Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Respondent, Nancy Drennen, receive a letter of reprimand. In making this recommendation, the Hearing Officer specifically considers the outstanding comments made about the Respondent by her Dr. Roberts and her coworkers, the fact that she has been employed as an OH nurse since January of 1979, performing her duties without complaint or incident, and the fact that the complaint was filed against her so long after the incident that it truly diminished the Respondent's ability to defend herself. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of May, 1980, In Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether Respondent's license to practice nursing in the state of Florida should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent Teresa Iva Smith Lobato (Lobato) was licensed as a Registered Nurse in the state of Florida, holding license number RN-1655102, and was employed by the Bayfront Medical Center (Bayfront) located in St. Petersburg, Florida as a Registered Nurse. On May 13, 1990 Lobato was to work the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, and upon arriving for work was told that she was being "floated" from the Coronary Care Unit (CCU) where she regularly worked to the Progressive Care Unit (PCU) where she had never worked. Bayfront had a policy whereby nurses were "floated" from one unit to another, and at the time Lobato was employed by Bayfront she was made aware of this "floating" policy. Floating means that a nurse is assigned temporarily to a unit other than the nurse's regularly assigned unit. On May 12, 1990 Lobato was aware that she was to be "floated" on May 13, 1990, but had informed the Acting Director of CCU that she would rather cancel her work assignment than be "floated". However, upon arriving for work on May 13, 1990, and being told that she was being "floated" to PCU she accepted the assignment on PCU although she was not pleased about the situation. Bayfront has a policy that requires the outgoing nurse to audiotape a report for the oncoming nurse regarding the condition of the patients and any events occurring during the outgoing nurse's shift or if no tape is made to give report verbally to oncoming nurse. Upon arriving at PCU Lobato, along with PCU Charge Nurse (CN), listened to the audiotaped reports from the outgoing nurse on the following patients D. L. L., A. S., E. H., C. L. S., and H. K. As the morning progressed, Lobato became more and more displeased with her assignment, and let her displeasure be known to the PCU Charge Nurse. However, Lobato did not ask to be relieved from her assignment, although there was testimony that she indicated to the CN that she wanted to go home. Although the record is not clear as to the time the following events occurred, the sequence of those events are as follows: Around 9:00 a.m. Lobato was offered help by the CN but declined; Around 9:30 Lobato went on break, and again was offered help but declined; While on break Lobato talked to the Assis- tant Director of Nursing (ADON) about her under- standing of not being required to "float", and became upset with the ADON's response; After returning from break Lobato was again offered help by the CN which she accepted. The CN brought Michelle Nance, Medical Surgical Technician, and two RNs whose first names were Jessica and Melinda to the unit to assist Lobato. Around 10:30 a.m. Lobato and the CN dis- cussed Lobato's patient assignments, and Lobato advised the CN that everything was done, in- cluding all a.m. medication, other than the missing vasotec doses, and that she had some charting to do. Also, the patient's baths had been completed. Shortly after Lobato and the CN discussed her patients' assignments, the ADON came to the unit to determine what was troubling Lobato. The ADON and Lobato met and there was a confrontation wherein Lobato advised the ADON that she was quitting and the ADON advised Lobato that she was fired. After Lobato's confrontation with the ADON, Lobato left the unit and Bayfront without completing the balance of charting her patients' notes, and without giving the CN a report of the patients even though the CN requested her to do so. Lobato's reasons for not giving the CN a report was that she had discussed the patients with the CN throughout the morning, and that the CN knew as much about the patients as did Lobato at that time, and therefore, she had made a verbal report. Lobato's reasons for not completing the charting of her patients' notes was that when the ADON fired her on the spot the ADON accepted full responsibility for the patients, and Lobato's responsibility to both Bayfront and to the patients assigned to her ceased at that time, notwithstanding her understanding of the importance of charting so that appropriate care could be given to the patients on the next shift. By her own admission, Lobato left Bayfront around 10:30 a.m. on May 13, 1991 before the end of her shift without completing the balance of charting her patients' notes and without giving a report to the CN, other than the ongoing report given during the morning. Earlier while Lobato was still on the unit working the CN had obtained two registered nurses (RN) and a medical surgical technician to assist Lobato. One of the nurses whose first name was Jessica (last name not given) was the RN assigned to Lobato's patients by the ADON when Lobato left and she received a report on the patients from Janice Ritchie, CN. (See Respondent's exhibit 1, and Petitioner's exhibit 1 and Janice Ritchies' rebuttal testimony.) Although Lobato's failure to chart the balance of her patients' notes and make a report to the CN before she left may have caused some problems, there was no showing that any patient failed to receive proper care or suffered any harm as a result of Lobato leaving. While some of the patients may not have received all their medication before Lobato left, the record is not clear as to whether the medication was made available to Lobato to administer or that she was shown where the medication was located in the floor stock. The patient is the nurse's primary responsibility, and the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice requires the nurse, even if fired (unless prevented by the employer from performing her duties), to perform those duties that will assure the patient adequate care provided for after her absence. In this case, the failure of Lobato to compete the charting of her patients' notes and the failure to make a report to the CN, notwithstanding her comments to the CN upon leaving, was unprofessional conduct in that such conduct was a departure from and a failure to conform to minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and that she be given a reprimand. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-7828 The following contributes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120- 59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. 3.-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4, respectively. 5.-6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4 and 5. 7.-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 7. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 11.-12. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, but even if this testimony was credible it is not material or relevant to the conclusion reached. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8, as modified. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, but even if this testimony was credible it is not material or relevant to the conclusion reached. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8, as modified. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 18.-20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9 and 12, as modified. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9 and 12. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. See Findings of Fact 10, 11, 13 and 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 25.-27. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3, 15 and 15, respectively. Paragraph 28 is ambiguous and, therefore, no response. Rejected as not being Finding of Fact but what weight is to be given to that testimony. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1.-2. Rejected as being argument rather than a Finding of Fact, but if considered a Finding of Fact since there was other evidence presented by other witnesses. The first sentence is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence. The balance of paragraph 3 is neither material nor relevant. Neither material nor relevant, but see Findings of Fact 6, 7, and 8. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, but see Findings of Fact 6, 7, and 8. Neither material nor relevant since the Respondent assisted in selecting those items to be included in Respondent's exhibit 1. First sentence adopted in Finding of Fact 8. The balance of paragraph 7 is argument more so than a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 12 and 14. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 7(c), 12 and 14. 9.-11. More of an argument as to the credibility of a witness rather than a Finding of Fact. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 7(d) and 13. More of a restatement of testimony than a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 8 and 9. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact, but see Finding of Fact 10. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 7(e) and 9. Not necessary to the conclusions reached in the Recommended Order. 17.-19. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, but see Findings of Fact 9 and 12. 20. More of an argument as to the credibility of a witness rather than a Finding of Fact. 21.-23. More of an argument than a Finding of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Lois B. Lepp, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Teresa Iva Smith Lobato 6870 38th Avenue North St. Petersburg, FL 33710 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastliinne Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, before applying for licensure as a registered nurse in Florida, Petitioner had suffered the denial of an application for licensure as a practical nurse in the state of Virginia, and, if so, whether Petitioner's failure to disclose that fact in her Florida application was a knowing misrepresentation; finally, if either or both of the forgoing questions are answered in the affirmative, whether Respondent has grounds to deny Petitioner's pending application for a nursing license.
Findings Of Fact On October 15, 2012, Petitioner Yolette Tema ("Tema") signed an application for licensure as a registered nurse, which she mailed to the Department of Health for review by Respondent Board of Nursing (the "Board"). Item No. 9 of the application sought information about the applicant's disciplinary history. Four subparts (lettered A through D) asked questions that called for a "yes" or "no" answer, which the applicant was to give by marking the applicable check box. The first question ("9A") was: Have you ever been denied or is there now any proceeding to deny your application for any healthcare license to practice in Florida or any other state, jurisdiction or country? Tema answered, "No." In Item No. 10 of the application, there appeared above the signature line the following declarations: I recognize that providing false information may result in disciplinary action against my license or criminal penalties pursuant to Sections 456.067, 775.083, and 775.084, Florida Statutes. I have carefully read the questions in the foregoing application and have answered them completely, without reservations of any kind. Should I furnish any false information in this application, I hereby agree that such act shall constitute cause for denial, suspension or revocation of my license to practice as a Registered Nurse or Licensed Practical Nurse in the State of Florida. Tema's signature manifested her agreement with the foregoing declarations. Despite having acknowledged the hard consequences of deceit, Tema's negative answer to the question of whether she ever had suffered the denial of an application for licensure was false. In fact, in June 2011, the Virginia Board of Nursing had denied Tema's application for licensure as a practical nurse, on the ground that she had provided false information in an effort to obtain a license by fraud, deceit, or material omission. Tema had received timely, contemporaneous notice of the Virginia Board of Nursing's final decision, and she was fully aware of that disposition at all times relevant to this case. When she completed the Florida application in October 2012, therefore, Tema knew that her response to question 9A was false. Because the information Tema failed to disclose obviously would have hurt her chances of obtaining a license in Florida, the undersigned disbelieves Tema's explanation for the material omission, which was that she simply made a mistake.1/ Instead, the undersigned infers that Tema intentionally omitted the damaging fact of the Virginia denial in hopes that the Board would not discover it.2/ The Board did, however, discover the Virginia decision while reviewing Tema's application. Based on that past denial and Tema's present failure to disclose it, the Board determined that Tema's Florida application should be denied. The Board's preliminary decision was communicated to Tema through a Notice of Intent to Deny dated February 11, 2014. Determinations of Ultimate Fact Tema is guilty of having an application for a license to practice nursing denied by the licensing authority of another state, which is a disciplinable offense under section 464.018(1)(b), Florida Statutes.3/ Tema is guilty of attempting to procure a license to practice nursing by knowing misrepresentation, which is a disciplinable offense under section 464.018(1)(a).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order denying Tema's application for licensure as a registered nurse. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 2014.
Recommendation Revoke the license of Respondent Mary Katherine Mitchell. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of January 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1130 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mary Katherine Mitchell, L.P.N. Route 7, Box 314 Milton, Florida 32570
The Issue The issues in this case are as established through an administrative complaint alleging misconduct by the Respondent when he was employed in his capacity as a licensed practical nurse at the Arlington Manor Care Center, Jacksonville, Florida. The charges are brought under the authority of Chapters 20, 455, and 464, Florida statutes. The details of the administrative complaint are more completely described in the conclusions of law.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, is charged with the regulation of the practice of nursing in Florida. This is in keeping with the authority expressed in Section 20.30, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to the inquiry, Respondent, Christopher Allen Fitchett, has been a licensed practical nurse in the state of Florida, having been issued license number 0608751. At times relevant to the underlying administrative complaint, Respondent was employed at Arlington Manor Care Center, Jacksonville, Florida. On the night of March 21, 1984, commencing at 11:00 p.m. and continuing through 7:00 a.m., March 22, 1984, Respondent was acting as a charge nurse in the Arlington Manor Care Center. In this capacity, it was his responsibility to see that the residents of the facility were well cared for; that nursing practices were maintained; that the patients in the facility got their medicines and treatments; that doctors' orders were carried out; and that these duties were performed on time. Around 5:30 on the morning of March 22, 1984, Marilyn R. Funk, registered nurse, who was the director of nursing at Arlington Manor Care Center, arrived at the facility. She came in the back door and approached the left-hand side of the nursing station. Respondent was sitting in a chair with his head resting on the desk in the nursing station area. When the door which she had entered through closed, Mr. Fitchett did not respond. Funk stood by Fitchett for a period of two or three minutes, and Fitchett did not respond. At that time, Della, one of the residents of the facility, started to leave the facility and a nursing assistant, seeing the resident exiting the facility, called out to the resident to not go out. Respondent did not react to the circumstance of the patient's leaving and the nursing assistant's calling the resident back. During this time frame, one of the employees at the nursing home who worked in the kitchen dropped a Vaseline jar with a metal lid onto the floor in the nursing station area, making a loud noise. Fitchett did not react to that activity. All told, Ms. Funk observed the Respondent with his head down on the desk for a period of approximately fifteen minutes, during which time Respondent did not stir and his eyes were closed. A fair inference can be drawn that Fitchett was asleep during this time. As described by Nurse Funk and another licensed Florida registered nurse, Carolyn Hoffman, both of whom were accepted as experts in the nursing field, Respondent, by being asleep on duty and failing to be alert to the needs of the residents and his surroundings, was involved in unprofessional conduct which departs from the minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. Ms. Funk identifies the fact that Respondent should have told the other charge nurse who was in the building at the time that he was tired and wished to be relieved from his duties for a period. He could then have gone into the lounge area to rest for a short while. Problems that can occur when the Respondent is not alert would include a circumstance as seen with the resident Della who was about to leave the facility and be without supervision. In addition, Respondent's inattentiveness placed all the residents within the nursing home at general risk related to their health care. In this connection, on the date of the incident Respondent had not signed in or out for narcotics located in the nursing home. Moreover, when the director of nurses took the keys from the Respondent that morning, she discovered that the medicine room was open and the medicine cart was unlocked.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered nurse who began her employment at South Lake Memorial Hospital on August 29, 1977, and was terminated on April 23, 1980. During her employment, the Respondent received four poor evaluations and/or warnings for her nursing practice. The first warning occurred on August 1, 1979. This warning involved allegations of poor nursing performance by the Respondent. These allegations included the Respondent leaving her unit, failing to properly organize her work, failing to properly restrain a patient, wasting time by running too many EGG strips instead of performing her assigned functions, failing to take vital signs timely when coming onto shift, becoming hostile with the Director of Nursing, and failing to obey the direct order of the Director of Nursing to leave the hospital and go home after an argument on July 12, 1979. Although there was no direct evidence as to most of the allegations, the Respondent admitted to late charting, failing to timely take vital signs, spending time working with ECG strips, and failing to obey a direct order to-go home given by the Director of Nursing. The next evaluation occurred on November 26, 1979. The deficiencies in Respondent's practice as alleged by the Director of Nursing were that the Respondent gave a patient whole blood instead of packed cells as ordered by the physician, failed to verify an error in transcription by the ward clerk which resulted in a patient's x-rays being delayed for a day, and improperly charting when the Respondent noted on the nursing notes that at 9:00 p.m. there was no significant change in a patient's condition, when in fact the patient had left the hospital at 8:30 p.m. The lack of direct evidence of these allegations was compensated for by the Respondent's admissions as she testified concerning the circumstances surrounding why the incidents occurred. The third warning occurred on March 19, 1980. The allegations in the warning concerned the Respondent having shouted at a supervisor, abandoning her patients, allowing two I.V.s to run dry, failing to carry out a doctor's orders, and failing to chart. Again, there was no direct evidence of the allegations, however, the Respondent admitted that she left her duty station because of sickness prior to relief arriving in the unit, failed to properly follow doctor's orders, and failed to chart for the time she was present in the unit prior to her reporting to the emergency room. The fourth and final warning, which resulted in termination, occurred on April 23, 1980. The allegations by the Director of Nursing were that the Respondent hung one-fourth percent normal saline solution rather than the one- half percent normal saline solution ordered by the physician, and that the Respondent failed to administer the 5:00 p.m. medication. Again, the allegations were admitted by the Respondent as she attempted to explain why they occurred. The Director of Nursing testified that during each of these warnings, the Respondent's attitude was that she had done nothing wrong and, therefore, could not improve on her performance. The testimony of the Department's nurse investigator was to the effect that the Respondent's actions failed to meet the minimal standard of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. The investigator also testified that, in her opinion, a nurse with Respondent's poor attitude could be extremely dangerous in a hospital setting. After many years of difficult and stressful work, many nurses suffer from what is commonly referred to as "burn out" and are no longer useful, and can be dangerous in a high stress area of nursing. Respondent testified in her own behalf and offered an explanation for each allegation presented by Petitioner. Respondent testified that relative to the first warning, even though she only had two patients, she did not have adequate time to do her charting during her shift and, therefore, had to stay two hours late. Respondent further testified that on one occasion she had not timely taken her vital signs because the Director of Nursing had delayed her with a needless confrontation. Respondent testified that she did not leave the facility as ordered on August 12, 1979, because she was afraid that she would be abandoning her patients, and could lose her vacation and sick leave benefits. With respect to the November 26, 1979 evaluation, the Respondent testified that she gave whole blood instead of packed cells because the whole blood was incorrectly labeled as packed cells. Respondent further testified that she became aware of the error after the solution had infused, and that had she looked at the solution earlier she would have been able to see that it was an incorrect blood product, and would have been able to correct the problem. As to the incorrect transcription resulting in a patient's x-rays being delayed, the Respondent stated that it was the ward clerk's responsibility, not hers, to transcribe the doctor's orders. With respect to the 9:00 p.m. nursing notes when the patient had left the facility at 8:30 p.m., the Respondent's response was that she had been aware that the patient was gone, but was summarizing the patient's condition during the entire shift up to the point the patient left. Respondent acknowledge that the nursing notes may have been misleading. As to thee warning of termination on March 19, 1980, the Respondent admitted leaving her unit prior to relief arriving. Her explanation gas that she had been attempting for one hour to get assistance, to no avail. Upon questioning, she admitted that she was-only "a little dizzy" and had diarrhea. On that day she did not chart any nursing care given by her while on duty. The Respondent was caring for twelve patients at that time. With respect to the April 23, 1980 termination, Respondent admitted that she hung the incorrect percentage saline solution, but that she did so because a prior nurse obtained the incorrect solution from a supply room. The Respondent then also admitted failing to give out the 5:00 p.m. medication as ordered, but stated the reason for her failure to administer the medication was her inability to obtain help from her supervisor which was necessary because she was overworked. Respondent also testified that during this time period, she went on rounds with a doctor, and also went to dinner. The Respondent testified that she felt she was a good and qualified nurse. Respondent also testified that she had been fired previously from Leesburg General Hospital. The Respondent believes her attitude to be good and indicated that the hospital was overreacting to a few isolated incidents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's license to practice nursing in the State of Florida, license number 39108-2, be suspended indefinitely. If the Respondent seeks reinstatement, it will be her responsibility to undergo counseling with a psychologist or psychiatrist, for an in-depth evaluation and treatment, the results of which shall be submitted to the Board of Nursing if and when the Respondent wishes to apply for reinstatement of her nursing license. If the Respondent applies for reinstatement of her license, it shall be her responsibility to demonstrate to the Board that she is able to engage in the practice of nursing in a safe, professional, proficient and legal manner. This demonstration shall include but not be limited to a report by her psychologist or psychiatrist, along with a recommendation from him that she be reinstated to the practice of nursing. 1/ DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of January, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of January, 1982.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues contained herein, Respondent. ROYCE S. McCALL, was licensed by the State of Florida as a licensed practical nurse, the license initially issued on December 4, 1978 and renewed thereafter until the present. His license number is 0500981. On July 11, 1984, Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse with the Walton County Convalescent Center (WCCC) in DeFuniak Springs, Florida. Late that evening, at approximately 4 or 5 a.m., Respondent, as charge nurse on one of the Center's units, along with Rachiel Infinger and Corene Fondren, was about to change a bladder catheter on one of the Center's residents, a Mrs. Rourke. Before doing so, however, he discovered that Mrs. Rourke had fouled herself and he refused to do the procedure then instructing Mrs. Rourke's aides to clean her up. He then went to the room occupied by Mrs. Harper, an elderly, completely bedridden patient between 80 and 90 years old, who rarely talks and can hardly move her arms and legs. Mrs. Harper also required a bladder catheter change and Respondent, along with another nurse, was attempting to do it. Since apparently Mrs. Harper was resisting somewhat, Respondent asked Ms. Infinger to help. During the course of the procedure, Mrs. Harper brought her hand down into the area where Respondent was working in an attempt to stop him. It was obvious that the procedure was somewhat painful to her and in the opinion of Ms. Infinger, Respondent was being less than gentle. When Mrs. Harper brought her hand down, Respondent grabbed it and moved it out of the way telling her at the time to, "Move your damned hand." This comment was heard by both Ms. Infinger and Ms. Fondren. When Respondent moved Mrs. Harper's hand, it collided with the bed rail which broke the skin causing it to bleed. Ms. Infinger noticed this and mentioned it to Respondent. He said he would take care of it and Ms. Infinger went some place else to do something. When she came back some 30 to 45 minutes later, she found that Respondent had still not dressed the skin break on Mrs. Harper's hand. Ms. Infinger thinks Respondent was too rough with Mrs. Harper. She believes it was not necessary for him to throw the elderly woman's hand off as he did. There were two aides present who could have, had they been asked, moved the hand and held it out of the way. There is some divergence in the testimony of Ms. Infinger and Ms. Fondren as to whether Respondent threw Mrs. Harper's hand or pushed it with the former contending it was a throw and the latter contending it was merely a push. Even Ms. Fondren, however, who believes this rough action was a reflex action by Respondent who had been in a bad mood all evening, agrees that since someone was there to help him, he should have asked for help rather than reacting on his own. If either witness is to be believed, however, Respondent acted unprofessionally. On the other hand, however, Ms. Stubbs, Ms. Blocker, and Ms. Fields, all of whom had worked with Respondent for several months, knew him from their repeated observations of him at work never to be abusive or rough with his patients. He is generally very kind to his patients, taking the time to explain what he is doing and exhibiting patience and understanding. His patience is somewhat less with the aides who in his opinion, do not do what they should on duty. Mrs. Harper has had several other skin tears both before and after the one in issue here. She is an old woman who bruises easily and whose skin can be broken easily. While not a difficult patient, she is somewhat confused and tends to try to interfere at times with the ministrations of those trying to help her and her hands often get in the way. Here, it is obvious that Respondent was in a bad mood late at night when he went to treat Mrs. Harper. He had just come from another patient who had not been properly cared for by the aides responsible for her and he was clearly annoyed. No doubt Mrs. Harper, not through spite or even consciously, attempted to stop him from doing what was no doubt a painful procedure and he reacted unprofessionally. This is not to say he consciously intended to harm her, but his reaction was less than it should have been in this situation. When Ms. Infinger came back and found that Respondent had not tended to Mrs. Harpers wound, she immediately reported this fact to Barbara Jean Miller, a licensed practical nurse working on another unit that evening who quickly treated and dressed the skin tear. When she left duty the next morning, she reported what she had seen and done and what Ms. Infinger had told her to the Assistant Director of Nursing who she saw outside in the parking lot. This lady reported it to the Director of Nursing, Mrs. Harwell, who conducted her own investigation. Mrs. Harwell interviewed Respondent who after first denying that the incident had taken place, admitted that he did yank Mrs. Harper's arm but stated he did not know it had hit the bed rail. He also initially denied knowing there was an injury but then admitted he had been told there was and that he had said he would fix it. He admitted that he was upset that evening. In the catheter procedure that Respondent was accomplishing, it is never appropriate to handle a patient so forcefully that it results in an injury even though it may be necessary to restrain or move the patient in some fashion. In Mrs. Harwell's opinion, Respondent's handling of Mrs. Harper in this instance was below minimum standards for the nursing profession. After talking with all the witnesses and securing pictures of the injury, based on her investigation and her discussions with Respondent, she terminated his employment with WCCC that day not only because in this instance his performance was below standards and unprofessional but also because this was the second incident of substandard performance on his record. She had previously chastised him for speaking improperly to or about another patient several weeks previously. Consequently, it is clear that Respondent moved Mrs. Harper's hand in such a manner that resulted in injury to her which is unprofessional conduct on his part compounded by his failure to return to treat the wound once he was made aware of it.
