A licensed vocational nurse applicant was denied a license by the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians after the applicant disclosed that he had another healthcare license that had been disciplined in the past. In the prior disciplinary case, the LVN license applicant had been placed on three years of probation for negligence, making incorrect entries on a patient record, a dishonest act and unprofessional conduct. The Board took the position that the new LVN license should also be put on probation just as the prior healthcare license had been.

We took the position that the outcome offered by the Board in settlement and advanced at hearing was unreasonable and would be extremely unfair to the license applicant. The applicant had successfully completed the prior probation, was appropriately remorseful, and had a serious and respectful demeanor at the proceeding.  After our presentation of all of the carefully prepared mitigation and rehabilitation evidence and legal arguments, the Administrative Law Judge granted a clear, unrestricted license, which was adopted by the Board. This result demonstrates the principle that the right law firm, which is not afraid to go to trial and push for a better result, can achieve a superior outcome.  This client was represented by Matthew Truong, Associate Attorney at Ray & Bishop, PLC.

A Board of Registered Nursing case against an RN who was accused of discrepancies in the handling of controlled substances was resolved by negotiation for an order of public reproval, also known as a public reprimand.  A public reproval involves no probation conditions and will drop off of the RN’s license record after three years.  The RN was not required to admit to the truth of the allegations in the accusation.

The Board initially accused the nurse of unprofessional conduct due to incorrect medication entries, as well as gross negligence for the mishandling of controlled substances.  The Board sought to place the RN on probation.  However, through advocacy with the Board and effectively explaining all of the circumstances surrounding the events, we persuaded the Board to drop its insistence on probation and settle for a public reproval.

Cases involving controlled substance errors and Pyxis machine data errors are very difficult to litigate because the reporting party (usually a hospital) may strongly suspect and infer drug diversion, including theft or abuse of drugs.  However, wasting, dosage and documentation errors can and do occur and can be explained and put into context by an effective attorney.  Ray & Bishop, PLC, represents and defends nurses in these types of very difficult cases that can have a severe impact on the careers of nurses.

 

Our newest associate, Mr. Matthew Truong, recently assisted a client with disclosure of a felony conviction to the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians.  The client plead guilty to felony vandalism and misdemeanor battery in late 2016.  Two months later, Mr. Truong helped the client gather mitigation and rehabilitation evidence to present to the Board as part of the client’s responsibility to disclose the criminal convictions to the Board.

Although the client served jail time and was required to report to a probation officer, the LVN Board elected not to pursue disciplinary action against the client.  Mr. Truong’s counsel and presentation to the Board was instrumental in keeping the client free from any professional consequences, and the client remains employed.

Our firm just received a decision from the fourth consecutive disciplinary case against a physician by the Medical Board of California.  The physician was already on probation, and in two prior cases, the physician’s probation had been extended.  The Board accused the physician of misconduct while on probation, and forced the physician to make statements because he was on probation.  Since the standard of proof is much lower to discipline someone on probation – probation can be violated on a showing of only a preponderance of the evidence – the Medical Board of California filed a petition to revoke probation in addition to an accusation.

However, fortunately for the physician, an administrative law judge agreed with our arguments that the Medical Board of California did not meet its burden of proof and dismissed the disciplinary case.   The physician’s license was saved.

This case result does not constitute a guaranty, warranty or prediction of the outcome of any other license discipline case.  Every case is unique.  For more information about how we can fight to save your license, call Ray & Bishop, PLC at 949-557-4888, or find more information at www.calicenselaw.com.  Legal advertisement.

Senior Associate Ms. Lindsay Johnson recently represented a prospective insurance agent who had been summarily denied a license because of a felony conviction for assault.  As we have discussed on the blog before, a “summary denial” is a denial that precludes the applicant from even having an administrative hearing on the issue of fitness for licensure.  The answer from the Department was a flat “no” with no recourse.

Except, through Ms. Johnson’s diligent work, we filed a petition for reconsideration with the Department of Insurance, and the summary denial was set aside.  The matter was ordered to be heard at an administrative proceeding.  However, through negotiation and the presentation of quality evidence, our client was granted a restricted license without the need for hearing.

As with all our fine results, we have to make clear that no individual case outcome can help predict what will happen in your case.  Every case is different, and this summary of excellent work does not constitute a warranty or a prediction of your case.  If you have a problem with the Department of Insurance of any kind, you should seek qualified, experienced counsel.  Legal advertisement.

As we recently highlighted, our excellent associates are particularly successful when appearing in front of state agencies on Petitions for Reinstatement.  Ms. Lindsay Johnson appeared in front of the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians on behalf of an LVN who had surrendered her license after being placed on probation.  At the time of the discipline, the client was represented by a different firm.  With Ms. Johnson’s help, our client presented strong evidence of rehabilitation and sobriety.

Ms. Johnson appeared before the Board and presented evidence and arguments in the client’s favor.  The Board reinstated the client’s license to practice.

No individual case outcome can help predict what will happen in your case.  Every case is different, and this summary of excellent work does not constitute a warranty or a prediction of your case.  If you are an LVN with a licensing problem, you should seek qualified, experienced counsel.

Our firm boasts some of the finest attorneys in California.  Recently, our Senior Associate Attorney, Ms. Lindsay Johnson, achieved remarkable success with the California Board of Accountancy.  Our client’s CPA license had been revoked in a prior disciplinary matter that was handled by another law firm.  The client had been convicted of making false statements to a federal agency, preparing a false tax return, and burglary.  The Board later learned that our client had failed to disclose his license denial on another state application and, additionally, had been denied the right to appear before the Securities and Exchange Commission.

In spite of these obstacles, the client originally tried to reinstate without the help of an attorney, but was unsuccessful.  After hiring our firm, Ms. Johnson appeared with the client at a meeting of the Board of Accountancy and proved that our client was competent and rehabilitated.  The Board agreed, and reinstated the client’s license.

No individual case outcome can help predict what will happen in your case.  Every case is different, and this summary of excellent work does not constitute a guaranty, warranty or a prediction of how your case will go.  Nevertheless, our firm has demonstrated a track record of success with the Board of Accountancy, and if you are a CPA with a licensing problem, you should seek qualified, experienced counsel.  Legal advertisement.

Our firm recently represented an RN in an Accusation matter before the Board of Registered Nursing.  The client had a single conviction for driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 or above, but had been acquitted of a charge of Driving Under the Influence.  The Board was only willing to settle the case for probation for three years with all the drug and alcohol terms, meaning the client would have been required to test for drugs/alcohol, attend AA meetings, attend a nurse support group, and attend rehab.

We took the case in front of a judge at the Office of Administrative Hearings.  Upon a showing of the case facts, a profound expression of responsibility and remorse from the client, and strong documentary evidence, the Administrative Law Judge ordered the client be given a public reproval instead.  A letter went into the client’s file indicating that the client should not have driven with a high BAC.  The client does not have to spend any time on probation, and the client’s successful career as an RN was not interrupted.

This case does not represent a warranty, prediction, or guarantee about your individual matter, as every case is different.  However, it underscores the difference that a quality case presentation can make in preserving and protecting your career.

In 2016, our firm represented a DMV-licensed salesperson who had been convicted of a felony for making a false insurance claim.  With our help, he obtained a reduction of the felony and expugement of the resulting misdemeanor, but he had to defend his salesperson’s license from an Accusation by the DMV in administrative court.  We consulted with this client as well as his business associate, who also had a conviction for the same crime. 

After hiring our firm, we saved the client’s license and his sixteen-year career in the sales industry was saved.  The business associate, convicted of the same crime, represented himself and lost his license.  This case highlighted the importance of strong legal counsel and persuasive mitigation and rehabilitation evidence in licensing cases, and we are tremendously proud of our success in this matter.

This case does not represent a warranty, prediction, or guarantee about your individual matter.

We represented an insurance agent in 2016 who was accused by a former partner of diverting premium payments from his clients.  Over a two-day hearing, the Department of Insurance aggressively brought evidence and witnesses against our client alleging that he was dishonest and lacked integrity.

We successfully proved that the client did not divert any funds and demonstrated that his business practices had been corrected.  Instead of revoking the license or even restricting our client’s license at all, the administrative law judge ordered only that he pay a small fine.  His license was otherwise unaffected and he was able to continue operating his successful agency.

This case does not represent a warranty, prediction, or guarantee about your individual matter.