administrative complaint defense attorney

New Jersey Appeals Court Says Plaintiffs Don’t Need Presuit Affidavits to Sue LPNs in Medical Malpractice Cases

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

In a possibly precedent-setting case, on November 9, 2022, for the first time, an appeals court in New Jersey ruled that plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases do not need an affidavit of merit to file claims against a licensed practical nurse (LPNs). The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, said that an LPN is not included in the “licensed person” definition under the state’s affidavit of merit statute.

Additionally, the court’s ruling stated that an LPN could not use the absence of such an affidavit to avoid a medical malpractice suit. In this case, the malpractice suit was brought by a widower who says his wife died as a result of bad medical advice given by her LPN.

Allegations Made in the Lawsuit.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant (an LPN) responded to his complaints about his wife being in pain and unable to eat following her colon surgery by blaming the issue on “post-operative gas.” After allegedly ignoring numerous messages he left regarding her condition, the LPN allegedly told the husband to give his wife, Pepto Bismol. The following day, his wife died, according to the lawsuit.

In July 2020, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice claim on behalf of himself as the administrator of his wife’s estate. The lawsuit originally named the doctor, Virtua Surgical Group, and an unknown nurse. Following discovery, the plaintiff dismissed the claims against the doctor and Virtua Surgical Group, and proceeded against only the LPN. According to the opinion, the plaintiff alleged that the LPN was negligent in providing medical advice and in failing to consult with her doctor.

You can view the court’s opinion in full here on our website.

Is a Licensed Practical Nurse a “Licensed Person” Covered by the AOM Statute?

In New Jersey professional negligence cases, plaintiffs must file an “affidavit of merit,” or AOM, signed by a licensed medical professional, before they are allowed to sue those [professionals for malpractice. This results from a tort reform package passed by the state government in 1995.

Why there hasn’t been a case similar to this one, or lobbying by LPNs to sew up the legal “loophole” before now, is unclear.

Like many similar state statutes passed around the same time, the New Jersey statute was designed to balance between reducing frivolous lawsuits and permitting injured plaintiffs recovery for meritorious claims. According to the court’s decision, a plaintiff claiming “malpractice or negligence by a licensed person” must file an “affidavit of an appropriate licensed person” who can attest that there is a “reasonable probability” that defendant’s conduct “fell outside acceptable professional or occupational standards or treatment practices.”

The defendant in this case argued that since the nursing portion of the statute defines “the practice of nursing” for “a registered professional nurse,” the Legislature intended for licensed practical nurses to be included. However, the New Jersey appeals court held that the tort reform package would not protect the LPN from the lawsuit because she was a different kind of nurse from a registered nurse.

In his written opinion for the court, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Robert J. Gilson considered whether a licensed practical nurse is a “licensed person” covered under the AOM statute. “The AOM statute expressly uses the term ‘a registered professional nurse.’ Yet, nowhere in that definition of a registered professional nurse is there a reference to a licensed practical nurse,” he added.

Gilson stated in the court’s opinion that the Legislature was aware that it had separately defined the two types of nurses. In other words, if it had wanted to protect LPNs at the same time as it was protecting RNs, it could have done so. Therefore, the plaintiff was allowed to pursue claims without an AOM. However, the plaintiff would still be required to prove the defendant’s negligence to succeed.

Click here to view the opinion in full.

Click here to read one of our related blogs about legal issues LPNs often face.

Who Is a “Professional” and What Is “Malpractice”?

“Malpractice” is usually defined as the negligence of or the breach of a professional duty by a professional. In other words, professional negligence.

How do we determine who is a “professional” then? The simple rule of thumb is that anyone who is required to have a license in order to perform his or her occupation is a professional. Thus, under this definition, we have attorneys, dentists, accountants, architects, engineers, funeral directors, teachers, all are required to have licenses, depending upon what state they are in. Thus there can be accounting malpractice, engineering malpractice, architectural malpractice and, yes, even legal malpractice. Under this definition, a licensed practical nurse would be considered a professional who could commit nursing malpractice.

However, if the wording of law limits coverage to only certain listed professions, and other professions are left out, then only the ones specifically listed will be covered by its application.

Is the Decision Limited or Possibly Widespread?

The decision appears to be a correct one based on the wording of the New Jersey statute. If “licensed practical nurses” was not a category of licensed professionals included by the Legislature in the New Jersey statute, then the courts should not “read them into” coverage by the statute. Unfortunately, this was probably merely an oversight on the part of whatever bill drafter and committee proposed the legislation in the first place. Licensed practical nurses and their professional associations should immediately lobby the Legislature of New Jersey to have the “loophole” filled.

Whether similar results are possible in other states will depend on the wording of the similar laws in those states. For example, Florida has a somewhat similar statute, but it does not actually name the specific category of medical provider covered by the act (e.g., “medical doctor,” “chiropractor”). Instead, the Florida Law, Section 766.202, Florida Statutes, refers to those covered by the medical malpractice statute as “any person licensed under part I of chapter 464, Florida Statutes. . . .[etc.]” Registered nurses, licensed practical nurses and advanced nurse practitioners are all licensed under that part and chapter of the Florida law. So a problem similar to the one in New Jersey never arises.

Contact Health Law Attorneys With Experience Representing Nurses and Handling Licensing Issues.

If you are applying for a nursing or healthcare license, have had a license suspended or revoked, or are facing imminent action against your license, you must contact an experienced healthcare attorney to assist you in defending your career. Remember, your license is your livelihood; it is not recommended that you pursue these matters without the assistance of an attorney. The Health Law Firm routinely represents nurses, physicians, dentists, medical groups, clinics, and other healthcare providers in personal and facility licensing issues.

To contact The Health Law Firm, call (407) 331-6620 or toll-free (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Karpan, Andrew. “No Affidavit Needed To Sue ‘Practical’ Nurses, NJ Court Says.” Law360. (November 9, 2022). Web.

Murphy, Colleen. “NJ Appeals Court: No Affidavit of Merit Needed for Negligence Claim Against Licensed Practical Nurse.” Law.com. (November 10, 2022). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave., Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

Current Open Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm always seeks qualified individuals interested in health law. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a current member of The Florida Bar or a qualified professional who is interested, please forward a cover letter and resume to: [email protected] or fax them to (407) 331-3030

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2023 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

Ex-Surgery Technician Slaps Georgia Urology Practice With Federal Discrimination Lawsuit

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On November 7, 2022, a former surgical technician hit a Georgia urology practice with a federal discrimination lawsuit, claiming it denied him a raise after complaining that a co-worker threatened him because of his sexuality. The plaintiff sued Georgia Urology, P.A., alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and various state laws. He said that in addition to harassment from co-workers, management denied him a predetermined raise after he complained about an unnecessary, unlawful disclosure of his medical history and denied him overtime pay. He is seeking back pay and future pay (front pay), lost benefits, and other damages.

Alleged Ongoing Harassment.

Georgia Urology hired the former surgical tech in July 2020, and shortly after this, he alleges that his co-workers started referring to him using slurs concerning his sexual orientation. After he reported the statements to the operations director, the interim director of the practice, and the CEO, they told him if he was that unhappy at work, he should find a new job, according to the complaint.

Additionally, as part of his onboarding procedure with the medical practice, the plaintiff was required to take a blood test. According to the complaint, the director of ambulatory surgery centers asked a nurse manager to administer the test and send the results to a lab. In early November 2020, the nurse manager contacted the lab using her company credentials and asked for the plaintiffs’ lab information. But she said she was calling concerning a patient, rather than an employee, of Georgia Urology, he alleged. As a result, the lab disclosed his diagnosis to her, which he said was not a necessary term of employment. The complaint did not indicate any diagnosis.

He reported the breach of privacy to the urology practice’s director of people operations, but she was never disciplined for her actions. Instead, according to the complaint, the nurse manager denied his automatic pay raise several days after, even though he had completed the 90-day probationary period. Furthermore, she later asked him how he was even hired given his diagnosis, he claims later in his complaint.

Alleged Retaliatory Behavior From Co-Workers.

Later in November 2020, he said the nurse manager issued a write-up for an alleged incident that had occurred several weeks before his reporting her for obtaining his medical files. The former surgical tech said the retaliatory write-up was removed from his file, but the defendant never disciplined her for issuing the write-up.

In early December 2020, he again complained to management about the ongoing harassment. In response, the practice agreed to give him his raise on the condition that he “stop whining so much,” but he claims he never received the raise, according to the complaint.

The defendant eventually fired the plaintiff on December 17, 2020, for allegedly creating a staff shortage when he was out sick, even though the practice was not short-staffed. You can read the complaint in this case in full here.

To read about a similar case involving a pharmacist, click here to read one of our prior blogs.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Health Care Professionals and Providers.

At the Health Law Firm we provide legal services for all health care providers and professionals.
This includes physicians, nurses, dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors,
Durable Medical Equipment suppliers, medical students and interns, hospitals, ambulatory surgical
centers, pain management clinics, nursing homes, and any other healthcare provider. We represent
facilities, individuals, groups and institutions in contracts, sales, mergers and acquisitions.

The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in both formal and informal administrative
hearings and in representing physicians in investigations and at Board of Medicine and Board of
Osteopathic Medicine hearings. We represent physicians accused of wrongdoing, in patient complaints and in Department of Health investigations. Several of our attorneys act as expert witnesses in attorney’s fee litigation and in health law litigation.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or toll free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.ThehealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Wargo, Abbey. “Ex-Surgery Tech Accuses Urology Practice Of Anti-Gay Bias.” Law360. (November 7, 2020). Web.

Ferrier, Valerie. “Bias Ruling Spotlights Confusion Over Protected Categories.” Law360. (August 25, 2020). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

Current Open Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm always seeks qualified individuals interested in health law. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a current member of The Florida Bar or a qualified professional who is interested, please forward a cover letter and resume to: [email protected] or fax them to (407) 331-3030.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T09:59:10-04:00March 2, 2024|Categories: Medical Education Law Blog|Tags: administrative complaint defense attorney, administrative hearing defense lawyer, attorney for resident physicians, attorney's fee expert witness, complex civil litigation attorney, complex health care litigation attorney, complex healthcare litigation lawyer, complex litigation representation, complex medical litigation lawyer, discrimination attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigation defense, graduate medical education hearing lawyer, health law expert witness, hospital medical staff peer review defense legal counsel, legal fees expert witness, legal representation for investigations against health care professionals, legal representation for physicians, medical staff clinical privileges defense attorney lawyer, medical staff clinical privileges defense legal representation, medical staff peer review defense attorney lawyer, nurse legal representation, residency program dispute legal representation, resident physician defense legal representation, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, the health law firm, The Health Law Firm attorney|Comments Off

Follow These Simple Rules To Keep Your License & Avoid Complaints If You Are a Counselor or Psychotherapists

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

I represent many mental health counselors, social workers, psychologists, and professional counselors, defending them on complaints being investigated against their professional licenses. Many complaints and investigations arise because the therapist has strayed over the line and crossed the therapist-client boundary. In reviewing these cases, I have drawn up a list of a few simple “bright line” rules that can help save you many hours of stress and mental anguish as well as thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees and costs defending yourself

These “rules” may seem to be common sense, but there they are, anyway:

1. DO NOT ever meet the client at an outside social activity or attend a social event with the client. This includes “just dinner” or “just-drinks.”

2. DO NOT text the client. Texting is not secure and leads to casual and unprofessional thinking and conversation with the client. Many health care institutions prohibit their physicians and employees from texting with clients because of the HIPAA Security and Privacy Rules. You can use that as an excuse if you need one.

3. DO take a screenshot and print out the text when you violate the above rule. Place it in the client’s health record because you will probably be seeing it again, attached to a complaint.

4. DO send an e-mail or, better yet, a professional letter to the client, instead of texting the client. Print out a copy and place it in the client’s health record, because you will probably see it again.

5. DO NOT EVER make any suggestive or sexual remarks to the client in any communications, oral or written or text, or e-mail. In fact, DON’T even think about it. This includes off-color jokes and comments.

6. DO immediately terminate the relationship with the client, transferring care to a different therapist, if the client suggests anything of a sexual nature involving you.

7. DO NOT talk about other clients with the client.

8. DO NOT talk about your own personal life with the client. Especially DO NOT let the client have your personal home address or personal e-mail address.

9. DO NOT ever have sex with a client or former client. DO NOT even think of it. If you start to think of it, see Rule 6, above. Consider clients and former clients “off-limits” no matter how much you are tempted. If you are religious, just consider this as an attempt by Satan to seduce you. If it works, you are going to be in Hell, even before you die.

10. DO know what professional boundaries are and DO NOT cross them. This includes allowing a personal relationship to grow between you and the client, and includes selling anything to the client (e.g., Girl Scout cookies, tickets to a charitable event, Amway products, candy bars for your kids’ school band, etc.), agreeing to meet the client at any outside event, accepting gifts from the client, hiring the client to work for you, accepting “voluntary” services from the client (including volunteering to work in your office). If you need a friend that bad, terminate the therapist-client relationship and see Rule 6, above.

11. DO know that if you have even a suspicion that your therapist-client relationship is getting out of bounds, then it already is out of bounds. See Rule 6, above.

12. DO call a professional therapist colleague who is more senior to you and consult her or him about the “situation” if you think there may be a “situation.”

These may sound like “no-brainers” to you, but you would be surprised at how many complaints against licensed counselors and psychologists there are as a result of violating one or more of these “rules.”

(Note: These “rules” are just guidelines meant to help you keep out of trouble; these are not meant to be enforced against anyone, nor do they create or represent any “standard of care.”)

For additional information on how our firm can assist you in matters like this, click here to read one of our prior blogs.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced Investigations of Mental Health Counselors, Psychologists, Social Workers, and Family Therapists.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to mental health counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and family therapists in Department of Health (DOH) investigations, Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) investigations, board hearings, FBI investigations, and other types of investigations of health professionals and providers. To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or toll-free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

We also defend health professionals and health facilities in general litigation matters and business litigation matters.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2021 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T09:59:11-04:00February 21, 2024|Categories: Health Facilities Law Blog|Tags: administrative complaint defense attorney, administrative complaint defense lawyer, administrative hearing defense counsel, defense lawyer for psychologists, Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) complaint investigation defense counsel, Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) defense attorney, Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) investigations administrative hearing defense lawyer, Florida Board of Medicine hearing defense attorney, Florida Department of Health (DOH) attorney, Florida health law defense attorney, Healthcare Providers Service Organization (HPSO attorney, informal administrative hearing defense attorney, legal representation for psychiatrists, licensed professional counselor (LPC) defense attorney, licensed professional counselor (LPC) legal representation, medical license defense, mental health counselor defense lawyer, mental health counselor legal representation, representation for administrative complaint hearings, representation for administrative hearings, representation for Department of Health (DOH) complaint investigations, representation for health care professionals, representation for licensed mental health counselors (LMHCs), representation for psychiatric nurse practitioners, representation for social workers, representation in complaint investigations, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, social worker complaint cases, social worker defense attorney, social worker defense lawyer, The Health Law Firm reviews|Comments Off

Nurse Faces Suit for Wrongful Death of Jail Inmate Says 10th Circuit Court of Appeals

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On March 3, 2021, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part, a Utah court’s decision on a lawsuit for the death of a 21-year-old inmate, affirming that the jail’s doctor could claim qualified immunity, but not the nurse. After the inmate’s death, her estate sued for depriving her of her civil rights. The U.S. district court granted summary judgment in favor of the county. It ruled that qualified immunity applied to shield jail supervisors and staff. However, it denied qualified immunity to jail nurse Jana Clyde and to a private doctor who consulted with the prison, Dr. Kennon Tubbs.

The 10th Circuit appeal panel reversed the lower court’s decision, stating that one doctor can claim qualified immunity. It ruled that the jail’s nurse must face claims of civil rights violations, which are not subject to immunity. Court filings alleged that jail staff, including its nurse, ignored the inmate’s rapidly deteriorating health.

Failure to Secure Medical Treatment Despite Obvious Risks to the Inmate.

In 2016, Madison Jensen, the inmate, allegedly died from opiate withdrawal at the Duchesne County jail in Utah. After the 21-year old inmate was booked, she was allegedly placed in a cell with another woman and almost immediately began vomiting. Her vomiting allegedly continued for five days. The jail’s nurse failed to tell the physician’s assistant or doctor about Jensen’s condition, according to the complaint.

The jail’s video recording system captured the female inmate rolling off her bed and having a seizure. About 30 minutes later, both the nurse and doctor discovered she had died in her cell, the complaint said. The inmate’s cause of death was reported to be cardiac arrhythmia from dehydration due to opiate withdrawal.

Civil Rights Violation Claims.

After the inmate’s death, her estate sued for deprivation of her civil rights. The United States District Court for the District of Utah granted summary judgment for the county and the jail supervisors and staff, based on their qualified immunity. However, it denied qualified immunity to the jail nurse and the contracted doctor. Jensen’s estate claimed the jail nurse had shown deliberate indifference to the inmate’s serious medical needs, as she failed to secure medical treatment despite obvious signs and risks. In response, the nurse argued that she took reasonable steps to provide care and that she wasn’t aware that the inmate faced serious medical needs.

The circuit court judges held that “the unique circumstances of this case” allow the doctor to raise the defense of his qualified immunity. As for the jail nurse, the court said, “a trier of fact could conclude that she did not just misdiagnose Ms. Jensen, she ‘completely refused to fulfill her duty as gatekeeper.’ The nurse showed “near-complete indifference” toward the inmate that “grossly deviated from the standard of care for treating severe dehydration, especially when the result of a failure to treat is death” according to the court’s opinion.

“We believe that these circumstances — particularly her [the inmate’s] self-report that she had been vomiting for four days and could not keep down water — present a risk of harm that would be obvious to a reasonable person,” the court said. To read more, click here for the court’s opinion in full.

This isn’t the first case of an inmate’s family suing after Improper Care. Click here to read about a similar wrongful death suit of a Florida inmate.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Representing Health Care Professionals and Providers.

At the Health Law Firm, we provide legal services for all health care providers and professionals. This includes physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), dentists, psychologists, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, home health agencies, hospitals, ambulatory surgical centers, pain management clinics, nursing homes, and any other healthcare provider. It also includes medical students, resident physicians, and fellows, as well as medical school professors and clinical staff. We represent health facilities, individuals, groups, and institutions in contracts, sales, mergers, and acquisitions. The lawyers of The Health Law Firm are experienced in complex litigation and both formal and informal administrative hearings. We also represent physicians accused of wrongdoing, patient complaints, and in Department of Health investigations.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call our office at (407) 331-6620 or toll-free at (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.ThehealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Gill, Lauren. “UTAH JAIL NURSE FACES NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CHARGE IN DEATH OF 21-YEAR-OLD WOMAN.” The Appeal. (August 1, 2019). Web.

O’Brian, Rachel. “10th Circ. Says Nurse Must Face Wrongful Death Suit.” Law360. (March 13, 2021). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Avene, Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toff-Free: (888) 331-6620.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2021 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T09:59:11-04:00February 18, 2024|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: administrative complaint defense attorney, administrative hearing defense lawyer, and Florida GBoard of Nursing defense attorney, appeal of board of nursing final order, Board of Nursing informal hearing attorney, Certified Nurse Midwife (CNM) legal representation, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) attorney representation, Colorado Division of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) defense attorney, Colorado Division of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) defense lawyer, Department of Health (DOH) investigation of nurses, Georgia, Georgia and Florida Department of Health (DOH) defense lawyer, Health Law Firm reviews, legal representation of Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners (ARNPs), Louisiana, nurse administrative complaint defense, nurse attorney Florida Colorado Louisiana Virginia, nurse emergency suspension order appeals representation, nurse legal representation, nurse license application, representation for deposition of nurses, representation for Florida Colorado Division of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) complaint investigations, representation for Louisiana and Florida Department of Health (DOH) complaint investigations, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys|Comments Off

Appellate Court Reverses Nursing Board’s Revocation of License For Florida Nurse; “Due Process Rights Violated” Says Court of Appeal

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On September 22, 2022, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal reversed a final administrative order from the Board of Nursing, saying that the state agencies engaged in “a game of bait and switch” when revoking a Florida nurse’s license. As a result, the discipline imposed on the nurse, revocation of her nursing license, is reversed. The appeals court said that the Florida Board of Nursing violated the nurse’s due process rights by imposing a penalty for violating patient confidentiality when she was only charged with having her license suspended in another state.

Details About the Case.

In 2018, the Florida Department of Health (DOH) filed a complaint and an amended complaint against the nurse. According to the DOH, she violated section 464.018(1)(b) by having her license to practice nursing in another state suspended. However, the Florida state nursing board issued a final order permanently revoking her Florida license, a punishment that was not within the regulatory guidelines that the Board of Nursing had previously adopted for the offense with which she was charged.

Also, the nurse had originally requested a formal hearing. She was allegedly informed she was not entitled to a formal hearing and was not notified she should appear when the Board of Nursing held the informal hearing on her case.

The nurse claimed the actions by the Florida DOH and the Florida Board of Nursing deprived her of her right to due process of law according to the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The appellate court agreed.

State Agencies Not Communicating?

According to the court opinion, the Board and the DOH engaged in a “bait and switch game.” The state’s DOH allegedly failed to notify her of all the alleged violations that later led to the permanent revocation of her nursing license. The opinion of the appellate court stated: “More egregious than this, there was no mention in the amended complaint of an alleged violation of section 464.018(1)(h), [of Florida Statutes,] pertaining to her allegedly unprofessional conduct. In essence, the Board punished Appellant [the nurse] for this uncharged violation.”

Moreover, the appellate court said that the DOH applied the wrong disciplinary guideline for the uncharged violation. The applicable guideline only authorized a fine of up to $500 and probation as the maximum penalty. See Rule 64B9-8.006(3)(f)3, Florida Administrative Code (2012).

Based on these findings, the three-judge appellate panel reversed the revocation order, remanding it for further proceedings. Read the entire Florida court opinion on our website.

Click here to read our blog to learn more about state and DOH investigations that could help save your professional license.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Board of Nursing Cases.

The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely represent nurses in Department of Health investigations, before the Board of Nursing, in appearances before the Board of Nursing in licensing matters, in formal and informal administrative hearings, and in appeals of Final Orders.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or toll free (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Dunn, Allison. “State Agencies Engaged in ‘Game of Bait-and-Switch’ When Revoking Nursing License, Florida Appeals Court Rules.” Daily Business Review. (September 22, 2022). Web.

Pazanowski, Mary Ann. “Florida Nurse Gets New Hearing in License Revocation Dispute.” Bloomberg Law. (September 21, 2022). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or toll-free (888) 331-6620.

Attorney Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm is always looking for qualified attorneys interested in health law practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a member of The Florida Bar and are interested, forward a cover letter and your resume to: [email protected] or fax to: (407) 331-3030.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T09:59:12-04:00February 15, 2024|Categories: Health Facilities Law Blog|Tags: administrative complaint defense attorney, administrative hearing defense lawyer, appeal of board of nursing final order, board of nursing complaint defense attorney, Board of Nursing complaint legal representation, board of nursing defense lawyer, Board of Nursing informal hearing attorney, certified nurse midwife (CNM) defense legal representation, certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) defense attorney representation, Department of Health (DOH) complaint defense lawyer, Department of Health (DOH) investigation defense attorney, DOH final order appeal attorney, Health Law Firm reviews, healthcare license defense attorney, healthcare license representation, legal representation of advance nurse practitioners (ANP) defense lawyer, Louisiana Florida District of Columbia (D.C.) Department of Health (DOH) defense lawyer, medical license defense lawyer, nurse administrative complaint defense, nurse attorney Florida, nurse emergency suspension order appeal representation, nurse legal representation, nurse license application, nurse license defense representation, representation for deposition of nurses, representation for healthcare professionals, representation for Louisiana Florida and District of Columbia (D.C.) Department of Health (DOH) complaint investigations, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys|Comments Off

New Jersey Appeals Court Says Plaintiffs Don’t Need Affidavit to Sue LPN in Medical Malpractice Cases

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

In a precedent-setting case, on November 9, 2022, for the first time, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases do not need an affidavit of merit before filing a claim against a licensed practical nurse (LPN). In many states, Florida included, licensed practical nurses (LPNs) and registered nurses (RNs) are included in coverage by the state’s medical malpractice pre-suit screening act. This requires a plaintiff to conduct a pre-suit screening and obtain an affidavit of expert opinion from a similar expert witness that states that the nurse has committed malpractice that harmed the patient. without such an affidavit, the suit is not permitted.

No distinction is usually made between the rights of a licensed practical nurse and a registered nurse. After all, they both are required to have licenses from the state.

In this case, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, said that an LPN is not included in the “licensed person” definition under the state’s affidavit of merit statute. Additionally, the court’s opinion stated that an LPN could not use the lack of such an affidavit to dodge a medical malpractice suit. In this case, the malpractice suit was brought by a widower who says his wife died due to bad advice given by the LPN about how to treat his wife’s pain.

The Details of the Lawsuit.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant (an LPN) responded to his complaints about his wife being in pain and unable to eat following her colon surgery by blaming the issue on “post-operative gas. “After ignoring numerous messages he left regarding her condition, the LPN allegedly told the husband (plaintiff) to give his wife, Pepto Bismol. The following day, his wife died, according to the lawsuit.

In July 2020, the plaintiff filed a medical malpractice claim as his wife’s estate administrator. The lawsuit originally named as defendants the doctor, Virtua Surgical Group, and an unknown nurse. Following discovery in the case, the plaintiff dismissed the claims against the other defendants and named only the LPN as a defendant. According to the appellate opinion, he alleged that the defendant was negligent in providing medical advice and failing to consult with her doctor.

You can view the court’s opinion in full here on our website.

Is a Licensed Practical Nurse a “Licensed Person” Covered by the Statute?

In New Jersey professional negligence cases, plaintiffs must file an “affidavit of merit,” or AOM, signed by a licensed medical professional with training or credentials similar to those of the professional to be sued. This comes from a tort reform law passed by the state government in 1995. The statute was originally designed to provide a balance between reducing frivolous lawsuits and permitting injured plaintiffs recovery for meritorious claims. It is similar to requirements that exist in many states.

According to the appellate court’s opinion, a plaintiff claiming “malpractice or negligence by a licensed person” must file an “affidavit of an appropriate licensed person” who can attest that there is a “reasonable probability” that defendant’s conduct “fell outside acceptable professional or occupational standards or treatment practices.” This is required before an actual suit is allowed.

The defendant argued that since the nursing portion of the statute defines “the practice of nursing” for “a registered professional nurse,” the Legislature intended for licensed practical nurses to be included. However, the appeals court held that the tort reform package would not protect her from the lawsuit because she did not fall within the definition in the law. She was not a registered professional nurse. Instead, she was a different type of nurse.

In his written opinion for the court, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Robert J. Gilson considered whether a licensed practical nurse is a “licensed person” covered under the AOM statute. “The AOM statute expressly uses the term ‘a registered professional nurse.’ Yet, nowhere in that definition of a registered professional nurse is there a reference to a licensed practical nurse,” he added.

Gilson stated in the opinion that the New Jersey Legislature was aware that it had separately defined the two different types of nurses. Therefore, the statute did not apply to or protect the LPN, and the plaintiff was allowed to pursue claims without an AOM. Nevertheless, the court said, the plaintiff must still prove the defendant’s negligence to succeed.

Click here to view the opinion in full.

Click here to read one of our related blogs about legal issues LPNs often face.

The New Jersey Case is Probably Not a Precedent for Most States.

Usually, the test for whether or not malpractice or professional negligence has been committed for legal purposes is whether or not the individual is a member of a learned profession. This is usually indicated by the requirement of a professional license to practice that profession. Using this definition, both a licensed practical nurse and a licensed registered nurse are considered professionals, and their “professional negligence” is considered malpractice covered by medical (nursing) malpractice laws.

Moreover, the laws in some states, such as Florida, define which professionals are covered by their medical malpractice presuit screening act by listing the licensing laws to which the medical malpractice presuit screening act applies. Thus, in Florida, Section 766.202(4), Florida Statutes refer to those licensed by Chapter 464 (Part I), Florida Statutes. Both licensed practical nurses and registered nurses are licensed in accordance with that Chapter of Florida Statutes. Thus both are covered by the Florida Medical Malpractice Presuit Screening Act.

Contact Health Law Attorneys With Experience Representing Nurses and Handling Licensing Issues.

If you are applying for a nursing or healthcare license, have had a license suspended or revoked, or are facing imminent action against your license, you must contact an experienced healthcare attorney to assist you in defending your career. Remember, your license is your livelihood. It is not recommended that you attempt to pursue these matters without the assistance of an attorney. The Health Law Firm routinely represents nurses, physicians, dentists, medical groups, clinics, and other healthcare providers in personal and facility licensing issues. If you have received a notice that a complaint has been filed against you or that you are under investigation by the department of health or your licensing board, we routinely provide legal representation in such matters; often, there may be insurance coverage that may pay for your legal defense.

To contact The Health Law Firm, call (407) 331-6620 or toll-free (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Karpan, Andrew. “No Affidavit Needed To Sue ‘Practical’ Nurses, NJ Court Says.” Law360. (November 9, 2022). Web.

Murphy, Colleen. “NJ Appeals Court: No Affidavit of Merit Needed for Negligence Claim Against Licensed Practical Nurse.” Law.com. (November 10, 2022). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or Toll-Free: (888) 331-6620.

Employment with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm is always seeking qualified attorneys, paralegals and legal staff interested in health law. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a current member of The Florida Bar or a qualified legal professional or secretary, who is interested, please forward your cover letter and resume to: [email protected] or fax them to (407) 331-3030.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T09:59:12-04:00February 8, 2024|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: administrative complaint defense attorney, appeal of board of nursing final order, board of nursing complaint defense attorney, Board of Nursing complaint legal representation, board of nursing defense lawyer, Board of Nursing informal hearing attorney, certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) defense attorney representation, Department of Health (DOH) complaint defense lawyer, Department of Health (DOH) investigation defense attorney, formal administrative hearing defense lawyer, Health Law Firm reviews, healthcare license defense attorney, legal representation nurses, legal representation of advance nurse practitioners (ANP) defense lawyer, medical license defense lawyer, military and Veterans Administration (VA) defense lawyer, nurse administrative complaint defense, nurse attorney, nurse attorney Florida, nurse defense attorney, nurse defense lawyer, nurse deposition defense attorney, nurse emergency restriction order (ERO) appeal representation, nurse emergency suspension order (ESO) appeal representation, nursing negligence defense lawyer, patient complaint defense attorney, representation for deposition of nurses, representation for healthcare professionals, representation for nursing license complaint defense, reviews, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, the health law firm|Comments Off

Florida Nurse Wins Reversal by Appellate Court of Nursing Board’s Revocation of License; “Due Process Rights Violated” Says Court of Appeal

By George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law

On September 22, 2022, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal reversed a final administrative order from the Board of Nursing, saying that the state agencies engaged in “a game of bait and switch” when revoking a Florida nurse’s license. As a result, the discipline imposed on the nurse, revocation of her nursing license, is reversed. The appeals court said that the Florida Board of Nursing violated the nurse’s due process rights by imposing a penalty for violating patient confidentiality when she was only charged with having her license suspended in another state.

Details About the Case.

In 2018, the Florida Department of Health (DOH) filed a complaint and an amended complaint against the nurse. According to the DOH, she violated section 464.018(1)(b) by having her license to practice nursing in another state suspended. However, the Florida state nursing board issued a final order permanently revoking her Florida license, a punishment that was not within the regulatory guidelines that the Board of Nursing had previously adopted for the offense with which she was charged.

Also, the nurse had originally requested a formal hearing. She was allegedly informed she was not entitled to a formal hearing and was not notified she should appear when the Board of Nursing held the informal hearing on her case.

The nurse claimed the actions by the Florida DOH and the Florida Board of Nursing deprived her of her right to due process of law according to the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The appellate court agreed.

State Agencies Not Communicating?

According to the court opinion, the Board and the DOH engaged in a “bait and switch game.” The state’s DOH allegedly failed to notify her of all the alleged violations that later led to the permanent revocation of her nursing license. The opinion of the appellate court stated: “More egregious than this, there was no mention in the amended complaint of an alleged violation of section 464.018(1)(h), [of Florida Statutes,] pertaining to her allegedly unprofessional conduct. In essence, the Board punished Appellant [the nurse] for this uncharged violation.”

Moreover, the appellate court said that the DOH applied the wrong disciplinary guideline for the uncharged violation. The applicable guideline only authorized a fine of up to $500 and probation as the maximum penalty. See Rule 64B9-8.006(3)(f)3, Florida Administrative Code (2012).

Based on these findings, the three-judge appellate panel reversed the revocation order, remanding it for further proceedings. Read the entire Florida court opinion on our website.

Click here to read our blog to learn more about state and DOH investigations that could help save your professional license.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced in Board of Nursing Cases.

The Health Law Firm’s attorneys routinely represent nurses in Department of Health investigations, before the Board of Nursing, in appearances before the Board of Nursing in licensing matters, in formal and informal administrative hearings, and in appeals of Final Orders.

To contact The Health Law Firm please call (407) 331-6620 or toll free (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Dunn, Allison. “State Agencies Engaged in ‘Game of Bait-and-Switch’ When Revoking Nursing License, Florida Appeals Court Rules.” Daily Business Review. (September 22, 2022). Web.

Pazanowski, Mary Ann. “Florida Nurse Gets New Hearing in License Revocation Dispute.” Bloomberg Law. (September 21, 2022). Web.

About the Author: George F. Indest III, J.D., M.P.A., LL.M., is Board Certified by The Florida Bar in Health Law. He is the President and Managing Partner of The Health Law Firm, which has a national practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or toll-free (888) 331-6620.

Attorney Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm is always looking for qualified attorneys interested in health law practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a member of The Florida Bar and are interested, forward a cover letter and your resume to: [email protected] or fax to: (407) 331-3030.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.
Copyright © 2022 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T09:59:13-04:00January 11, 2024|Categories: Nursing Law Blog|Tags: administrative complaint defense attorney, administrative hearing defense lawyer, appeal of board of nursing final order, board of nursing complaint defense attorney, Board of Nursing complaint legal representation, board of nursing defense lawyer, Board of Nursing informal hearing attorney, certified nurse midwife (CNM) defense legal representation, certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) defense attorney representation, Department of Health (DOH) complaint defense lawyer, Department of Health (DOH) investigation defense attorney, DOH final order appeal attorney, Health Law Firm reviews, healthcare license defense attorney, healthcare license representation, legal representation of advance nurse practitioners (ANP) defense lawyer, Louisiana Florida District of Columbia (D.C.) Department of Health (DOH) defense lawyer, medical license defense lawyer, nurse administrative complaint defense, nurse attorney Florida, nurse emergency suspension order appeal representation, nurse legal representation, nurse license application, nurse license defense representation, representation for deposition of nurses, representation for healthcare professionals, representation for Louisiana Florida and District of Columbia (D.C.) Department of Health (DOH) complaint investigations, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys|Comments Off

Tele-behavioral Health: Important Legal Considerations for Mental Health Providers

By Amanda I. Forbes, J.D.

Starting in 2020 and throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, tele-behavioral health services, also known as “e-counseling,” rapidly expanded. Because individuals were quarantined or fearful to venture out, remote mental health care services became very popular among patients. A study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), including 36 million working-age individuals, revealed that tele-health services increased by 766% in the first three months of the pandemic.

Thanks to remote services like tele-behavioral health, the doctor’s “house call” is making a comeback; but instead of ringing the doorbell, your doctor will be ringing your smartphone.

What is Tele-behavioral Health?

The National Institute of Mental Health defines telebehavioral health as “the use of telecommunications or videoconferencing technology to provide remote mental health services.” Providers can use video conferencing, text messaging, or smartphone apps. Additionally, many different types of behavioral health services are available remotely.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) says remote visits are a safe and convenient way for mental and behavioral health providers to offer services such as:

1. One-on-one and group therapy
2. Substance abuse counseling
3. Medication management and prescribing
4. Anxiety and depression monitoring
5. Mental health screening
6. Referrals

What Are the Potential Benefits?

Tele-behavioral health services enable clinicians to reach more patients, such as people living in rural areas, working irregular hours, and homebound patients. It removes patient barriers to attending in-person appointments, such as taking time off work, transportation, and arranging childcare.

The Downside to Tele-behavioral Health.

In addition to its convenience, tele-behavioral health also ushers in a new era of risks for treatment providers to be aware of. It’s particularly true if the counseling occurs via text or a similar instant messaging application. As a licensed mental health care professional, you must know about liability exposures and ways to improve patient safety.

Click here to read about a case study demonstrating the issues that can arise when conducting tele-behavioral health.

When it comes to tele-behavioral health services and technology, there are significant legal considerations to think about.

To make sure you can provide remote counseling effectively while handling the risks that come with it, follow these risk management tips and recommendations:

1. Obtain the necessary training to provide telebehavioral health services. Take continuing education units (CEUs) in tele-behavioral health and retain any certificates of completion associated with those CEUs.

2. Determine whether tele-behavioral health treatment is in the client’s best interest. The provider should consider the following: Can the client effectively use the technology required for tele-behavioral health? Does the client’s insurance cover telebehavioral health services? Is the client emotionally and cognitively compatible with this treatment modality?

3. Obtain informed consent from the client. In addition, document the purpose of the counseling, the use of technology to facilitate the tele-behavioral health services, and confidentiality and privacy. Obtain informed consent by having the client sign a consent form. Have a document record of the consent process and consent form in the client’s file.

4. Providers must adhere to encryption standards. Some examples are using a secure platform, ensuring that the vendor signs a HIPAA Business Associate Agreement, which is required by HIPAA laws and regulations, and stating the vendor will follow federal privacy requirements.

5. Ensure client confidentiality by advising them of their responsibility to be in a private space during the telebehavioral health session. Document this discussion and include this as part of your agreement with the client.

6. Providers must check their state and third-party requirements related to tele-behavioral health services, credentialing, and licensure. Contact your respective licensing board for additional information and consult a health law attorney if unsure.

To read one of our prior blogs on telehealth services and learn more information on this growing area of practice, click here.

Contact Health Law Attorneys Experienced Investigations of Mental Health Counselors, Psychologists, Social Workers, and Family Therapists.

The attorneys of The Health Law Firm provide legal representation to mental health counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and family therapists in Department of Health (DOH) investigations, Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) investigations, board hearings, FBI investigations, and other types of investigations of health professionals and providers. We also defend health professionals and health facilities in general litigation matters and business litigation matters.

To contact The Health Law Firm, please call (407) 331-6620 or toll-free: (888) 331-6620 and visit our website at www.TheHealthLawFirm.com.

Sources:

Counselor Liability Claim Report: 2nd Edition.”CNA AND HPSO COUNSELOR SPOTLIGHT: Telebehavioral Health”. Healthcare Providers Service Organization (HPSO). (2019). https://www.hpso.com/getmedia/f9369f13-7035-4955-bcb6-9843b9ff44c2/counselor-spotlight-telebehavioral-health.pdf

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). “Telehealth and behavioral health”. (July 25, 2023).https://telehealth.hhs.gov/patients/telehealth-and-behavioral-health#:~:text=Telehealth%20is%20a%20safe%20and,a%20long%2Dterm%20treatment%20plan.

National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). “What is Telemental Health?” (Accessed on December 12, 223). https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/what-is-telemental-health

About the Author: Amanda I. Forbes, practices health law with The Health Law Firm in its Altamonte Springs, Florida, office. Its main office is in Orlando, Florida, area. www.TheHealthLawFirm.com. The Health Law Firm, 1101 Douglas Ave. Suite 1000, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714, Phone: (407) 331-6620 or toll-free: (888) 331-6620.

Attorney Positions with The Health Law Firm. The Health Law Firm is always looking for qualified attorneys interested in health law practice. Its main office is in the Orlando, Florida, area. If you are a member of The Florida Bar and are interested, forward a cover letter and your resume to: [email protected] or fax to: (407) 331-3030.

“The Health Law Firm” is a registered fictitious business name of and a registered service mark of The Health Law Firm, P.A., a Florida professional service corporation, since 1999.

Copyright © 2024 The Health Law Firm. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any fashion in any medium for any purpose without the written permission of the copyright owner. The copyright owner asserts the right to have its name associated with the use of any part of this work.

By The Health Law Firm|2024-03-14T09:59:14-04:00January 2, 2024|Categories: Mental Health Law Blog|Tags: administrative complaint defense attorney, administrative complaint defense lawyer, administrative hearing defense counsel, administrative hearing defense lawyer, Board of Mental Health defense lawyer, Board of Psychology legal representation, complaint investigation defense counsel, defense lawyer for psychologists, Florida Department of Health (DOH) complaint investigation defense attorney, Florida health law defense attorney, Florida tele-medicine and tele-health, health care reform defense lawyer, Healthcare Providers Service Organization (HPSO) Insurance defense attorney, HPSO Insurance defense attorney for mental health counselor, informal administrative hearing defense attorney, legal guidance for tele-medicine practice, legal representation for psychiatrists and licensed professional counselors, legal representation for virtual healthcare, license professional counselor defense lawyer, licensed professional counselor (LPC) legal representation, mental health counselor defense attorney near me, mental health counselor defense lawyer, mental health counselor legal representation, representation for psychiatric nurse practitioners, representation for social workers, representation in complaint investigations, reviews of The Health Law Firm attorneys, social worker complaint cases, social worker defense attorney, social worker defense lawyer, The Health Law Firm reviews, violation of Chapter 491 defense attorney|Comments Off

Mental Health Counselors and Psychotherapists: Simple Rules for Keeping Your License and Avoiding Complaints