STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH BUREAU OF HEARINGS

Transcription

1 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH BUREAU OF HEARINGS In the matter of Pearlie May Love-Bridgeman, R.N., Petitioner v Bureau of Health Professions, Respondent / Docket No Agency No Agency: Case Type: Department of Community Health Intent to Deny Refusal to License Issued and entered this 11 th day of February, 2004 by C. David Jones Administrative Law Judge PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PROCEDURAL HISTORY On November 10, 2003 the Department sent Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Deny Application for Relicensure. On November 25, 2003 Petitioner s written demand for hearing was received. On December 12, 2003, Notice of Hearing was mailed scheduling the hearing to commence on January 16, 2004 at 1:30 p.m. at 611 West Ottawa Street, Lansing, Michigan. On January 16, 2004 the hearing commenced as scheduled. Petitioner represented herself. Linda Craven, Assistant Attorney General, represented Respondent. Petitioner testified, and the following exhibits were admitted into evidence:

2 Page 2 Petitioner s Exhibit 1: January 5, 2004 Letter from Intervention Project for Nurses (IPN). Respondent s Exhibit A: April 24, 2003 Letter from Professional Recovery Monitoring Corporation (PRMC). Respondent s Exhibit B: May 6, 2003 Letter from Michigan Health Professional Recovery Corporation (MHPRC). Respondent s Exhibit C: Consent Order and Stipulation. ISSUES AND APPLICABLE LAW This hearing was held pursuant to the Public Health Code of 1978 as amended (Code), MCL et seq. The Administrative Hearing Rules for this hearing are found at 1996 AACS, R The issue in this case is whether there are grounds to deny Petitioner s application for relicensure. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Petitioner has been a registered nurse since February In September 2001, Petitioner, while living in Indiana, applied for employment and was required to undergo a pre-employment urine drug screen. Petitioner tested positive for marijuana. A nursing referral agency notified the Michigan Department of the results. Shortly after this, Petitioner moved to Florida. 3. On January 30, 2002 Petitioner signed a Michigan Stipulation and Consent Order, which was agreed to by the Bureau of Health Services (now known as the Bureau of Health Professions) on February 19, 2002 and effective March 19, The Order held that

3 Page 3 if the matter had proceeded to an administrative hearing, a violation of Code 16221a would have been established. Petitioner was put on probation for one year with certain terms. 4. In relevant part, the terms of probation were as follows: (a) Petitioner was required to undergo a substance abuse/chemical dependency evaluation and if it determined she needed treatment or monitoring, to enter into a Monitoring Agreement with the Michigan Health Professional Recovery Corporation (MHPRC). (Respondent s Exhibit C) (b) If Petitioner was employed as a nurse, her supervisor was required to file quarterly reports concerning Petitioner s work performance with the Michigan Department. 5. Petitioner did enter into a monitoring agreement with MHPRC, which was to run through March 19, (Respondent s Exhibit B) The details of this agreement are not indicated on this record. 6. Petitioner s Michigan nurse s license expired March 31, 2002, and she did not reapply. Petitioner was living in Florida then, and chose to let the Michigan license lapse. 7. Petitioner testified that Indiana did not suspend her nurse s license but required she comply with recovery. Petitioner became involved with the ISNAP and the Professional Recovery Monitoring Corporation. (Respondent s Exhibit A) The details of this agreement are not indicated on record. 8. In Florida, Petitioner had a nurse s license and about March of 2002 became involved with the Intervention Project for Nurses (IPN), an alternative to discipline for impaired nurses. The IPN required Petitioner s employer to submit bi-monthly work performance

4 Page 4 evaluation reports. Petitioner testified that IPN was supposed to send copies of the employer reports to the Michigan and Indiana agencies. 9. Petitioner was employed as a nurse in Florida. Petitioner testified she was a traveling nurse and worked for over one year. 10. Petitioner s Florida employer filed work performance reports bimonthly with the Florida IPN. All the reports rated her work performance as excellent in all rated areas and indicated Petitioner was safe to practice nursing. (Petitioner s Exhibit 1) 11. Florida IPN did not forward these employer reports to the Michigan agency. The Michigan Department did not otherwise receive any supervisor work performance reports. Petitioner testified she thought the reports were being forwarded to Michigan. 12. Petitioner testified she also attended a nurse support group and AA/NA meetings for one year and underwent drug screens. She testified her problem was not marijuana, but how to cope with stress and she learned how to be a better person. 13. Petitioner successfully completed the Florida IPN program on March 24, (Petitioner s Exhibit 1) 14. Based on Petitioner s successful completion of the Florida IPN, on April 24, 2003 Petitioner was successfully discharged form the Indiana program (ISNAP). (Respondent s Exhibit A) 15. On or about April 21, 2003, Petitioner began employment as a nurse for St. Joseph Regional Medical Center, South Bend, Indiana. This facility has not sent work performance evaluation reports to the Michigan Department. 16. Based on Petitioner s successful completion of the Florida and Indiana program; on May 6, 2003 the Michigan Health Professionals Recovery Corporation successfully closed

5 Page 5 Petitioner s monitoring agreement early. (Respondent s Exhibit B) 17. On July 24, 2003, Petitioner applied for relicensure in Michigan as a nurse. On November 10, 2003, Respondent issued the Notice of Intent to Deny Application for Relicensure. The Notice indicated Petitioner was in violation of her probationary terms because she had failed to file any quarterly supervisor reports. 18. Petitioner plans to return to Michigan and work as a nurse. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. Introduction reasons for denial: In the Notice of Intent to Deny, pages 2-3, Respondent gave the following (a) (b) Applicant s conduct, as set forth above, evidences a violation of a final order issued by the Board s Disciplinary Subcommittee, contrary to 1996 AACS, R , in violation of section 16221(b)(vi) and 16221(h) of the Public Health Code, supra. Applicant s conduct, as set for above, evidences a failure to meet one or more of the requirements for licensure under section of the Public Health Code, supra, in violation of section 16221(l) of the Public Health Code, supra. In the Notice, directly above this quote, the main conduct, which apparently violates the final order, is specified. That conduct is failure to file any quarterly supervisor reports. B. Violation of Final Order: Reason a Violation of a final order issued by a disciplinary subcommittee is a violation of a promulgated rule AACS, R Violation of a promulgated rule is a ground for disciplinary subcommittee action, including denial of an application and other sanctions. MCL

6 Page (h); MCL (l) Technically, Petitioner did violate the final order. (Respondent s Exhibit C) She did not make sure the quarterly supervisor reports were filed with the Michigan Department. However, Petitioner s actions meet the spirit of the final order, and perhaps are substantial compliance. Petitioner s Michigan license had lapsed. She was still licensed in Florida, and made sure that bimonthly supervisor reports were filed with the Florida agency. The reports were positive. (Petitioner s Exhibit 1) C. Good Moral Character: Reason a The Notice, reason a indicates that violation of the final order is in violation of Code 16221(b)(vi). That provides as follows: Personal disqualifications, consisting of one or more of the following:....(vi) lack of good moral character. MCL (b)(vi) Good moral character is defined as follows: the propensity on the part of the person to serve the public in the licensed area in a fair, honest, and open manner. MCL (1) The evidence, however, shows that Petitioner s failure to file the quarterly supervisor reports with Michigan is not an example of failure to act in a fair, honest, and open manner. The supervisor reports were filed, but with Florida. The reports were positive. D. Section Requirements: Reason b Section has several requirements for licensure, and the Notice does not specify which the Applicant has allegedly not met. Presumably, however, the following are of concern: (1) An individual who is licensed.shall meet all of the following requirements:...

7 Page 7 (b) Be of good moral character. (2) an applicant shall meet all of the following requirements: (b) Establish that if sanctions have been imposed..the sanctions are not in force at the time of application. MCL Section 16221(l) provides that failure to meet a requirement under section is a ground for denial and other sanctions. MCL (l) Petitioner does meet these requirements. As noted above, Petitioner s conduct does not show a lack of good moral character. Sanctions had been imposed on Petitioner but they were not in force at the time of application on July 24, Petitioner successfully completed the Florida IPN program on March 24, Petitioner was successfully discharged from the Indiana program on April 24, In Michigan, Petitioner s probation expired March 19, 2003, after one year. The Michigan Health Professions Recovery Corporation successfully closed her agreement on May 6, PROPOSED DECISION Based on the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following proposed decision: 1) Petitioner has technically violated R and Code 16221(h), so there is a ground for denial, or other sanction. 2) Petitioner has not violated Code 16221(b)(vi). 3) Petitioner has not violated Code 16221(l) or Section

8 Page 8 EXCEPTIONS The parties may file exceptions to this Proposal for Decision within 15 days after the Proposal for Decision is issued and entered. An opposing party may file a response within five days after exceptions are filed. Any such exceptions and responses shall be filed with the Department of Community Health, Health Professions Division, P. O. Box 30670, Lansing, Michigan 48909; Attention: Robert C. Miller. C. David Jones Administrative Law Judge