Showing posts with label license revoked. Show all posts
Showing posts with label license revoked. Show all posts

Saturday, September 3, 2022

Did This Nurse Exploit an Elderly Man?


By Nancy J. Brent, MS, JD, RN

In past blogs, I have written about nurses being disciplined by state boards of nursing, including for unprofessional conduct and for falsifying documentation.

In the following case, an RN’s license is revoked for a violations of the state nurse practice act, including: violation of her duties, mental or physical inability to practice in a safe and competent manner, and a lack of good moral character.

RN’s relationship with the elderly man

The RN met a 75-year-old widower, who was suffering from cancer and moved into his home.

According the case details on casetext.com, the nurse told the elderly man that she was a nurse, was homeless, and that they could help each other.  She became a “home assistant” for the man, helping with cleaning, cooking, shopping, and other household chores.

The man spent “substantial” sums of money while the RN was living with him and added the RN onto his checking account and multiple lines of credit.

The man desired to have a romantic relationship with the nurse, but these feelings were not reciprocated. When the RN decided it was time to move out of the home, she took the man’s car and left him stranded at a hotel for multiple days. She also took money from the joint checking account.

The elderly man moved in with one of his daughters after these incidents, and the daughter helped him obtain a personal protective order (PPO) against the nurse. The daughter also obtained guardianship and conservatorship over her father.

The RN’s conduct was reported to the licensing board. An investigator from the licensing board interviewed the man and his daughters. He lived with his daughter until his death.

Licensing board proceedings

An administrative complaint was filed by the licensing board, alleging the violations stated earlier. The board also ordered a summary suspension of her license. The nurse petitioned to have the suspension terminated.

A hearing on the complaint was held after several months. The hearing examiner issued a Proposal for Decision finding that the RN violated her general duty obligations and lacked good moral character, and did not have a mental or physical inability to practice in a safe and competent manner.

The nurse filed objections to the proposal, but the licensing board entered a final order adopting the hearing examiner’s findings and revoked the RN’s license.

The RN filed an appeal to the state court of appeals.

Appeals court’s analysis and decision

The RN presented many objections to the licensing board’s decision. Her first objection was that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case because there was no connection between her relationship with the elderly man and her practice as a nurse. The court disagreed with her position, stating that she had used her status as an RN to “exploit and defraud” the man.

The RN pointed out her many arguments and testimony at the licensing board’s hearing, which contradicted the testimony of the man’s daughters and the information he shared with the investigator. Even so, the appeals court opined that her arguments and testimony were “inconsistent, illogical, and largely self-serving,” while the testimony of the daughters, the man’s physician, and the investigator were more “consistent, logical and reasonable,” which made their testimony more credible.

Moreover, the court continued, there was “substantial, competent, and material evidence supporting the determination of the hearing officer that the RN lacked good moral character.”

The RN also argued that her due process rights were violated because the relationship was consensual. Again, the court held that there was no consensual relationship based on the evidence presented in the hearing. Thus, no constitutional violation of her due process rights occurred.

The determination of the licensing board’s decision was affirmed.

What to remember from this case

The conduct of the RN in this case was egregious. However shocking it may be, this type of exploitation can happen in varying forms when anyone takes advantage of a vulnerable elderly person.

The nurse was able to win the man over fairly easily because she had a nursing license.

It is important to note that the revocation of the RN’s license was possible despite the fact that she had not been practicing nursing for many years (though she said she was a “caregiver” for the elderly man and probably did provide some type of “care” for him).

The appellate court’s decision supports the recent decisions of boards of nursing that once you are licensed, you must always act as a licensed professional, even though the alleged violation of your nurse practice act does not have a nexus to the practice of nursing.

Examples of disciplinary actions in which there is no connection to the practice of nursing include:

  • Failure to re-pay student loans
  • Failure to pay taxes
  • A conviction of driving under the influence (DUI
  • The misuse of social media

Had the RN been actively practicing nursing for this man, another basis upon which her license could have been disciplined would have been for breaching professional boundaries, which is a form of unprofessional conduct.

If you provide nursing care to a  vulnerable elderly person or any vulnerable patient be certain to maintain a nurse-patient relationship consistent with your legal and ethical duties. For instance:

  • Document the care you provide carefully and accurately.
  • Don’t engage in any conduct, however well-meaning (such as doing banking for the patient, purchasing any item or food with the patient’s money), that may later be viewed as exploiting the person or could be seen as examples of poor morale character.
  • Don’t move in with a patient or have a patient move in with you.
  • Don’t become romantically involved with a patient.
  • Don’t accept access to a patient’s bank or other financial account.

And maintain professional conduct at all times with those with whom you come in contact, patients or otherwise.

Full Article & Source:

Saturday, June 5, 2021

Iowa lawyer who admitted stealing money from his employer and clients loses his license

An Iowa lawyer who admitted taking money from clients without doing any work on their cases has had his Iowa law license revoked by the Iowa Supreme Court. (Photo courtesy of Iowa Judicial Branch)

By Clark Kauffman

An eastern Iowa lawyer who two years ago admitted embezzling money from his employer, and who now admits improperly taking money from his clients, has had his Iowa law license revoked by the state’s Supreme Court.

According to the Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board, attorney Curtis W. Den Beste, formerly of Cedar Rapids, took money from clients, transferred money from client trust accounts into his own checking account, then neglected his cases and lied to clients about the true status of those cases.

“Ultimately, Den Beste abandoned his practice and simply kept client funds that had not been earned,” the board said in a recent filing with the Grievance Commission of the Supreme Court of Iowa.

The board said that because a “convincing preponderance of the evidence” established that Den Beste deliberately converted client funds to his own use, it is unnecessary for the Supreme Court to “dwell on” the other alleged violations he had allegedly committed.

In a sworn affidavit filed with the court, Den Beste, now living in Nevada, admitted that in 2018, he took $2,500 from an Iowa man named Mickey Harris to represent him in a guardianship case.

“I did not file anything on behalf of Harris in the guardianship matter, and I did no work on the case,” Den Beste stated, adding that he never provided Harris with a refund. “After several weeks, Harris asked me about the status of the case, and I responded that I had taken care of it, despite the fact that I had not filed anything.”

Den Beste has consented to the Iowa Supreme Court’s revocation of his Iowa law license. Under Iowa court rules, he will become eligible for readmission after five years.

In 2019, the Iowa Supreme Court suspended Den Beste’s license for a minimum of four months after he admitted accepting thousands of dollars in cash from clients and keeping the funds for himself instead of depositing the money in the general account of the law firm where he worked.

At that time, Chief Justice Mark Cady, writing for the majority of the court, said Den Beste had committed theft, but noted that the court typically treats theft from an attorney’s employer less harshly than theft from an attorney’s own clients.

In a partial dissent, Justice David Wiggins wrote that Den Beste’s actions amounted to felony second-degree theft — the sort of offense, he said, that often leads to a license revocation.

“Plain and simple, Den Beste admitted to stealing someone else’s money several times,” Wiggins wrote. “The state would almost surely charge a non-lawyer who embezzled over $9,000 from his or her employer with theft, but this attorney, who stipulated that he embezzled over $9,000 from his employer, avoids criminal punishment and this court gives him merely an insignificant disciplinary sanction.”

Full Article & Source:

Saturday, February 15, 2020

NJ man died after nursing home sent him on 3-hour Uber ride, widow says

The widow of an Ocean County man is suing a Pennsylvania senior-living facility, accusing it of negligence and wrongful death for sending an 81-year-old patient on a nearly three-hour Uber ride home across state lines in 2018, during which he suffered severe medical emergencies.

According to the federal lawsuit, Eugene Hamill moved into Twin Cedars residential facility on July 6, 2018. Hamill had multiple serious health conditions, including bone cancer and degenerative joint disease, and was required to wear a cardiac life vest "due to cardiac complications."

The lawsuit names former Twin Cedars administrator Tamara Singer as a co-defendant, making the claim that Singer was the person who discharged Hamill without providing his wife with advance notice.

On September 11, 2018, Hamill was discharged, put into a ride share vehicle and sent from the living facility in Pike County to his family's residence in Toms River, the lawsuit says.

Over the course of the ride, the lawsuit said Hamill began vomiting and eventually became unresponsive.

The complaint does not explain whether the Uber driver had sought earlier medical attention, but said that Hamill had suffered both a stroke and heart attack and required EMS transport to Barnabas Health Community Medical Center, where he was intubated, placed on a ventilator, and admitted to the Intensive Care Unit.

Hamill was then transferred to a nursing facility, where he remained until his death on Sept. 26, 2019, a day before he turned 83.

His wife of 63 years, Jeanne Hamill, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Scranton, Pennsylvania, on Monday.

The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services determined that Hamill was a "victim of neglect due to the unsafe discharge," after a Sept. 13, 2018 inspection based on a complaint regarding Hamill.

Twin Cedars had its license revoked in December 2018 for the failure to provide a 30-day discharge notice, and the facility was then issued a provisional license.

On written notice of the violation, Singer said she disagreed with the findings, as the situation was very "complex, with many different parties involved and their abandonment of this resident."

Full Article & Source:
NJ man died after nursing home sent him on 3-hour Uber ride, widow say