A California registered nurse (R.N.) was recently placed on probation by the Board of Registered Nursing as a result of a conviction for alcohol-related reckless driving. The California administrative law attorneys at San Francisco-based Slote & Links obtained a reversal of disciplinary action and recovered attorney’s fees from the Board of Registered Nursing.
A
California registered nurse (R.N.) was recently convicted of
alcohol-related reckless driving after being charged with driving
under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The conviction was a
first-time offense, and there was no evidence of alcohol abuse or
dependence.
Nevertheless,
the Board of Registered Nursing demanded that the nurse submit to a
psychological evaluation, physical evaluation, random urine tests,
and substance abuse rehabilitation. Since there was no evidence
of any alcohol problem, we–as administrative law attorneys–believed
that the conditions demanded by the Board were unreasonable.
In
California administrative law, a criminal conviction is not grounds
for discipline unless it is substantially related to the
qualifications, functions, and duties of the profession. See
Business and Professions Code section 490 (b).
We
went to an administrative hearing before a California administrative
law judge (ALJ) with the Office of Administrative Hearings and argued
that the conviction was not “substantially related.” The
ALJ agreed and dismissed two counts of the Accusation (Business and
Professions Code sections 490 (a) and 2761 (f)), however, the ALJ
imposed probation (without alcohol/substance abuse terms) based on a
Nursing Practice Act statute which defines unprofessional conduct to
include the dangerous use of alcohol or the conviction of a crime
involving consumption of alcohol (Business and Professions Code
sections 2762 (b) and (c)).
We
believe this was an error because Business and Professions Code
section 490 (b) limits agency disciplinary statutes by imposing the
“substantial relationship” limitation (so does the Constitution).
We
appealed the California administrative law case to the San Francisco
Superior Court by writ of administrative mandate (mandamus). We
also sought attorney's fees from the Board of Registered Nursing
under the Carpenter-Katz Small Business Equal Access to Justice Act
of 1981 (Code Civ. Proc. § 1028.5), which provides for the award of
attorney’s fees and expenses up to $7,500 to a prevailing licensee
if “the action of the agency was undertaken without substantial
justification . . . .” Code Civ. Proc. § 1028.5 (a).
The
San Francisco Superior Court agreed with our interpretation of
Section 490 (b). The Court also decided that the Board's
decision violated the nurse’s right to due process and equal
protection because a Medical Board disciplinary statute defines
unprofessional conduct to require more than one alcohol-related
misdemeanor conviction. The Court ordered the Board of
Registered Nursing to set aside its decision and to pay attorney's
fees to the nurse in the amount of $7,500.
The
Board of Registered Nursing has complied with the Court's decision,
and it declined its right to appeal the decision. The Board also
removed reference to the accusation from it website, which publishes
pending disciplinary actions.
If
you seek expertise in California administrative law, the San
Francisco attorneys at Slote & Links defend licensed
professionals and businesses before California administrative
agencies. For information on California administrative law, visit
www.slotelaw.com.
| Additional articles about California Administrative Law |
|
|
| About the author |
Ethan Luke California Administrative Law - Find legal information about California administrative law, including license denials, suspension, revocations, appeals/writs of administrative mandamus, petitions for reconsideration and more. |
| Please Rate This Article |
Number of ratings: 0
Rating: 0