In the Matter of the Commonwealth of PA Dept. of State, BPOA (State Board of Nursing Investigation No. 14-51-05195) v. Abington Health
149 A.3d 420
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Nurse worked ~6 years at Abington Memorial Hospital; employer suspected she was impaired and required a drug/alcohol specimen for employment-related testing.
- Abington sent the specimen to an outside lab; based on results it terminated Nurse in Feb. 2014.
- The State Board of Nursing (Petitioner) opened an investigation after receiving a third-party report that Nurse failed a drug test and served an investigative subpoena on Abington for the test results.
- Abington produced personnel files but withheld the drug/alcohol test results, citing Murray v. Surgical Specialties Corp. as authority that the Pennsylvania Drug and Alcohol Abuse Control Act (Control Act) protects such results.
- Parties stipulated Nurse did not consent to disclosure; testing was employment-related (not treatment); Board sought results to investigate Nurse’s fitness to practice under the Professional Nursing Law.
- Commonwealth Court granted both cross-motions and ordered Abington to produce the test results under subpoena, keeping records under seal for the Board’s investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether confidentiality provisions of the Control Act apply to employment drug/alcohol test results | Control Act protects disclosure of drug/alcohol records; Board needs results to investigate nursing fitness | Employer contends Control Act confidentiality covers employee test results (relying on Murray) and bars disclosure without consent | Confidentiality under the Control Act applies only to patients seeking treatment; does not cover employment testing. Board entitled to subpoenaed results |
| Whether Abington must comply with the Board's investigative subpoena | Board: subpoena power under Professional Nursing Law compels production for license-investigative purposes | Abington: withholding justified by Control Act confidentiality and Murray precedent | Board’s subpoena enforcement granted; Abington directed to produce results and file certificate of compliance |
| Whether Murray v. Surgical Specialties Corp. controls | Board: Murray misinterprets "patient" and "practitioner" and is not binding on this Court | Abington: Murray persuasive authority that employee test results are confidential under the Control Act | Court rejects Murray’s expansion of "patient" and "practitioner"; not binding and misapplies plain meaning of terms |
| Scope and handling of produced records | Board: needs results for investigation but records should be limited to investigation and administrative proceedings | Abington: concerned about confidentiality and improper dissemination | Court orders production but limits disclosure: records maintained under seal and used only as necessary for the Board’s proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Search Warrant Application No. 125-4, 852 A.2d 408 (Pa. Super. 2004) (discussing confidentiality importance in drug/alcohol treatment context)
- Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., 106 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2014) (use dictionary/plain meaning to construe undefined statutory terms)
- Adams Outdoor Adver., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Smithfield Twp., 909 A.2d 469 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (statutory construction principles for undefined terms)
- Gallo v. Conemaugh Health Sys., 114 A.3d 855 (Pa. Super. 2015) (state courts not bound by federal interpretations of state law)
- S.E. Reprographics, Inc. v. Bureau of Prof’l & Occupational Affairs, 139 A.3d 323 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed plenary)