Nurse Licensure Compact

USA Today had a great article on a major problem in the nursing industry.  The ability for bad nurses to move to another state and get a job.  An investigation by the non-profit news organization ProPublica found that the Nurse Licensure Compact has allowed nurses with records of misconduct to put patients in jeopardy. In some cases, nurses have retained clean multistate licenses after at least one compact state had banned them. They have ignored their patients' needs, stolen their pain medication, forgotten crucial tests or missed changes in their condition, records show.

 

Nurse Craig Peske was fired from a hospital in Wausau, Wis., in 2007 after stealing the powerful painkiller Dilaudid "whenever the opportunity arose," state records say. In one three-month period, he signed out 245 syringes full of the drug — nine times the average of his fellow nurses.
Hospital officials reported him to Wisconsin nursing regulators and alerted police. Six months later, Peske was charged with six felony counts of narcotics possession. But by that time, he had used a special "multistate" license to get a job as a traveling nurse at a hospital 1,200 miles away in New Bern, N.C.

The ease of Peske's move illustrates significant gaps in regulatory efforts nationwide to keep nurses from avoiding the consequences of misconduct by hopping across state lines. The two states in which Peske worked are part of a 24-state compact created to help get good nurses to areas where they are needed most. Under the decade-old partnership, a license obtained in a nurse's home state allows access to work in the other compact states.

Critics say the compact may actually multiply the risk to patients. There is no central licensing for the compact, so policing nurses is left to member states. Outside the compact, each state licenses and disciplines its own nurses. But within it, states effectively agree to allow in nurses they have never reviewed. When a compact state is slow to act or fails to share information, nurses suspected of negligence or misconduct remain free to work across nearly half the country.

Compact officials do not track how many nurses are sanctioned by their primary state for misconduct elsewhere. They also don't question whether states are adequately policing visiting nurses: 10 states have disciplined three or fewer such nurses in the past decade, compact records show.

Weaknesses in the state-based system for disciplining problem nurses have surfaced as a public health issue during the past year. California, for example, revamped its nursing board and its executive officer resigned after reports of ineffective oversight that put patients at risk.

The state recently discovered that 3,500 of its nurses had been disciplined by other states but had kept clean California licenses.

ProPublica examined the disciplinary actions taken by five compact states — Arizona, Virginia, Texas, Kentucky and North Carolina — in recent years. Reporters found four dozen examples of nurses whose primary licenses remained clean for months or longer after another compact state barred them from working there.

Among cases detailed in nursing board records:

•Therese Morgan, who now goes by Therese Holmes, retains a multistate license in Maryland. Arizona banned her in January 2009 after incidents at five hospitals in the Phoenix area, including failing to show up for work, flunking orientation and frightening a patient whose catheter she removed. Doctors and staff asked that she not be assigned to certain patients.

•Stephen Woodfin, a nurse anesthetist, surrendered his right to practice in North Carolina in January 2006 because of substance abuse. Even so, he was able to keep a clean multistate license in Texas. Nearly two years later at a hospital in Amarillo, Texas, he passed out during a surgery, bleeding from a vein in his arm. The Texas Board of Nursing found he had abused the narcotic Fentanyl. In September 2008, the board suspended him. He now is on probation and is limited to working in Texas.

•Dayna Hickman was suspended from practicing in Texas in September 2006 after she administered undiluted vitamin K too quickly to a patient at a Dallas hospital. The patient died a short time later. The next year, Hickman was placed on probation in California because of the Texas discipline. But her multistate license in Iowa remains clear.

Hickman, who now works as a critical-care nurse in Mason City, Iowa, says she notified the Iowa nursing board about the incident in Texas. "I have an exemplary record outside of this as a nurse, so Iowa chose to not do anything," Hickman says.

Allegations about nurse Craig Peske's drug use did not stop once he reached North Carolina.

Within days of his arrival, a parent complained that Peske was falling asleep while attempting to insert an IV in her child. A hospital review found that he signed out the painkiller Demerol on dozens of occasions without a physician's order. When he refused a drug test, he was fired in April 2008, nursing board records show.

Six months later, North Carolina banned him from working there. But Peske's home state of Wisconsin did not revoke his multistate license until January 2009, giving him the ability to work in any of the other states until then.

Two national databases — one run by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, the second by the federal government — are supposed to alert regulators and employers to disciplined nurses. But that doesn't always happen. ProPublica has previously found discrepancies and missing records in both databases.

Amid such confusion, nurses accused of wrongdoing or incompetence keep working.

Alma Rice, 40, was able to work as a nurse in several states for seven years after she first got in trouble. Tennessee revoked her license in mid-2008 — only after she had been accused of stealing drugs at four hospitals in three states and had racked up criminal convictions in each state. Rice had been high on the job, tried to shred patient records to conceal her thefts and hid bottles of urine in her clothes in case she was drug-tested, nursing board and court records from several states show.

A forensic psychologist in Texas wrote in 2006: "It is still doubtful that (Rice) will be able to consistently behave in accordance with ... generally accepted nursing standards."

Rice also had been indicted on charges of child abuse by a Dyer County, Tenn., grand jury in February 2008 after her 18-month-old son was found with needle marks on his arm and tested positive for a powerful anesthetic, court records and newspaper reports said. Rice called police after she forgot where she left him, a report said. She later was convicted of misdemeanor assault.

Nurse Krystal Bauer, like Rice, moved so fast she amassed allegations in multiple states before her home state caught up. Bauer, 37, was accused of stealing drugs in October and November 2007 while working at a hospital in Glendale, Ariz., in December 2007 while at a hospital in Weston, Wis., and in June 2008 at a hospital in Greenville, N.C.

Tracy Weber and Charles Ornstein are reporters for ProPublica, an independent, non-profit newsroom based in New York City that produces investigative journalism. USA TODAY editors worked with ProPublica editors in preparing this story.

 

The Persecution of a Whistleblower

Whistle-blowers are heroes.  Whistle-blowers do the right thing.  Anne Mitchell is a whistle-blower.   She is a hero.  The way she was treated is a travesty.   Numerous articles and websites have discussed the case of Nurse Mitchell. The NY Times ran this article

Anne Mitchell was indicted and threatened with 10 years in prison for doing what she knew a nurse must: inform state regulators that a doctor was practicing bad medicine.  She was fingerprinted and photographed at the jail last June.  Mrs. Mitchell stood trial in Texas state court for “misuse of official information,” a third-degree felony in Texas.   Legal experts argue that in a civil context, Mrs. Mitchell would seem to be protected by Texas whistle-blower laws.

“It was surreal,” said Mrs. Mitchell, 52, the wife of an oil field mechanic and mother of a teenage son. “I said how can this be? You can’t go to prison for doing the right thing.”

The prosecutor said he would show that Mrs. Mitchell had a history of making “inflammatory” statements about Dr. Rolando G. Arafiles Jr. and intended to damage his reputation when she reported him last April to the Texas Medical Board, which licenses and disciplines doctors.  Mitchell had assumed the letter she wrote was anonymous.

When the medical board notified Dr. Arafiles of the anonymous complaint, he protested to his friend, the Winkler County sheriff, that he was being harassed. The sheriff obtained a search warrant to seize two nurses’ work computers and found the letter.  Mitchell was fired without explanation.  The prosecution has stained her reputations and drained her savings. With felony charges pending, she has been able to find work. 

Of course the prosecution ignores laws to protect whistle-blowers, and ethical requirements that Mrs. Mitchell had including a professional obligation to protect patients from a pattern of improper prescribing and surgical procedures — including a failed skin graft that Dr. Arafiles performed in the emergency room, without surgical privileges. He also sutured a rubber tip to a patient’s crushed finger for protection, an unconventional remedy that was later flagged as inappropriate by the Texas Department of State Health Services.

It was not long after the public hospital hired Dr. Arafiles in 2008 that the nurses said they began to worry. They sounded internal alarms but felt they were not being heeded by administrators.  Frustrated and fearing for patients, they directed the medical board to six cases “of concern” that were identified by file numbers but not by patient names. The letter also mentioned that Dr. Arafiles was sending e-mail messages to patients about an herbal supplement he sold on the side.

Mrs. Mitchell typed the letter and mailed it with a separate complaint signed by a third nurse, who wrote that she had resigned because of similar concerns about Dr. Arafiles. That nurse was not charged.

To convict Mrs. Mitchell, the prosecution must prove that she used her position to disseminate confidential information for a “nongovernmental purpose” with intent to harm Dr. Arafiles.

Mari E. Robinson, executive director of the Texas Medical Board, has warned in a blistering letter to prosecutors that the case will have “a significant chilling effect” on the reporting of malpractice.

Nonetheless, the sheriff, Robert L. Roberts Jr., and the prosecutor, Scott M. Tidwell, had expressed confidence (and arrogance) in their case.  A Texas jury found veteran nurse Anne Mitchell not guilty of harassment. The verdict was announced after the four day prosecution. Jurors took less than an hour to reach a unanimous verdict.  The verdict has a profound effect on whistle-blowers in Texas and nationwide. Arafiles is still practicing medicine at Winkler Memorial Hospital

Texas laws protect a nurse’s right, and duty, to report any health care provider when he or she believes that patients are at risk.  In a surprise inspection last September, state investigators found several violations by Dr. Arafiles and concluded that the hospital had discriminated against the nurses by firing them for “reporting in good faith.”  The hospital administrator, Stan Wiley, admitted that Dr. Arafiles had been reprimanded on several occasions for improprieties in writing prescriptions and performing surgery. Mr. Wiley said he knew when he hired Dr. Arafiles that he had a restriction on his license stemming from his supervision of a weight-loss clinic.  All along, Arafiles said he was the victim in the case, even though he had been reprimanded several times by the hospital.

 

 

Does licensing nurses work?

I read an interesting article from the Oakland Tribune about how nurses move to avoid the consequences of misconduct. There is a dangerous gap in the way states regulate, license, supervise, and sanction nurses: They fail to effectively tell each other what they know.   As a result, caregivers with troubled records can cross state lines and work without restriction, an investigation by the nonprofit news organization ProPublica and The Los Angeles Times found.

Using public databases and state disciplinary reports, reporters found hundreds of cases in which registered nurses held clear licenses in some states after they'd been sanctioned in others, often for serious misdeeds. In California alone, a months-long review of its 350,000 active nurses found at least 177 whose licenses had been revoked, surrendered, suspended or denied elsewhere.

State regulators aren't using their powers to seek out this information, or act on what they find, the investigation found.

By simply typing a nurse's name into a national database, state officials can often find out within seconds whether the nurse has been sanctioned anywhere in the country and why. But some states don't check regularly or at all. The failure to act quickly in such cases has grave implications: Hospitals and other health care employers depend on state nursing boards to vouch for nurses' fitness to practice.

Because there is no federal licensing of nurses, each state sets its own standards on punishable behavior. In general, states can discipline a nurse based solely on the actions taken by another state. But they vary widely in how quickly — or harshly — they act on this information, according to interviews with regulators in 14 states.

Delays in several states left Craig Smart free to practice. In 2000, he surrendered his license in Florida after testing positive for cocaine and flunking a treatment program. It took eight years for five other states in which he was licensed to respond to Florida's action. California was the last to revoke his license, in 2008, after he had practiced here for several years.

Even when states share borders, they sometimes fail to heed each other's disciplinary actions. At least 10 nurses, for example, hold clear licenses in Massachusetts despite being disciplined next door in Rhode Island, including suspensions for drug thefts and violence.

There is ample information available for states to identify nurses disciplined by other jurisdictions. Two separate databases attempt to track disciplinary actions from every state. States are required to report to one, run by the federal government, within 30 days of taking an action. Reporting to the other, operated by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, is voluntary.

Each database can be programmed to alert a state whenever a nurse it has licensed runs into trouble in another state.  When checking a nurse's record, nursing officials say they almost uniformly use the council's database; it's free and the government's is not. In fact, federal statistics show that nursing boards accessed the government database fewer than 300 times total in 2007 and 2008.

In addition, ProPublica and The Los Angeles Times found that the federal database is incomplete, despite the requirement that all states report discipline to it. Many actions appeared to be missing when reporters tried to match known cases by date of discipline to a version of the database in which confidential information had been removed.

The council cannot force states to submit names, and states have a financial incentive not to: They make money by charging nurses to verify their licenses, test scores and training to authorities in other states. For example, a nurse licensed in California who wants credentials to practice in Arizona must pay California $60 to confirm her background. Those sorts of checks netted California nearly $1 million in fiscal 2009. New York, which charges $20 a check, earns more than $250,000 a year.

When states turn over their lists of licensed nurses to the national council, that group earns such verification fees. "The decision to join is a revenue loss for them," said Kathy Apple, the council's chief executive officer. "That's difficult for some states."

Reporters went further, checking the full roster of 350,000 licensed nurses against a public version of the council database. They found that at least 643 California nurses had sanctions elsewhere, including the 177 whose licenses had been revoked, suspended, denied or surrendered.

Jose Martinez, who surrendered his license in Texas in July 2008 after being accused of performing a rectal exam on an 11-year-old girl without a doctor's order or a witness present. In a letter to the Texas board, Martinez acknowledged his misconduct. "Yes, I made a mistake and, yes, I am guilty. After 4 years as a tech and 12 years as a nurse I slip and fall. "... I guess I deserve what is coming to me." His California license is active, without restrictions, and does not expire until July 2010.

Randy Hopp, who was convicted in 2004 of assaulting a nursing home resident in Minnesota. It was the fourth facility since 1998 at which he had been accused of mistreating a resident, records show. The nursing boards in Minnesota and Missouri placed him on probation, and Kansas imposed restrictions on his practice. Hopp surrendered his license in Texas. In California, his license remains clear.

In the past the board took a median of 13 months to file public accusations against nurses after their licenses were first revoked, surrendered, denied or suspended by another state, according to a review of 258 such cases since 2002.

Three of these nurses got work and stole drugs from California hospitals after they had surrendered their licenses across the border in Nevada for previous wrongdoing there.

 

Motion for sanctions for deposition misconduct

We have uploaded a great Motion for Sanctions for deposition misconduct such as coaching witnesses and obstructive objections.  The motion was done by the well respected Minnesota nursing home lawyer Mark Kosieradzki.  Defense counsel in numerous cases interfere and obstruct the taking of depositions.  This is in violation of the Rules of civil Procedure and the oath of professionalism that lawyers must abide by in South Carolina.

Defense lawyer asking "inhumane" deposition questions

In many of our depostions, defense counsel asks questions that border on the ridiculous and sometimes cross the line to inappropriate or harassing questions. I ran across this artice that talks about a Plaintiff's attorney who did something about it.

A plaintiffs attorney sued his adversary for asking "inhumane" questions during a deposition that allegedly inflict "grievous emotional distress."   Bruce Nagel claims Judith Wahrenberger, his adversary in a medical malpractice case, acted tortiously by asking a husband whether he felt his wife had played a role in the death of their infant daughter by handling the child roughly.

"Wahrenberger's unsupported and intentional attack upon the parents was beyond any acceptable behavior of a civilized human being," alleges Nagel, of Nagel Rice in Roseland, N.J.

"I would not be doing my job if I didn't explore these areas," says Wahrenberger, of Springfield, N.J.'s Wahrenberger, Pietro & Sherman.

 

The underlying medical malpractice complaint was filed on Jan. 17, six months after the child died. The parents, Andrew and Phyllis Rabinowitz, alleged they tried to get their 6-day-old daughter admitted to St. Barnabas for breathing problems but were told by emergency room physician Lynn Reyman that the infant had only a common cold. The baby died two days later in her father's arms, blood running out of her nose, as he tried to administer mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.

No pediatrician was assigned to the emergency room at the time, and the plaintiffs say their daughter's death could have been avoided if one was. They also charge Reyman refused their request for a chest X-ray and a blood test, which Reyman confirms. The defendants claim the baby presented no treatable symptoms during her emergency room visit.

In the most recent suit, they allege that the deposition incident compounded the emotional distress stemming from the loss of their child. They claim that as a result of Wahrenberger's questions, Phyllis walked away from the deposition so wracked with guilt and so depressed that she does not want to leave her house, socialize or enjoy family activities; that she spends whole days crying in bed and that she has started seeing a psychiatrist. The plaintiffs say they both feel humiliated, embarrassed and insulted.

The depositions were taken on June 7 at Nagel's office. Phyllis, who was pregnant at the time, repeatedly wept during her deposition, which came first. She stayed in the room during her husband's deposition, in which the troublesome exchange occurred.

According to the deposition transcript, Andrew Rabinowitz said he called the chief of police in Millburn as soon as his daughter died because he believed the defendants' failure to treat her amounted to negligent homicide.

Wahrenberger then asked what he thought might have happened to the baby, whether he felt the couple's baby nurse or nanny had committed negligent homicide and whether his wife had been involved in the death.

When Nagel asked Wahrenberger to stop her line of questioning, she insisted she was obligated to pursue the issue because it had been raised by Rabinowitz and because of the autopsy results.

The deposition deteriorated to the point where Nagel called Wahrenberger's words "garbage," and she responded that he was a "bully."

Asked why he took the unusual course of suing over the incident, Nagel says, "Defense lawyers have been doing things like this for years. It's about time someone stands up and says, 'Stop it.'"

Nagel says he believes Wahrenberger "had no other reason but to embarrass or humiliate" his clients by her questions.

Wahrenberger says she was consulting a pediatric emergency medicine expert at the time of the deposition. The expert dismissed the notion that shaken-baby syndrome played a role.

Poliakoff & Associates, P.A., is one of South Carolina’s most respected and distinguished law firms. The Poliakoff firm began nearly 60 years ago by three attorney brothers: Matthew, J. Manning, and Bernard. With a history of believing the justice system...More...