If you are a professional license holder issued by the state or another organization you may find yourself at risk of losing that license if charged with or accused of a crime. Even if the crime is unrelated to your professional work, the license may be suspended or revoked by the controlling party.
Attorney Advice for Legal Malpractice Claims
The NJ Supreme Courted decided on February 28, 2012 that Padilla decision applies prospectively. It is important for criminal defense attorneys to secure accurate advice for their clients on whether a guilty plea to certain offenses will render them mandatorily removable, and numerous resources are available to help attorneys to this. Even if removal is not mandated, counsel must highlight for non-citizen clients that entering a guilty plea will place them at risk of removal and that they may seek legal advice on potential immigration consequences.
Professional License Defense Sample Case
In Selective Insurance Company of America v. Rothman, the court rejected Defendant’s argument that a PA can perform a needle EMG based on the statutory authorization for a PA to “assist” a physician, N.J.S.A. 45:9–27.16(b)(1) and said that such reading equates the word “assist” with “perform in the place of,” which is contrary to the clear word that the Legislature chose but also would expand the authority given to PAs well beyond the boundaries that the statute established.
See the full sample case here.
New Jersey’s Prescription Monitoring Program
Effective September 1, 2011 New Jersey has instituted a ‘voluntary’ prescription monitoring program (PMP) for all licensed medical providers who are empowered with the ability to prescribe CDS and Human Growth Hormone dispensed on an out-patient basis. The intent of the program is to monitor those individuals who are attempting to obtain prescription medications through more than one source with the same single CDS prescription. Although the Medical Board and the Division of Consumer Affairs is couching this program and one to protect the patient, the real motive is more along the lines of BIG BROTHER.
The Prescription Monitoring Program will enable the Board of Medical Examiners and the Attorney General’s Office to monitor (a) ALL narcotic prescriptions any one doctor written based on your DEA AND NPI number, (b) the volume and regularity of the NARCOTIC prescriptions being written to any one patient, and (c) who and where the NARCOTIC prescription are being filled. As well, the program will enable a physician to investigate who else is writing any prescriptions for the patient under the doctor’s care.
The practice effects of this monitoring program are significant in two regards. On the surface it looks like the patient will now not be able to lie to the doctor about his prescription history. In addition, the doctor will be able to see who else is writing the narcotic prescription for the same patient. However, the monitoring program and access to this clearing house of patient information has created an additional standard of care. Now an attorney will be able to argue that if the patient’s prescription history is not checked prior to any narcotic medication being prescribed, and there is an overdose or other illegal activity, the doctor may have criminal or civil culpability.
This clearing house location will primarily assist the DEA, FBI, Board of Medical Examiners, Attorney General Office and local law enforcement prosecute doctors for writing illegal prescriptions which are filled by different locations and at a greater frequency that indicated by the medication in questions. FBI and DEA can not get the patient info, especially when cash is involved, as a result they are seeking to obtain the info from the source; where the narcotic prescription is originating.
Respect of Opposing Counsel
When preparing for trial
Apologize and communicate empathy
We live in a very litigious society.
The Rights of a Licensed Health Care Provider
A licensed health care provider has a fundamental vested right to her license; therefore, efforts to deprive her of that license require the licensing authority to prove its case by clear and convincing evidence. (Ettinger v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1982) 135 Cal. App. 3d 853, 856.)
The Ettinger court clearly explained why it was adopting this heightened standard of proof as follows: “It seems only logical to require a higher standard of proof when dealing with revocation or discipline of a professional licensee as opposed to mere termination of state employment.”But most disciplinary cases settle, and the standards for settlement are well understood and have even been published.
It’s not surprising that some licensees will continue to have compliance problems while on probation since all persons may have such problems at one time or another; and most often, people will settle their cases by accepting probation because something in their conduct wasn’t quite right. And people who were in trouble once may have a proclivity for more trouble. So, if there is another charge against a licensee already on probation, more discipline can be expected.
But what will be the standard for proving that new violation? Will it be the same requirement of “clear and convincing evidence,” which the courts have held to be necessary because “a fundamental vested right” is in danger of being lost?
Are you facing disbarment in New Jersey?
Although attorneys are dedicated to making the justice and the legal system function smoothly, sometimes even ethical and dedicated legal professionals may find themselves facing the serious ramifications of a potential disbarring. One reason an attorney may be disbarred