Nursing License Defense – What Every Nursing Professional in New Jersey Needs to Know
GENERAL PRINCIPALS TO BE AWARE OF FOR ANY NURSING PROFESSIONAL IN NEW JERSEY
Submitted by New Jersey Nursing License Defense Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark.
Nursing is regulated by the Board of Nursing under N.J.S.A. 45:11-24 of the Uniform Enforcement Act (UEA), N.J.S.A. 45:1-14 to -27. N.J. State Ass’n of Nurse Anesthetists, Inc. v. N.J. State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 372 N.J. Super. 554, 565 (App. Div. 2004), aff’d, 183 N.J. 605 (2005). Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 45:11- 24(d)(9), the Board “shall in its discretion investigate and prosecute all violations of provisions” of the UEA.4 Moreover, after affording an opportunity to be heard, the Board may “[o]rder any person, as a condition for continued, reinstated or renewed licensure, to submit to any medical or diagnostic testing and monitoring or psychological evaluation which may be required to evaluate whether continued practice may jeopardize the safety and welfare of the public.” N.J.S.A. 45:1-22(f). Finally, the Board “may refuse to issue or may suspend or revoke any certificate, registration or license issued by the board” when there is proof that the applicant or holder “[i]s incapable, for medical or any other good cause, of discharging the functions of a licensee in a manner consistent with the public’s health, safety, and welfare.” N.J.S.A. 45:1-21(i).
The UEA was enacted to create uniform standards for ‘license revocation, suspension and other disciplinary proceedings’ by professional and occupational licensing boards.” In re License Issued to Zahl, 186 N.J. 341, 352 (2006) (quoting N.J.S.A. 45:1- 14).
THE NEXT KEY ISSUE IS THE APPELLATE DIVISIONS SUBSTANTIAL DEFERENCE TO THE BOARD’S ACTIONS. AS A RESULT ANY LICENSEE BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD MUST TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO A) CLEARLY AND COHERENTLY OUTLINE HIS/HER FACTS RELATIVE TO THE BOARD’S INITIAL LETTER OF INTEREST. THE STANDARD IS AS FOLLOWS:
We accord “a ‘strong presumption of reasonableness’ to an administrative agency’s exercise of its statutorily delegated responsibilities.” Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014). “[T]he Appellate Division’s initial review of [the Director’s] decision is a limited one. The court must survey the record to determine whether there is evidence in the record to conclusions.” Clowes, supra, sufficient support credible competent the agency head’s at 587. “‘[T]his standard requires far more than a perfunctory review; it calls for careful and principled consideration of the agency record and findings[.]'” Ibid. We must give “‘due regard also to the agency’s expertise.'” Ibid. We may reverse the Director’s decision only if “the Director’s ‘finding is clearly a mistaken one and so plainly unwarranted that the interests of justice demand intervention and correction.'” Id. at 588. “Under that standard of review, an appellate court will not upset an agency’s ultimate determination unless the agency’s decision is shown to have been ‘arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or [] not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.'” Barrick v. State, 218 N.J. 247, 259 (2014); In re Arenas, 385 N.J. Super. 440, 443–44 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 188 N.J. 219 (2006). We must hew to our limited standard of review.
