Blair v. Bureau of Professional & Occupational Affairs
72 A.3d 742
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Licensee Blair, a Pennsylvania-licensed RN since 2004, faced a Board-initiated disciplinary action based on heroin dependence affecting safe practice.
- In 2006 the Board automatically suspended Blair for a fentanyl conviction under the Drug Act; he pled nolo contendere and received probation.
- Blair later served prison time for theft related to copper stripping; he detoxed from heroin in 2007 while incarcerated.
- The Board reinstated Blair in 2008; he began in-home care for a ventilator-dependent patient and submitted to drug screens, which were negative.
- In 2009 Blair contacted PNAP; Gateway Rehabilitation Center diagnosed opioid dependence in remission and recommended extensive treatment and monitoring.
- The Bureau pursued formal charges; a 2010 hearing recommended an indefinite suspension stayed by probation for at least three years with 42 conditions, including strict supervision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA/Rehab Act require a homecare accommodation | Blair claims a reasonable accommodation should allow homecare practice with supervision. | Board asserts PHMP monitoring is a reasonable accommodation to protect patients. | Yes; DFA accommodation met via PHMP monitoring. |
| Whether three-year monitored practice is appropriate as a condition | Argues the three-year period is overly punitive and not necessary given sobriety. | Board credits Board’s Physician that structured monitoring over three to five years is necessary. | No error; three-year direct supervision required. |
| Attorney fees under ADA/Rehab Act | Requests attorney fees for disability statutes violations. | Board argues no entitlement to fees given the upheld accommodation denial. | Fees denied. |
| Double jeopardy/cruel and unusual punishment and related doctrines | Claims multiplicative penalties and punishment for past conduct. | Disciplinary action protects the public; not punitive; laches/res judicata do not preclude; no double jeopardy. | No violation; sanctions upheld; doctrines of laches/res judicata collateral estoppel do not bar. |
| Laches, res judicata, collateral estoppel | Argues delay prejudiced defense and precluded further action. | Delay did not prejudice; prior actions do not foreclose current proceedings. | Laches and res judicata collateral estoppel defenses fail; proceedings affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Firman v. Dep’t of State, State Bd. of Med., 697 A.2d 291 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (PHMP as ADA reasonable accommodation for impaired professionals)
- Barran v. State Bd. of Medicine, 670 A.2d 765 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (board authority to regulate to protect public health)
- Bethea-Tumani v. Bureau of Prof'l & Occupational Affairs, 993 A.2d 921 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (scope of review for board disciplinary sanctions)
- Sweeny v. State Bd. of Funeral Dirs., 666 A.2d 1137 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (disciplinary action serves deterrent, not punitive purpose)
- Weinberg v. State Bd. of Exam’rs of Pub. Accountants, 509 Pa. 143, 501 A.2d 239 (1985) (laches defense requires prejudice and delay)
- Conlon v. State Bd. of Nurse Exam’rs, 68 Pa.Cmwlth. 349, 449 A.2d 108 (1982) (double punishment considerations in licensing actions)
- J.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 794 A.2d 936 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002) (collateral estoppel and res judicata standard)