WHAT NOT TO DO:  answer the Board without having an attorney review your response.  It is so sad when a health care professional receives a disciplinary order due to an incorrect answer to a renewal question; so often, these violations are easy to avoid.  Sometimes a health care professional answers a renewal question in a manner which causes Board action on the answer but not on the original criminal issue.  In addition, you need someone on your side advising you regarding what actions to expect from the Board and making sure you do not agree to a disciplinary action which is not warranted.  DO NOT rely upon advice from your criminal attorney, your family, your co-workers, your boss etc.  This is not a time to risk talking to inexperienced people.  Some Board do not take action on minor criminal incidents as long as you do not try to hide the criminal incident from the Board.  For example, the Texas Board of Nursing will typically not take action on a one time shoplifting case, but if you do not disclose the criminal incident to the Board you will be deemed as being deceptive and the Board is more likely to require some type of remediation (once again there are various Board responses and which is used depends on the information provided to the Board).

WHAT TO DO:  Obtain the criminal court records and contact an administrative lawyer with experience before that particular Board.  When you call the lawyer, is the lawyer able to answer your questions or do they say they have to do research?  If an attorney practices frequently before a Board, the lawyer will know the types of questions asked by the Board and what is required to be disclosed.  This type of legal advice is not usually expensive as long as the case does not progress to an investigation before the Board and an attorney can give you estimated costs when you speak to the lawyer.

I know this response looks like an advertisement for hiring lawyers, but seeking appropriate legal advice is the best action to take to protect your license and the risk of possible disciplinary action is too great not to at least speak to a lawyer.

When I read the article and the editorial I knew that many people will cheer the limiting of licenses to those with criminal histories, but I think they tend to focus on horrific crimes and don’t realize the impact made on people who commit crimes due to a lack of knowledge or because they are young or with the best of intentions.  If you do not speak to such people daily, then you cannot know the heartache and problems for the licensee or the ultimate ramifications for the public.  What about a licensee who is wrongly accused (it happens more than you think:  bad investigations, witness lies, evidence corrupted) and then convicted (Oh, and it does not matter the licensee received deferred adjudication since some regulatory boards consider deferred adjudications as convictions.).  A situation I have seen over and over is during a divorce or custody hearing, one of the spouses accuses the other of some crime and then lie or plant evidence; the other spouse is sure the law will find on their side since they are obviously innocent, but the legal system does not always work that way, so the innocent ex-spouse is now facing an investigation by the regulatory board.  The criminal incident has nothing to do with the licensee’s profession, but the licensee is investigated then disciplined and  loses their job and is now on public assistance because no one wants to hire them.  It happens again and again, professionals attempting to find work outside of their profession will not be hired because the potential employers think they will leave too soon, are too over-qualified, will challenge them for their position etc and a highly educated professional remains unemployed.

Mr. Dexheimer discusses so many cases where the state’s result does not appear to be justified; that there is no nexus between the criminal charge and the practice of that particular profession.   One of the examples involves pharmacist Emmanuel Kanu who lost his pharmacist license, not because of patient care issues or as a result of actions which could harm the people of Texas (potential patients/clients), but because he did not complete the proper documentation when he sent donated medications to a clinic in a third world county.  Mr. Kanu, a pharmacist with no patient care issues for 17 years, is now removed from being able to care for the Texas public for 10 years; how is this outcome reasonable or just? Would one consider Mr. Kanu to be a criminal?  Is his failure to submit the proper documentation in order to send these medications so heinous that we need to waste tax payer funds to convict him and then remove him from the professional workforce?

I also fear the public will ignore the message of this article (and the subsequent editorial) because it deals with “ex-cons” or those with criminal incidents when the message is so much more–the regulatory agencies are vested with great power and there can be an unfair and unjust tendency to abuse and overuse that power; once again, it depends on the individuals within the agency–there are some excellent staff members who warrant great respect, but there are also some who are not protecting the public, they are just punishing.

The problem our attorneys face is most licensees cannot afford to fight the regulatory boards and they are faced with accepting discipline which is not warranted or in some cases, even legal.  But, it is not clear sailing for those licensees that do choose to fight because as seen in Mr. Dexheimer’s article,  like Mr. Kanu, the licensee pays the money to fight the regulatory board, the licensee wins at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) only to have the case overturned by the regulatory board.  This is such a wide spread problem that our attorneys testified during the last Legislative session urging Texas lawmakers to support a bill which would make SOAH decisions final and if either party wanted to appeal at district court, they could do so.  Making SOAH decisions final avoids the “second chance at the licensee” actions which occur now when boards overturn SOAH Judge recommendations.  Making SOAH decisions final levels the process and makes it fair for all involved.

These are problems which should be addressed and the regulatory system, if it is going to be vested with so much independent power, should be fair and just and able to stand up to scrutiny.  Ask yourself, who is on the side of the licensee?  Who is making sure there are enough professionals to provide care to the people of Texas?  Is the system driving good professionals out of practice or turning them into cynics who no longer see the benefit in caring?  The public, the boards, and licensees need to be aware of all sides of a situation; not jump to conclusions; and consider the ultimate impact on all.

New §185.27, relating to Duty to Report Certain Conduct to the Board, sets out requirements for physician assistants to report certain events to the PA Board within 30 days of their occurrence.
Rule 185.27 requires reporting within 30 days of:
A) address change,
B) incarceration in a state or federal penitentiary,
C) Any activity concerning a felony offense,
D) Misdemeanors relating to
a. PA responsibilities,
b. morale turpitude,
c. assaultive offenses (except fine only offenses),
d. registering as a sex offender,
e. violating a protective order, including offenses involving bias or prejudice.
f. Being found guilty of offenses involving
i. controlled substances & dangerous drugs
ii. inhalant paraphernalia
iii. guilty of felony under Drug Abuse Prevention & Control Act

If you support or oppose this rule change, you may voice your opinion to the Board as these rules currently are in its comment period.

There are so many pitfalls associated with the questions posed on the Board’ s renewal/application paperwork, that it is prudent to speak to an attorney who has experience working with the Texas Board of Nursing before you complete the questions.