John S. Zablotny v. State Board of Nursing, 156 A.3d 126

Patient admitted to Down East Community Hospital with severe pain and on high-dose narcotics; later desired discharge AMA and left on foot into a Nor’easter wearing only light clothing.
Evening nursing supervisor John Zablotny authorized AMA discharge after calling the on-call physician and reporting that patient wanted to go to a friend’s house; Zablotny did not relay the patient’s clothing or that he planned to walk.
The on-call physician, who had seen the patient earlier that day, told Zablotny to “let him go” and instructed to call police if the patient was dangerous to himself or others.
After the patient left (about 8:20 p.m.), Zablotny discovered a misplaced day-shift report disclosing suicidal comments; he then called the patient’s wife and police. The patient was found dead of hypothermia and combined opiate toxicity.
The Board revoked Zablotny’s license; on remand after Zablotny I, the District Court conducted a de novo hearing, found some unprofessional conduct but concluded the Board failed to prove violations for (1) not fully informing the on-call physician and (2) not immediately notifying police/emergency contact; suspension ordered but not increased.
On appeal the Board challenged only the District Court’s legal conclusions that the facts did not compel findings of violations under 32 M.R.S. § 2105-A(2)(F) and (H).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Zablotny violated professional standards by failing to fully inform the on-call physician of conditions under which the patient sought AMA discharge	Zablotny failed to disclose critical facts (clothing, plan to walk) that made the discharge dangerous, breaching standards	Court found Zablotny lacked knowledge of day-shift observations, the physician had seen patient earlier and told him to let the patient go, and hospital policy required contacting only the attending physician	District Court’s factual findings supported; not compelled as a matter of law to find a violation — affirmed
Whether Zablotny violated standards by failing to immediately notify law enforcement or the patient’s emergency contact after the patient left	Board: immediate notification was required given patient’s risk, so delay violated rules	Zablotny called the wife and police promptly after discovering the misplaced report; lacked authority to detain patient; hospital policy did not require immediate reporting beyond contacting physician	District Court’s findings supported; Board failed to prove violation — affirmed

Zablotny v. State Bd. of Nursing, 89 A.3d 143 (Me. 2014) (remanding for de novo District Court review)
Cates v. Donahue, 916 A.2d 941 (Me. 2007) (deferential review of trial court fact findings for clear error)
Stickney v. City of Saco, 770 A.2d 592 (Me. 2001) (credibility and evidentiary significance fall to fact-finder)
Sturtevant v. Town of Winthrop, 732 A.2d 264 (Me. 1999) (standard for appellate review of factual findings)
St. Louis v. Wilkinson Law Offices, 55 A.3d 443 (Me. 2012) (party with burden must show evidence compels contrary finding)
Handrahan v. Malenko, 12 A.3d 79 (Me. 2011) (burden of proof standard on appeal)
Kelley v. Me. Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 967 A.2d 676 (Me. 2009) (challenging factual findings burden)
Goudreau v. Pine Springs Rd. & Water, LLC, 44 A.3d 315 (Me. 2012) (de novo review of legal conclusions)
Balian v. Bd. of Licensure in Medicine, 722 A.2d 364 (Me. 1999) (undisputed violations require no proof of standard)
Bd. of Overseers of the Bar v. Warren, 34 A.3d 1103 (Me. 2011) (interpretation of professional standards de novo)
Bd. of Overseers of the Bar v. Brown, 623 A.2d 1268 (Me. 1993) (fact-finder may accept or reject expert testimony)
Dionne v. LeClerc, 896 A.2d 923 (Me. 2006) (fact-finder’s prerogative regarding testimony)
In re Fleming, 431 A.2d 616 (Me. 1981) (weight of expert testimony rests with fact-finder)