Ohio Veterinary Medical Licensing Board Meeting

John Izzo attended the August 13, 2014, Ohio Veterinary Medical Licensing Board Meeting.  The Board is still one member short, as Dr. Dass’ term expired at the end of last year.  The Board reviewed three new complaints, as well as the responses to ten other complaints.  During the Executive Director’s Report, Ms. Stir informed the Board that she is seeking to receive an additional $100,000 per year in the next biennium’s budget.  This would then allow the Board to conduct one hundred compliance inspections in each of the next two fiscal years, starting July 1, 2015.  The Assistant Attorney General addressed the Board about expert opinions and what evidence is necessary to prove a minimum standards violation.

June 26, 2014 Ohio State Racing Commission Meeting

John Izzo attended the June 26, 2014, Ohio State Racing Commission Meeting.  The Commission announced it is looking for input regarding no-change rules to be filed in 2014.  Video Lottery Terminals (VLT) revenue was approved for distribution upon request of the Ohio Harness Horsemen’s Association (OHHA) and the Ohio Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association.  Chairman Schmitz expressed his displeasure with Northfield Park and the OHHA for not yet reaching an agreement with the VLT revenue.  

Five items were brought up that were addressed recently by auditors: 

1. The Commission must do a better job explaining why it is going into executive session.
2. The Commission must timely make all deposits.
3. An additional set of eyes, other than the Executive Secretary’s, must review the simulcast purse fund.
4. There must be a policy and procedure manual.
5. The Executive Secretary must properly approve payroll expenditures.  

Two settlement agreements were approved.  The next Commission will likely be August 27, unless a special meeting is called by the Commission in July.

Ohio Veterinary Medical Licensing Board Meeting

John Izzo attended the Ohio Veterinary Medical Licensing Board’s monthly meeting on June 11, 2014.  The Board reviewed responses from complaints that were received and reviewed compliance inspection reports.  The next Veterinary Board meeting is July 9, 2014.  

Nursing Board Update - What you need to know about the harsher sanctions

The Ohio Board of Nursing met on May 15-16, 2014.  The Board voted to approve Consent Agreements to resolve the charges pending against numerous nursing clients of Graff & McGovern.  Most of those Consent Agreements were hard fought and took 4-6 months to negotiate the reasonable outcomes.   In some of the Immediate Suspension cases, the Board’s staff worked hard to try to have Consent Agreement ready for vote by the full Board within 2 months of the issuance of the charges.  The Board also deliberated upon numerous Reports and Recommendations to resolve charges against nursing clients of Graff & McGovern whose cases went to hearing instead of having the charges resolved through a Consent Agreement. 

Given that the Board has now completed 3 of its 6 Board Meetings for 2014, I believe it is fair to conclude that a firm pattern is in place whereby the Board is imposing harsher sanctions than in years past.  That has been the case both when charges are resolved through a Consent Agreements and  when charges are resolved through Adjudication Orders.  Furthermore, slightly less than half of my nursing clients who elected to take their cases to hearing  received a more lenient sanction compared to what they were being offered through proposed Consent Agreement. 

At the May 2014 Board Meeting, the Board also voted to issue a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to 99 nurses.  Those Notices were mailed to the respective nurses via certified mail this week.  Any nurses receiving a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing  from the Board should strongly consider consulting with experienced legal counsel to protect their interests and they should be mindful of the need to submit a written hearing request to the Board no later than 30 days from the date the Board mailed the Notice.  The failure to comply with the 30-day deadline will leave a nurse with none of the rights afforded by Ohio Revised Code Chapter 119, and it will enable the Board to sanction the nurse’s license without obtaining any input and/or agreement from the nurse.

As we move into the second half of the 2014 Board Meeting calendar, I am convinced that this version of the Board is stricter than any version of the Board that I have seen since I started representing nurses in 1999.  The proof is in the relatively harsh Consent Agreements and Adjudication Orders adopted by the Board during 2013 and 2014, along with the increased reluctance of the Board to settle cases using terms and conditions that were common prior to 2013.  Therefore, nurses who are being investigated by the Ohio Board of Nursing and/or who are facing pending disciplinary charges brought by the Board must be prepared to fight for fair and reasonable settlement terms.  Regardless of their efforts, some of those nurses may eventually find themselves in a position where they are forced to either accept the harsher settlement terms being insisted upon by the Board’s Secretary or take their case to hearing so that the full Board can consider the defense and/or mitigation evidence being presented.

For nurses who are being investigated by the Ohio Board of Nursing and/or who face pending disciplinary charges by the Board, this means you will be engaged in a struggle with the Board to obtain the most lenient sanction possible through a Consent Agreement and you may be forced to take your case to hearing to try to obtain a better outcome than is being offered through Consent Agreement.  To make it through that struggle and obtain a positive outcome for your nursing license, you will need to know who to communicate with, who to avoid communicating, what information to share and how to leverage positive facts in presenting your defense to the Board.   You will also need to be patient in negotiating the terms of a Consent Agreement with the Board, since the Board’s first offer is usually not its best offer.  Finally, you need to be willing, if necessary, to take your case to hearing if the Board is being unreasonable in negotiating a Consent Agreement. 

Ohio Veterinary Medical Licensing Board Update

John Izzo attended the Ohio Veterinary Medical Licensing Board meeting on Wednesday, May 14, 2014.  A member of the public addressed the Board on Senate Bill 217, which would drastically change the way the Board conducts business.  Complainants would have to  meet face to face with the Board, and random unannounced inspections would be conducted on all places of veterinary businesses in Ohio at least once every five years.  Although the Bill calls for a $200 fee for the inspection, the proposed process and the personnel needed to be added (for the Board to comply with the Bill in regards to both inspections and face to face meetings) appears to be an unfunded mandate.  The Board reiterated it is attempting to improve its current practices, but the rules process takes time and it is limited as to what it can accomplish because of the costs associated with regulation.  The Board agrees that there is more regulation to be done and continues to work out how that can be accomplished. 

Nurses Still Face Strict Board; March Board Update and Keys to Saving Your License

The Ohio Board of Nursing met on March 19-21, 2014.  The Board voted to approve Consent Agreements to resolve the charges pending against numerous nursing clients of Graff & McGovern.  Most of those Consent Agreements were hard fought and took 3-6 months to negotiate the reasonable outcomes.   The Board also deliberated upon numerous Reports and Recommendations to resolve charges against nurses whose cases went to hearing instead of having the charges resolved through a Consent Agreement.  The Board’s Adjudication Orders in most of those cases stuck with the recent trend of imposing harsher sanctions than in years past and illustrated the fact that the Board is not obligated to follow the Hearing Examiner’s Recommendations. 

At the March 2014 Board Meeting, the Board also voted to issue a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing to 99 nurses.  Those Notices were mailed to the respective nurses via certified mail this week.  Any nurses receiving a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing  from the Board should strongly consider consulting with experienced legal counsel to protect their interests and they should be mindful of the need to submit a written hearing request to the Board no later than 30 days from the date the Board mailed the Notice.  The failure to comply with the 30-day deadline will leave a nurse with none of the rights afforded by Ohio Revised Code Chapter 119, and it will enable the Board to sanction the nurse’s license without obtaining any input and/or agreement from the nurse.

As we move past the second Nursing Board Meeting for 2014, I feel very confident in stating that this version of the Board is stricter than any version of the Board that I have seen since I started representing nurses in 1999.  The proof is in the relatively harsh Consent Agreements and Adjudication Orders adopted by the Board during 2013 and early 2014, along with the increased reluctance of the Board to settle cases using terms and conditions that were common prior to 2013.  Therefore, nurses who are being investigated by the Ohio Board of Nursing and/or who are facing pending disciplinary charges brought by the Board must be prepared to fight for fair and reasonable settlement terms.  However, those nurses may eventually find themselves in a position where they are forced to either accept the harsher settlement terms being insisted upon by the Board’s Secretary or take their case to hearing so that the full Board can consider the defense and/or mitigation evidence being presented.

For nurses who are being investigated by the Ohio Board of Nursing and/or who face pending disciplinary charges by the Board, this means you will be engaged in a struggle with the Board to obtain the most lenient sanction possible through a Consent Agreement and you may be forced to take your case to hearing to try to obtain a better outcome than is being offered through Consent Agreement.  To make it through that struggle and obtain a positive outcome for your nursing license, you will need to know who to communicate with, who to avoid communicating with and how to leverage positive facts in presenting your defense to the Board.   You will also need to be patient in negotiating the terms of a Consent Agreement with the Board, since the Board’s first offer is usually not its best offer.  Finally, you need to be willing, if necessary, to take your case to hearing if the Board is being unreasonable in negotiating a Consent Agreement. 

Ohio Veterinary Medical Licensing Board Meeting

John Izzo attended the monthly meeting for the Ohio Veterinary Medical Licensing Board on March 12, 2013.  Roger Redman, D.V.M., was reappointed to the Board.  Jack Advent, Executive Director of the Ohio Veterinary Medicine, talked to the Board Members about bills pending in the legislature that affect veterinarians.  The Board also discussed a letter it received inquiring about veterinary consultations.

A veterinary consultant is a veterinarian who is not licensed in this state and who provides advice and counsel to a requesting veterinarian licensed in this state in regard to the treatment, diagnosis, or health care of an animal or animals in a specific case.  The Veterinary Practice Act does not apply to veterinary consultants when consulting with a licensed veterinarian, on the condition that the service performed by the veterinary consultant is limited to the consultation and under all circumstances, the responsibility for the care and treatment of the patient remains with the veterinarian who holds a current license in this state and who is providing treatment, or consultation as to treatment, to the patient.  A veterinary consultant may apply for a temporary license.  Under any circumstances, when using the services of a veterinary consultant, the responsibility for the care and treatment of the patient remains with the veterinarian who holds a current license in this state and who is providing treatment, or consultation as to treatment, to the patient.

The Board was concerned about someone providing on-site consultation, yet not being a licensed veterinarian in the state.  Rule 4741-2-03(C)(2) deals with limited licenses, and states in part that “On-site consultation outside the institution is prohibited.”  However, a similar provision was not found anywhere else in the law.  The Board may be pursing rules to clarify their position.