209 Cal. App. 4th 793
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Lee, a registered nurse since 2000, faced employer concerns about mental condition while in the surgical unit in 2007.
- Five mental health professionals evaluated Lee; two diagnosed delusions impairing practice, three found no impairment.
- On April 22, 2009, the Board ordered a mental health examination by a designated professional by May 22, 2009.
- Lee missed the May deadline; the Board filed an accusation in June 2009 but conditioned on Lee’s examination by Dr. Bertagnolli.
- Lee missed the Bertagnolli deadline, later refused any psychiatric/psychological exams; the Board proceeded with the accusation and revocation followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 820–822 permits revocation for noncompliance with an exam order. | Lee contends noncompliance alone cannot justify revocation. | Board argues failure to comply with 820/821 exam order is grounds for discipline to protect the public. | Yes; noncompliance supports revocation under 821 when framed as inability to practice safely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Finnerty v. Board of Registered Nursing, 168 Cal.App.4th 219 (2008) (limit of appellate review is weight of evidence supporting agency decision)
- Yakov v. Board of Medical Examiners, 68 Cal.2d 67 (1968) (scope of review when reviewing agency findings)
- Sulla v. Board of Registered Nursing, 205 Cal.App.4th 1195 (2012) (limits of review in nurse discipline cases)
- Alexander D. v. State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 231 Cal.App.3d 92 (1991) (due process/privacy considerations in pre-discipline actions)
- Smith v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance, 202 Cal.App.3d 316 (1988) (due process/privacy concerns in disciplinary procedures)
- Kees v. Medical Board, 7 Cal.App.4th 1801 (1992) (privacy interests in medical discipline contexts)