Keep Your Address Current With the Board or Risk Losing Your License:  The nurse must keep a valid, current address on file with the Board and the burden on the Board is only to send notice to the last known address; the Board is not required to do a search for a nurse who has not responded, which is why it is so important to ensure your address is current.

The Nurse Assumes “No news is good news”: A nurse is under an investigation and assumes that since it has been ____ (a certain number of months) since the Board sent anything regarding the complaint, the Board must have closed the case.  Not true!!  The Board will notify the nurse of the ongoing investigation and the Board will notify the nurse when the investigation is closed.  If a nurse is under investigation and is not receiving mail from the Board, the nurse needs to check his/her address with the Board to be sure it is correct and that no further action has occurred or is pending against the license.  This also applies to a nurse who is aware of a Peer Review Finding against the nurse, a lawsuit naming a nurse, a complaint from a patient or family; the nurse cannot just assume the Board is not going to do anything.  The Board will open an investigation if they receive a complaint and they have jurisdiction regarding the complaint.

Don’t Give Up When Facing An Investigation: There are also nurses who give up when faced with an investigation assuming there is no hope or that the issue is so bad they will surely lose their license.   I have spoken to many nurses who think their incident is horrible and they will surely lose their license, but rarely is this true.   If a nurse can be remediated/educated the Board is not always inclined to remove the nurse’s license.  Unless a nurse wishes to cease nursing, it is worth participating in the investigative process and not to just give up.  At the same August 9, 2011 E&D meeting, there are   39 (Disciplinary Orders) + 3 (Reinstatement Orders) + 13 (Eligibility Orders) + 6 (Deferred Disciplinary Orders) Agreed Orders to be presented.  These are the stipulations/restrictions placed on a nurse’s license in response to a complaint filed at the Board.

So, the numbers stack up at 97 revocations versus 61 disciplinary orders; this seems to indicate there are more nurses that deserve to lose their license than are appropriate for restricted licenses and the statistics just don’t support that assumption.  These revocation orders will more than likely show nurses who either did not know about the Board action or decided for whatever reason not to work with the Board in resolving the complaint against them–how unfortunate.  Be cautious and do not allow this to happen to your license.

Cynthia Tays is president and owner of Austin Chiropractic Associates P.A. She is a member of the American Chiropractic Association (ACA), ACA Sports Council and ACA Physical Therapy Council. She is also a member of the Texas Chiropractic Association and American College of Chiropractic Orthopedists, and is the chiropractic consultant for Ballet Austin and Tapestry Dance Company. Tays received a bachelor’s degree from St. Cloud State University and a doctorate of chiropractic degree from Texas Chiropractic College.

Karen Campion of Bryan is president and owner of Campion Chiropractic Clinic. She is a member of the American and Texas Chiropractic associations, American Board of Chiropractic Sports Physicians, Texas Chiropractic College Alumni Association, Texas Society of Radiologic Technologists, and Bryan/College Station Chamber of Commerce. She is also team chiropractor for Brazos Valley Club Volleyball and A&M Consolidated High School Athletics, and a past team chiropractor for the Texas A&M University Athletic Department. Campion received a doctorate of chiropractic degree from Texas Chiropractic College, is a certified chiropractic sports physician, and a fellow of the International Academy of Medical Acupuncture.

Tim McCullough of Friendswood is director of Biotech Chiropractic Clinic Inc. He is a member of the American and Texas Chiropractic associations, past chair of the American Academy of Chiropractic Physicians, past president of the American Chiropractic Association Council on Diagnosis and Internal Disorders, and past director of the Texas Chiropractic Association District 11. McCullough served in the U.S. Army. He received a bachelor’s degree from Louisiana State University, a master’s degree in education from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, and a doctorate of chiropractic degree from Texas Chiropractic College, and is a board certified chiropractic internist and clinical nutritionist.

Kenya S. Woodruff of Dallas is deputy general counsel for the Dallas County Hospital District. She is past chair of the Dallas Bar Association Health Law Section, and a member of the State Bar of Texas, American Health Lawyers Association, and J.L. Turner Legal Association. She is also co-chair of the Aids Arms Inc. Community Advisory Committee and a volunteer teacher for Eirene Christian Fellowship Children’s Ministry. Woodruff received a bachelor’s degree from Emory University and a law degree from the Duke University School of Law. She is being reappointed.

Julie K. Attebury of Amarillo is a senior business consultant with the West Texas A&M University Small Business Development Center. She is a past member and past co-chair of the Governor’s Commission for Women, past board member and past president of the Amarillo Independent School District, and the 2005 award recipient of the Amarillo Globe News Woman of the Year. Attebury received a bachelor’s degree from Rice University and a Master of Business Administration from West Texas A&M University. She is being reappointed.

Stanley Wang of Austin is a clinical cardiologist and director of legislative affairs for Austin Heart. He is a member of the American Heart Association, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, and Travis County Medical Society. He is a delegate of the Texas Medical Association, a councilor of the Texas Chapter of the American College of Cardiology, and vice chair of the TEXPAC Board of Directors. He is also a volunteer speaker with Go Red for Women and a volunteer with the Championship Hearts Foundation. Wang received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Texas, a medical degree from the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, a law degree from the University of Pennsylvania, and a master’s degree in public health from the Harvard University School of Public Health.

George Willeford III of Austin is a physician and founding partner of Austin Gastroenterology. He is a member of the Texas Society of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterology Association, and Texas Medical Association. He is also a member of the Austin Heartgift Board of Directors, and a past board member of the Travis County Blood Bank and Austin Center for Attitudinal Healing. Willeford received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Texas and a medical degree from Southwestern Medical School. He is being reappointed.

Irvin Zeitler of San Angelo is vice president of medical affairs at Shannon Medical Center, and a staff physician at the Shannon Minor Emergency Treatment Center. He is chair of the Shannon Medical Center Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, and a member of the Trauma and Quality Management Committees, American Academy of Family Practice, Texas Medical Association, Concho Valley Medical Society, and Texas Osteopathic Medical Association. He is board certified by the American Board of Family Medicine. Zeitler received a bachelor’s degree in pharmacy from the University of Texas, a master’s degree in healthcare management from the University of Dallas, and a doctorate of osteopathy from the Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine.

A member of the board could not participate in any matter that related to a physician called before the TMB if the member received compensation from an entity other than a medical practice or had a common financial interest with, or was a competitor with the physician who was under investigation.

 Complaints before the TMB. The board could not consider or act on a complaint regarding patient care that was provided more than seven years before the complaint was filed, unless it involved the care of a minor. In the case of a minor, the complaint could be pursued until the minor’s 21st birthday or the seventh anniversary of the date of care, whichever was later.

 The TMB could not accept an anonymous complaint, and each complaint filed would have to include the name and address of the person submitting the grievance.

 The TMB would be required to provide a physician with a copy of the complaint that included a statement of the alleged violation written in plain language. It would have to be delivered by certified mail or personal delivery within 15 days of receiving the complaint. The TMB could send an additional complaint by first class mail with a confirmation of receipt if the physician rejected the original notice. The copy issued to the physician could not be delayed or redacted, unless the complaint: was filed by a patient or a legal guardian or agent under a power of attorney; posed a risk of harm to the public; or would jeopardize the investigation.

 A physician would have at least 30 days after receiving a complaint to prepare and submit a response. The schedule for conducting each phase of the complaints process would be established within 30 days of the expiration of the physician’s time to respond. The TMB would have to complete a preliminary investigation of the complaint within 45 days of the board’s receiving the complaint. The board also would be required to deliver a copy of the preliminary and final reports, including any dissenting or minority report, to the physician.

 Peer review panel. A member of an expert physician panel reviewing the initial complaint would have to be actively practicing medicine in the same specialty as the physician who was the subject of the complaint.

 Informal hearing. A physician in the same medical area as the accused physician could serve as a panelist for a randomly assigned informal hearing to determine whether an informal disposition was appropriate.

 Recording of an informal settlement conference. On request of the physician under review, the board would be required to make an audio recording of the informal settlement conference proceeding and provide a copy of the audio recording to the physician. The costs of producing and copying the recording would be paid by the physician. The recording would be a part of the investigative file and could not be released to a third party unless authorized.

 Administrative hearings. The bill would require the TMB to resolve a contested case with a final order based on the administrative law judge’s findings and conclusions. The board could not change a finding of fact or conclusion of law issued by the administrative law judge, but could obtain judicial review. For each case, the TMB would have the sole authority and discretion to determine the appropriate action or sanction, and the administrative law judge could not make any recommendation on the appropriate action or sanction.

 Judicial review. A physician whose license had been revoked would be entitled to a jury trial in a district court in Travis County.

 This bill is now in the hands of the Texas Senate with only a couple of weeks to go before the close of the legislature.  The Senate should have an up or down vote on this bill.  Given that ever House member voted for the bill, it is possible this will pass as long as it is placed on the calendar of the Senate. 

If you are interested in seeing this bill become law, you should call, write and/or e-mail your State Senator.

1.  Texas Physician Health Program.   Dr. Garland introduced Dr. Alison– practicing psychiatrist – took over from Dr. Jackson .   316 total referrals including self referrals and by TMB.  184 active participants.  72 reported back to TMB.  Talking to several about retiring their licenses.  These will come under a short agreement to conclude an investigation.

8 pending transfers from TMB to TX PHP.  47 brought to attention but have not interviewed.

$170,888 budget  included 31% benefit package for salaried employees. Dr. Garland elected not to participate in that in order to remain in budget.  The figure will be larger for the next fiscal year.   $43,553 returned to general funds.   Ms. Robinson suggests the PHP needs some political help in getting their budget secured and set up a meeting with Melissa in Senator Nelson’s office.  The request will need to come from the PHP and Ms. Robinson will go with them.

PHP would like to allow screens to be done as late as the lab is open (even if it is midnight).   The rule was put in place to prevent physicians from delaying a screen in the hopes of allowing the alcohol to metablolize.  This is not a problem with the EtG results.  Motion to staff to gather information to present at the February meeting to allow Board members to make an informed decision on extending the deadline.  They will research the results with all drugs tested for.

 ENFORCEMENT REPORT

Close out for FY 2010.  Received approx same number of complaints.  6968 in 2009;  6849 in 2010.  Did not open as many complaints, down  by 200.  1700 cases active pending.  Highest ever in October.  The probable cause is the hiring freeze and not enough experts to review the cases; this caused a slow down in processing.

Litigation – put the quality assurance in place.  There were 100 less ISC’s than in 2009.  75 more cases were received into legal.  Appears that the Quality Assurance panel is working. 

 Formal complaints filed  at SOAH were  70 in 2008;    82 in 2009 and  141 in 2010.   Dr. McNeese asks if the outcomes of the ISC are harsher?  Ms. Robinson does not feel this is the case.  She feels the physicians choose this because it takes longer.   Mr. Freshour, Litigation Manager and Ms. Robinson monitor case timelines.  She also offered that respondents feel they will get a lesser settlement.   Numbers of probationers has remained the about the same at 820 in 2009  and  803 in 2010.  Is there a way to come to a settlement that will be feasible under their rules.    TMB has told SOAH that if Licensure has determined not eligible or they feel they need to revoke a license and there is not another option, they will not mediate. 

Ms. Robinson feels that they need to reevaluate what they want to get out of mediation and to leave all pre-conceived notions behind and think outside the box.  She would like DPRC members to give her what their impressions are about mediation. 

Changes to Rule 187 – Procedure Rule:  One judge at SOAH asked why revocation cases are coming to SOAH – why are they not being handled at the TMB.  Statute says, if they are incarcerated or initially convicted, a suspension order can be issued while it finishes out the disciplinary process.  Does the Board want to bring forth the same process for revocation?  This process would allow them to revoke a license more rapidly.  The perception of the public is that it is difficult for them to understand how a physician who is convicted of a felony remains in practice.  She also said that a percentage of Physicians who get revoked in a ISC type hearing .  Motion to adopt A-D changes.  On E – motion to reject changes.  Ms Attebury and Dr. McNeese oppose the motion.

 Changes to Observed Screening:  Item 5  change observed urine screen to  “can waive right to same sex observer because there is none available at that clinic and they do not want to change clinics for proximity reasons.  Motion to change rule to allow physician to chose an opposite sex observer.

Reporting Requirement: Law requires a report to the Board on cases that are over one year old.  There are 750 cases.  All cases that have a 09 file date.  A large share are at SOAH.  This number is up by 300 from last year and it is due to backlog in expert panel reviews.   350 outstanding cases waiting for panel review.   100 are waiting for orthopedic review, especially spinal.  The next largest is pain management.  Some respondents have up to ten investigations against them. 

Office Based anesthesia.  The Board was given samples of the reports they receive.  It is a one page report.  The only thing happending now is the reports get filed under “O.”  Directions to staff.  When a new Medical director is hired, they should review these reports.

 Transition of Care: Dr. McMichael spoke with the Hospitalist Association in Austin.  Isabel Hoverman –  The Joint Commission started to write a rule and there were too many parts.  Center for transfroming Health Care – trying to improve guidelines on things like:  hand hygiene, handing off from the ER to the floor.  No action is being taken at this time because is it being looked into nationally by the Joint Accredidation Commission.

 As we know times are tight for government due to the poor economy.  As such, the Governor asked all state agencies to cut 5% of their budgets.  For the Board that is 1.46 million dollars.  The Board was awarded by the Governor 2.5% of that money back.  In response to this new money, the Board lifted its hiring freeze.    

 Mari Robinson, the Executive Director reported the Board will post jobs in July, and actual hiring in August.  She also reported that the Licensure Division does not operate on laser fiche, they have to scan everything.  This is large efficiency loss, if they do have funds, some will be expended to bring licensure in line to laser fiche.  Also would like to get technology to allow board members to attend ISC’s remotely.  The camera they purchased did not give them the quality they had hoped for; Board members want to be able to see expressions on Respondent’s faces.  The Board is looking at spending money on a better camera to cut down on travel expenses.  Information Technology is researching the costs, and they expect to recoup the money in one to two months in travel savings.

 Ms. Robinson also reported Board staff met with chair of appropriations committee.  A big portion of the cuts were on the expert panel reviews.  They feel they are currently closing many of the cases on the front end. 

 TMB just received legislative appropriations request and fully intended not to ask for additional funding.   They are required to submit a budget and then two appendendacies with additional cuts in each.  Board staff is of the opinion that it does not have any additional monies it can cut.  If they can save on travel, they will put that in, but when you are talking about cuts of millions, it will not be a great help.  Board staff reported it will go back to letting cases sit and wait for expert reviewers, as this is a major expense.

 Board staff reported that Licensing fees have been increased, which was pointed out when they submitted the budget cuts.  This may be why they received money back.  Board staff is concerned about the budget for 2012 and 2013, which will not be finalized until the end of June 2011.  The Board believes it will need to look at brining in additional revenue.  Board staff pointed out the agency brings in triple of what is appropriated through licensure fees, renewal fees and fines.  Board staff hopes the Legislature will take this additional revenue rather than cut the Board’s base budget.  Board staff encouraged Board members communicate with legislators on how budget cuts effect the operations of the Board.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT

The QA panel seems to be working.  Almost all Board members have participated in the QA panel process.  Mcneese questioned if someone reviews the Orders before they are sent to the respondant.    Freshour states that they are reviewed by two people.

Regarding the 24 Hrs CME required.    Would the Board  consider that someone has maintenance of certification rather than reproducing the CME that was turned in to certifying board.   Direction to staff to look into this in order to cut down on amount of paper that is turned in to the Board.   Specifically, they would eliminate the need to send paper documentation to prove participation.

PA Clinic Ownership

The PA Board is grappling with issue of ownership of clinics by a PA.  PA’s and APN’s own clinics and they hire a physician to supervise the clinic.  The TMB gets questions on this type of business.  There is no direct law.  The Board suggests they consult their own lawyer.  A stakeholder group is being created someitime in May to look at this issue.  Robinson has met with TMA about it.  The issue is not being pushed other than the Board seeing that it  is happening and being looked at.

INTERIM HEARINGS

They were part of the matter concerning the HHS committee.  The hearing has not been set.  There are no other interim hearings that they are involved with.    Met with legislation looking into lyme desease

FEDERATION OF STATE MEDICAL BOARDS

Robinson, and Turner and Lee Hopper to attend the conference in Chicago.

MEDICAL DIRECTOR REPORT

As of July, 2009 123 Experts have been approved.  Added 6 Orth  6 oncologist  5 thoracic surgeons  14 pain management.

McNeese met with Dean at UT Houston.  Have had an amazing response from faculty members.  Sent out 25 applications to the faculty there.  Dr. Moore wants to thank Dr. McNeese for her efforts.  Added 27 new chart monitors.  Criteria is they need to have license, active practice of medicine, board certified and look at history with TMB and look at medical mal practice history.  Look at qualifications to ensure they are adequate.

Zeitler has question on ISC process.  When you get the packet, there is the expert report and a rebuttal from the respondants expert.  They do not get a chance to queary the Board’s expert to respond to the respondant’s rebuttal.  The rebuttal only needs to be returned to the Board 5 days before the ISC.  The time frame of five days is statutory.  Dr. Zeitler asked how much turmoil it would cause if they chose to postpone the ISC because the rebuttal caused questions.   Robinson first suggests that it would cause considereable turmoil then suggests it is better to send the informaton back for rebuttal of the Board expert rather than send a case to SOAH.

Turner suggests giving the Board expert notice that they would like them to review the rebuttal and get a resonse back in time for the ISC. 

Benevides offers that he sometimes disagrees with the expert review and the prosecuting attorney only looks at one of the complaints.

REPORTING CORRECTING ORDERS

Issue arose when they put out the corrective action idea.  How do they want these to be reported in the Newsletter?  They are in categories, then by name and what the action was.  When fast tracks came about, they would just report the category and how many were taken.  There is information in the statute stating what needs to be published.  Rule154.003 states they must include summaries of disciplinary orders made against physician.

Dr. Holiday suggests that they only publish categories and license numbers.  Guardo suggests keeping the Fast Track reporting as is.  He offered that a colleage at the hospital wondered when the newsletter was coming out, because he enjoyed reading it, as it was like reading the National Enquirer.

The newsletter is on the website, but it is not sent to anyone.  They are looking into a method to send it electronically that is resonhably priced.

Attebury feels that the benefits of not having to come to Austin, not having an ISC should be enough and they should publish the names for the Fast Track in the newsletter.  Jokingly suggested they should publish photos.

Turner feels like the newletter should have information directing people to the website because all citizens have the right to know about their physician.  A report is prepared after each TMB meeting, which lists names of physicians disciplined and this is submitted to the media. 

Dr. McMichael motions to have names  and license numbers published for fast track orders in the newsletter, Dr. Crocker seconds. 

Pending Litigation

The most live case is the lawsuit agaist Chiropractice Board, which is scheduled for hearing in Aug. 

Have won the issue that manipulation under anethesia is outside of scope.  Will be receiving expert testimony on what is a diagnosis.  Discovery is ongoing.  Another rule from the chiropractic board is for festibular (spelling????) testing. 

In Johnson case, the TMB plead that respondent did not plead their request for rehearing.  The appeal ruled the Board was wrong.  They will need to develop rules on what will need to be present for a motion for rehearing.  This is in regard to a one sentence Motion where they state that they incorporate all their previous objections. 

Item # 9 Motion to accept all Orders – none were pulled.

Items # 10  Motin passes to accept

Item # 11  Mediate Settlement Agreed Orders.  None pulled  Motion to accept.

Item # 12 motion to accept none pulled

Item # 13 Corrective Orders  none pulled Motin to accept, passes

Item # 14 Order of Referral none

Item # 15 none

Item # 16   Temporary Suspension Report on a physician injecting drugs thorugh his toes.

Item # 17 Automatic Order.  Surgical assistant is incarcerated.  This may be the first order for a surgical assistant the Board has ever issued.

Item # 18 Cease & Desist Orders  Motion to accept, passes

Item # 19  none

Item # 20  none

Item # 21 none

Items # 25  Publication of Physician registration information

Changed the rule regarding profile and only putting year of birth and the practice address  rather than mailing address.  What do they do when an individual calls and asks for a mailing address or files an open record request?  This occurs when a doctor moves and the person is trying to obain their records.    Mailing addresses are not on the website.  The Board is selling their data products all the time so they would be hard pressed to deny an open records request, according to Ms. Leshikar.  If they continue to sell the data product they would need to give out the mailing address if asked.  If there is no practice address, the mailing address is posted on the site. 

Licensure is in the process of making a change of informing applicants that their mailing address will be on their profile if they do not have a practice address.

Item # 28  Consent Agenda 2010 February Full Bord Minutes

Minutes accepted

Temporary Suspension  Allen Schiller M.D.  Approved

ALJ Sharon Cloninger, Proposal for Decision 

Januar y1, 2009.  No genuine issues Board Staff’s motion was granted.

Undisputed facts that he is guilty of sexual assault, 3 years prison, 10 years probation.  The victim was a medical clinic employee not a patient.

The question was the Dallas county conviction initial or final?
ALJ  finds it was initial and Board is required to suspend the license pending outcome of the appeal, if the court upholds,  the Board would be reqired  under 164.7B of act to revoke the license. 

Multiple violations, each stems from the one incident.  If appeals overturns, non are supported, therefore would be premature to enhance any sanction based on multiple violations.

Dr. argued he did not have opportunity to request for probation.  He did not offer information during discovery.

According to the rule 164.101 they could probate the order.

Heisler states the Board finds it is a final conviction. 

Mr. Larry Gallehar, counsel for Dr. Mallou.  Believes there has not been a final conviction and the case is on appeal to the fifth court of appeals.  They feel the Doctor is entitled to a hearing on probation. 

Terms and conditions of probation prohibit him from having any contact with patients.  Turner moves to accept PFD, except # 6  Motion passes.

Items # 7 TERMINATION MODIFICATION REQUESTS FOR NON-PUBLIC ORDERS

                        None pulled, all pass

Item # 8 Agreed Board Orders

Williford, McMichael, Zeitler pulled:  Baucom sat on panel.  Anesthesiologist unaware that the patient had eaten and subsequently died.  Motocyle accident and undergone several surgeries.  Physician was working multiple rooms.  Respondent received a Public reprimand and CME. McMichael questioned whether this was adequate to protect the public.  Holiday offered that you cannot force a patient to tell the truth, as to whether they had eaten.  Passes as written.

Williford & Crocker pulled.  Felt this was a harse punishment.  No prior Orders and mitigating facts.  He was not present at births he was required to submit a birth certificate for. 

McMichael:  Question on Doctor with prescribing issues and under an Order.  He surrendered DEA in May 2009.  Can he get the DEA  certification back?  In the originial order he cannot reapply for ten years. 

McMichael requested Executive Session:  went into executive session  and they did not disclose the final decision

Benevides:  language change.

Zeitler:  Physician surgeon did laproscopic gall bladder surgery.  Has punctured,  mesentary and internal artery.  Patient lost considerable blood.  Treated for colonengitis where the issue was discovered.  Failed to transfer to tier one hospital.  Would K-star or monitor benefit here?  This is a suburban or rural setting and brings to question if a peer review needs to be done. McMichael moves to add chart monitor for 8 cycles of time with 10% of charts reviewed both at the hospital and office with an effort made to have 50% be hospital charts.

Motion to accept remaining orders, passes.

 Item # 23

Rule Changes to Chapter 187, 189, 190, 192, 195, 198.  Motion to pass changes

Item # 24

Rule change to TAC 22 Chapter 183

Acupuncture chapter.  Reviewed rules.  Allows multiple attemps on the JP exam.  Can apply for additional attempt if they fail 3 times.

Executive Session 11:54 to discuss Podiatric case.

When they reopen they will approve the minutes from the meetings of the last three days.

Recently, I have received several inquiries regarding “setting aside board orders.”  This cannot be done and this is misinformation.  While criminal incidents can sometimes be expunged or sealed, administrative actions currently cannot be removed from one’s license.  Once a disciplinary action occurs, the history remains even once the “probation” is complete.

1.  Make sure you have malpractice insurance so that you have the financial resources to go to a hearing if you do not agree with the BON’s decision in your case.

2. When looking for a job, ask everyone you know for help in finding a job.  It tends to be easier to get a job if someone is on the “inside” vouching for you and your skills.  There are also employers out there that understand that most nurses with a Board Order are not “bad” nurses; that the nurse just made a mistake, or was overworked/understaffed, or had a disease relapse etc.  These employers recognize that most nurses that have had a Board Order become extremely cautious nurses and become definite assets to the facility.

3. Make sure that you have an experienced and BON knowledgeable attorney assist you with your case before the BON so that you get the best outcome possible.

4. You must present a professional appearance (this includes your resume, your social networking site pages, and any application you complete).

5. Contact your state senators and representatives and ask them to make some changes for the next legislative session in 2011.  Some areas that need changes: expand the corrective action provisions to apply to minor practice violations, allow non-public orders for mental health issues and substance abuse (these are diseases, so why allow the publicity?), allow deferred adjudications to be just that and not be considered a conviction by the BON, and change the language in the NPA from shall to may to allow the BON leeway to make determinations based on mitigating factors.   As 2010 progresses, I will probably think of more…

I also have more info here:  http://nursinglaw.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-to-explain-past-board-orders-to.html