Nursing board says department met burden on credentialing allegations, remands Rochelle George decision for further review

The Board of Examiners for Nursing on July 15 modified a proposed memorandum of decision in the multiyear case involving Rochelle George and directed the hearing officer to reconsider special defenses before the board rules on discipline.

Board discussion spanned testimony, exhibits and transcripts from prior meetings. Board member Sal Diaz led a detailed review of exhibit K and the respondent’s testimony and argued the record shows the respondent did not complete required clinical hours and that the department has met its burden on several numbered paragraphs in the statement of charges. "Using exhibit K, the transcript, and her testimony, she did not complete any clinical hours at Medlife Institute," Diaz said during the discussion.

Attorney Menchel, representing the respondent, urged the board to uphold the hearing officer’s earlier findings in the respondent’s favor and argued the respondent had disclosed attendance at the out-of-state program and later passed the NCLEX exam; he called a remand without addressing procedural fairness "arbitrary and capricious" if not handled correctly. Attorney Menchel also argued that promissory estoppel and other special defenses required consideration.

Board counsel Liz Bannon advised the panel of three options — approve, modify, or remand — and explained that because the board had signaled disagreement with some hearing-officer findings the appropriate path would often include remanding to the hearing officer to rule on the special defenses. Sal Diaz moved to modify the proposed decision to reflect that the department had sustained its burden with respect to all allegations and to remand to the hearing officer to consider and rule on the special defenses; Cindy Arpin seconded. The motion carried on a recorded vote.

Attorney Bannon summarized the outcome: the proposed decision will be modified to show the department met its burden on the alleged failures to complete required program hours and clinical training; the hearing officer has been directed to consider the outstanding special defense of promissory estoppel and to issue a new proposed decision for the board’s later review. The board did not impose discipline at the July 15 meeting and will consider remedies after the hearing officer issues the revised decision.