Nursing board delays final decision in Rochelle George disciplinary case after disputed evidence on education and clinical hours

The Board of Examiners of Nursing met June 17, 2026, to review supplemental briefs and a proposed memorandum of decision in disciplinary petitions concerning Rochelle George, RN. Chair Gina Riners opened the session and the board confirmed counsel for both sides were present: Attorney Fisina for the Department of Public Health and Arnold Menchel for the respondent. The board heard a presentation from Elizabeth Bannon, deputy legal director at the Department of Public Health.

Bannon told the panel the board has three principal procedural options under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act when presented with a hearing officer’s proposed decision: “you can approve as is, you can modify and approve, or you can remand it to the factfinder,” and she emphasized that the board may evaluate evidence through its members’ technical expertise but may not introduce extraneous facts that are not already in the administrative record. She advised that if the board intends to rely on its expertise as evidence in and of itself, the parties must have notice so due process is preserved.

Board members noted that respondent had admitted allegations listed in paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the statement of charges, leaving paragraphs 3, 6, 7 and 8 contested. The panel then began a paragraph-by-paragraph review of the hearing officer’s findings and the underlying record. On paragraph 3 the hearing officer found the department met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent had attested to receiving nursing education from Medlife Institute, Naples, Florida; several members agreed with that finding and cited department exhibits and the respondent’s application.

A prolonged exchange focused on paragraph 6, which alleges the respondent did not complete the required program hours and clinical training to obtain an associate of science in nursing degree. Board member S Diaz summarized documentary and testimonial inconsistencies and explained why she disagreed with the hearing officer’s conclusion that the department had not met its burden on paragraph 6. S said the defendant’s exhibit K (the Medlife transcript) and the respondent’s testimony appeared to conflict: the transcript shows credit hours suggesting a larger clinical-hour equivalent (listed in the record as credit totals), while the respondent described attending three on-site periods totaling about 72 hours and submitting online assignments; S noted that, by the program’s stated credit-to-hours conversion, two credits for a practicum would imply roughly 90 clinical hours and the transcript’s credit totals would suggest still larger expectations. “Based on my evaluation of the transcripts and testimony…it’s my opinion she did not complete the proper education to graduate with that degree,” S said on the record.

No final vote on the proposed memorandum of decision was taken. Board members and counsel agreed the volume of transcript pages and exhibits required more time for members to identify and cite exact record locations if they intend to modify findings or remand. The board therefore deferred further deliberation to a later date; staff (Brett) will circulate proposed dates for either a special meeting or placement on the board’s July 15 agenda. The chair adjourned the meeting; the board did not open public comment before recessing.

The action items recorded during the meeting included approval of the minutes from the June 3, 2026 regular meeting (motion by Lisa Freeman, seconded by S Diaz; recorded abstentions by Mary Deepman and Elizabeth Vera Rodriguez; outcome: approved) and a motion to adjourn (mover S Diaz, second Elizabeth Vera Rodriguez). When the contested petition is reopened, the board will be asked to identify specific proposed modifications to the hearing officer’s findings and cite the supporting evidence in the administrative record before taking any final action.