implications is vital in making an ethical decision. Physicians and other health care providers can face ethical complaints if the patient or family disagrees with the decision to withhold futile medical treatments. Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger has devoted her career to representing licensees such as physicians and other health providers who face potential licensing discipline.

The University of Missouri Hospital and Clinics (“the University”) issued guidelines relating to withholding futile treatments. The University’s directive was based upon the desire to assist physicians and their team in decisions regarding when to “withhold or withdraw” biomedically futile treatments. Biomedical futility is a judgment the physician must make. The University defines biomedical futility as a treatment that cannot meet its goals and is therefore “medically ineffective.” The physician must determine to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty” that the treatment cannot prevent or slow the patient’s decline or cannot prevent impending death of the patient. Those conditions seem obvious. However, a medically ineffective treatment is also one that cannot change the course of a disease in a meaningful way. It is critical to note that a treatment that is medically effective but may diminish the quality of life of the patient is not defined as a biomedically futile treatment.

The University established a procedure for physicians and their health care teams to follow in the event they are faced with making a decision of whether a treatment is medically futile. At the outset, the physician must determine that a treatment is medically ineffective to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. If so, then the physician must discuss treatment goals with the patient and/or the health care proxy. This consultation must include a discussion regarding the medical ineffectiveness of a proposed treatment, the potential or lack thereof for patient improvement, and the burden a given treatment may have upon the patient. Physicians must closely document this procedure in the patient’s medical record.

Once this discussion occurs, then a team meeting must be held. The meeting includes interdisciplinary treatment providers, the patient, the patient’s health care proxy, and the patient’s family. Any decision made during this team meeting must be documented in the patient’s medical record. The patient, their proxy, and staff should be afforded an opportunity to meet with Pastoral Care and/or the Ethics committee in reaching this decision.

At times, the patient and physician may disagree on whether the treatment should be administered. The physician is not required to administer a treatment that is medically ineffective. The physician should advise the patient to seek an alternative opinion. The physician must not abandon the patient if such a disagreement occurs. The physician should arrange for alternate care and take steps to ensure the patient is safe. The physician should consult other health care providers and the ethics committee if the physician determines the treatment must be discontinued. It is also important to note that this decision must be made between the health care providers and the patient. Any opinion offered by a third party of whether the treatment is medically effective must not be considered.

Where To Turn For Help

Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger vigorously fights for her clients to protect their livelihood. Attorney Sanger understands that a physician’s decisions can be second guessed, which can lead to facing an ethics complaint. Call Attorney Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule a free consultation and mount your defense today.

Recently Enacted Statute Permits Collaborative Practice Arrangements

/in /by

A recently enacted bill allows medical school graduates to practice medicine in collaboration with supervising physicians. The statute, known as Section 334.036, permits assistant physicians to practice medicine in rural or underserved locations in Missouri. The law facilitates delivery of health care services to citizens who have little or no opportunity to avail themselves of quality health care while providing aspiring physicians with a forum for practical skill development. The law delineates the practices an assisting physician may undertake as well as identifies the ethical responsibilities of the assisting physician and supervising physician. Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger advises that physicians who agree to supervise a student physician under a collaborative practice arrangement must familiarize themselves with the requisite ethical standards to avoid potential pitfalls.

An assistant physician may practice medicine only in compliance with strict adherence to established guidelines. An assistant physician must be licensed in Missouri. An applicant must have graduated from medical school and be a citizen of the United State or a legal alien. Moreover, the applicant must have successfully completed Steps 1 and 2 of the United States Medical Licensing Examination within two years of applying to become an assistant physician.  However, the applicant is ineligible if applying to be an assistant physician more than three  years after graduation. A person is also eligible to apply if the postgraduate residency has not been completed but has passed Step 2. Moreover, the applicant must be fluent in English.

The assistant physician is limited in practice. The assistant physician’s medical practice is limited to primary care in rural or underserved areas or as part of a pilot project area. The assistant physician may self-identify as an assistant physician but is permitted to use the terms “doctor” or “doc.”  The assistant may administer medical treatment in an emergency situation; however, the practice of medicine is prohibited unless the assistant physician is a signatory to a collaborative practice arrangement with a supervising physician. The assistant physician may prescribe narcotics listed in Schedules III, IV, and V of Section 195.017 once they properly obtain a certificate to prescribe drugs and have appropriate registrations filed with the Federal Drug Administration as well as the Missouri bureau of dangerous drugs. The assistant may only prescribe medications listed in Schedule II if the medication contains hydrocodone and the prescription is limited to a five-day course. Moreover, the assistant physician may not prescribe medication for personal use or to members of their families.

A collaborative practice arrangement must be executed between assistant physician and supervising physician. To be valid, the collaborative practice agreement must be in writing and contain agreed-upon protocols or “standing orders for the delivery of medical services.”  In addition, the collaborative practice agreement can give the assistant physician authority to administer treatment and write prescriptions, consistent with statutory limitations, provided that the care administered is consistent with the assistant physician’s skills, training, and experience. The arrangement must include a provision indicating that a notice shall be displayed in the physician’s office including a list of prescriptions the assistant physician may prescribe and a notice that the patient may be seen by an assistant physician. The notice must include a statement that the patient has the right to be examined by a physician and not the assistant.

The collaborating physician has many obligations when undertaking the role of supervising physician.  The supervising physician must review a minimum of 10 percent of the assistant physician’s charts every 14 days. Additionally, the collaborating physician must review a minimum of 20 percent of the assistant’s charts in which prescriptions were written.  Moreover, the collaborating physician must document a one-month time frame during which the assistant practices exclusively with the collaborating physician before the assistant can see patients alone.  Additionally, the assistant must practice with the collaborating physician for 120 hours in a four-month period before the assistant is permitted to prescribe medications.

Attention To Detail Will Prevent Disciplinary Action

The assistant physician is practicing medicine on the license of the collaborating physician. Any ethical transgressions committed by the assistant may be attributed to the collaborating physician. Contact Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger at 785-979-4353 to schedule a no-obligation consultation to discuss disciplinary issues you face as a result of a collaborative practice arrangement.

Duty To Warn: Disclosure Versus Privacy In Missouri

/in /by

Medical professionals must learn very private details of their patients’ lives to properly treat them. Likewise, patients must trust their physicians with intimate and private information so they get the care they deserve. Both patient and care giver understand and rely upon the confidentiality which is essential to proper medical care. In the ordinary case, medical professionals will jealously guard their duty. The duty of maintaining confidentiality or privilege, depending upon the nature of the care provided, on its face, appears to be a bright-line rule. Can the circle of trust be broken without committing an ethical violation in Missouri? The answer depends upon the facts of the individual case.  Therefore, if you find yourself in that position, it is crucial that you contact Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger for a thorough analysis of the situation.

In Missouri, a “mental health coordinator” has a duty imposed by statute to take action if they receive information that a person is about to commit a “serious harm.” The threat must arise from a “mental disorder.” In that instance, the statute requires the mental health coordinator to conduct an investigation, analyze the data acquired during the investigation, then evaluate the credibility of the sources of the information. At that point, the coordinator must determine whether a threat to do serious bodily harm exists. If there is reasonable cause to believe the patient will hurt himself or someone else, then the mental health professional must contact the local probate court for an order to apprehend the individual. If the professional believes that the threat is imminent, the coordinator may seek police assistance in apprehending the person and commit them involuntarily. Lastly, the statute imposes a duty upon the coordinator to notify the patient’s family and friends about available services if an involuntary commitment is not indicated.

The above procedure, if followed, can thwart a threat to a specific person or group of people. The statute is silent as to whether the target of the threat must be notified. Notwithstanding, Missouri may impose a “common law” duty to warn the potential target of the threat. Failure to discharge that duty may have adverse professional consequences. The existence of a duty to warn rests on several factors. Those factors include the public policy of Missouri in preventing the harm alleged, the foreseeability of the potential harm and the ability to protect against it, the moral blame associated with the harm, and the societal costs to the “actor and the community.” The right to sue for failure to warn extends only to identifiable potential victims and not the community at large. The cost to the provider is minimal. Discharging the duty to warn may be as simple as a telephone call to the police or other appropriate authority, and the object of the threat.

The duty to warn may attach to more than mental health professionals. Generally speaking, Missouri does not impose a duty to warn upon the average person to prevent a third party from becoming a victim of a crime. In that instance, liability does not attach to the person who could have prevented the harm. Notwithstanding, the nature of the relationship between care giver and patient can impose the duty to warn a third party about impending harm. The harm, however, must not be remote. It must be foreseeable. Foreseeable means whether the reasonable person knew or should have known about the potential danger and taken some measure to stop it.

Seek Immediate Legal Assistance If You Find Yourself In This Situation

No medical professional wants to find themselves in this situation. Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger recommends that you follow the appropriate steps to discharge your duty and document as much information as you can. Attorney Sanger will rely on that information to vigorously defend you if adverse legal action is taken against you because of your decision. Call Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger today for a free, no-obligation consultation at 785-979-4353.

Missouri Licensing Board Endeavors To Make Our Buildings Safe

/in /by

The Missouri Board of Architecture, Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Landscape Architects (“the Board”) provides an invaluable service to the public. The Board ensures that the professionals who plan and construct the buildings in which we live, work, and play are competent and properly licensed. The Board establishes the ethical duties of its member licensees as well as the code of conduct for its members. Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger represents licensees who are being investigated by the Board for conduct they claim falls below their standards.

The Board was created by the Missouri legislature with the mandate of ensuring the structural integrity of Missouri’s buildings. The statute confers the power to the Board to issue licenses to practice as an architect, engineer, land surveyor, or landscape architect. The statute also bestows the authority upon the Board to discipline those licensees. After investigation into allegations of wrongdoing, the Board may file a complaint with Missouri’s administration hearings commission to seek adjudication of the allegations. There are numerous reasons for which a complaint may be filed. These reasons are not arbitrary but rather bare directly upon whether the licensee is competent to perform in his or her profession. Alcohol and/or drug use that impairs the ability of the licensee to competently perform may be disciplined. A conviction in state or federal court, or a plea of nolo contendre, that relates to the ability to function in the profession or an adjudication of a crime involving fraud or deceit, or an act of violence may be disciplined, even if a sentence is not imposed. Engaging in any fraud, deceit, bribery, or misrepresentation may also be disciplined.  Similarly, incompetence, gross negligence or misconduct while performing the duties of a licensee may be punished. Adverse license action may also be taken for holding oneself out as a licensee without holding a valid license or assisting a person in that capacity. Further still, violations of the public trust, false or misleading advertising, failing to properly display a license, or being disciplined by another licensing authority will subject the licensee to a facing a disciplinary complaint. Lastly, being adjudicated incompetent or disabled by a court will cause the licensee to face adverse action.

The Board has the discretion to mete out punishment as prescribed by law. The statute provides for various forms of punishment, including censure or probation. The probationary term may not exceed 5 years and may include terms designed to prevent further ethical violations. The Board may also take more serious action. The Board can levy a fine or suspend practice for up to 3 years. Most significantly, the Board may revoke a license to practice in one of the named professions. In fact, the Board has revoked approximately 47 licenses as of November 20, 2015. Furthermore, there are currently eight licensees on probation and none on suspension. However, 10 licensees are listed as suspended for failure to pay taxes. That status is known as a “House Bill 600” suspension.

Licensees must comply with the statutory grounds to remain in good standing with the Board, and they also must follow the Code of Professional Conduct.  The Board has the authority to make regulations, such as the Code of Professional Conduct, to maintain public trust in the profession. Any violation of the Code of Professional Conduct may result in the Board filing a complaint for discipline. The Code of Professional Conduct requires licensees to act with “reasonable care and competence” and to “apply technical skill” required of architects, engineers, land surveyors, and landscape architects.  Additionally, these professionals are to avoid self-dealing and represent themselves to the degree they are trained and educated.

Call For More Information

If you are an architect, engineer, land surveyor, or landscape architect and you are facing discipline, call Missouri Professional Licensing Attorney Danielle Sanger. Attorney Sanger has the experience to vigorously represent you based upon successfully representing professional licensees as well as her experience as an assistant attorney general. Call Missouri professional licensing attorney Danielle Sanger today at 785-979-4353 to schedule your free, no-obligation consultation. Learn the difference experience and determination will make for you.

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.