Board refuses reconsideration of consent order after debate over informed consent and documentation

The Board of Examiners for Nursing on June 3 considered a motion to reconsider a previously denied consent order for APRN Christina M. Martinez (petition 2024-317). Attorney Joel Newton, representing DPH, summarized the department’s concerns: incomplete informed-consent disclosures for dermal filler procedures, missing documentation of a physical assessment, absent medication lot/expiration dates in the chart, and dispensing of prednisone without complete record entries.

Respondent counsel Frank J. Salaji told the board the shortcomings were limited to documentation, that the civil litigation against the practice did not allege a breach of clinical care, and that Martinez accepted responsibility for recordkeeping errors. Salaji urged the board to impose probation, required coursework in documentation and prescribing, and to forgo a civil money penalty, which he said would be disproportionate and a financial hardship.

Board members pressed on accountability. Cindy Arpen said the licensee, not the employer, bears ultimate responsibility for proper documentation and informed consent. Lisa Freeman emphasized the centrality of informed consent for patient protection and urged that it be treated as more than “signing a piece of paper.” Ultimately the board voted to deny the motion to reconsider the consent order and told respondents’ counsel to revise terms consistent with the board’s concerns.

Action: Motion to deny reconsideration of the consent order (Pet. 2024-317) was moved by S, seconded by Cindy Arpen, and passed on roll call. The board’s discussion focused on documentation obligations and the perceived insufficiency of the proposed remedy in the consent order.

Next steps: Respondent’s counsel was asked to return with revised terms addressing the board’s documentation and patient-protection concerns; the board left open formal sanctioning options if revised terms do not adequately protect patients.