Sulla v. Board of Registered Nursing
205 Cal. App. 4th 1195
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Sulla is a registered nurse disciplined for a DUI with 0.16% BAC after a single-car crash.
- He pled no contest to a misdemeanor under Veh. Code §23152(b) and received three years’ probation.
- ALJ found no nexus between the DUI and nursing qualifications under §490 and §2761(f).
- The ALJ nonetheless ordered license revocation under §2762(b) for dangerous alcohol use and §2762(c) for the alcohol conviction.
- Board adopted the ALJ’s decision; Sulla challenged in superior court by writ of administrative mandate.
- Superior court granted the writ, prompting Board appeal seeking upholding of §2762-based discipline despite lack of §490 nexus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §2762(b)/(c) create a conclusive presumption of unprofessional conduct? | Sulla argues lack of nexus invalidates §2762 discipline. | Board argues §2762 provides conclusive grounds irrespective of nexus. | Yes; §2762 connotes conclusive unprofessional conduct absent a nexus requirement. |
| Must there be a nexus between alcohol misconduct and nursing fitness for §2762 discipline? | Sulla asserts due process requires nexus to qualifications. | Board contends nexus not required under §2762. | No; nexus not required for §2762 discipline under the statutory framework. |
| Is the §490 substantial-relations standard a prerequisite to discipline under §2762? | §490 requires substantial relation to discipline; thus §2762 cannot stand without nexus. | §2762 operates independently, and §490 is not a prerequisite. | §490 does not bar §2762 discipline; §2762 stands independently of nexus. |
| Does the single alcohol-related DUI conviction violate equal protection? | Unlike physicians, nurses need more than one DUI to trigger discipline; unequal treatment. | Legislature may treat professions differently with rational basis. | No equal-protection violation; rational basis to treat physicians and nurses differently. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weissbuch v. Board of Medical Examiners, 41 Cal.App.3d 924 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974) (discipline permissible without nexus where law defines conduct as unprofessional; legislature may define personal conduct as evidence of risk to public)
- Griffiths v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.4th 757 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (nexus not required when statute defines conduct as unprofessional; DUI convictions can support discipline)
- Watson v. Superior Court, 176 Cal.App.4th 1407 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (establishes nexus sufficient when statute defines conduct as unprofessional; rejects case-by-case impairment review)
- Grannis v. Board of Medical Examiners, 19 Cal.App.3d 551 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971) (earlier view on requiring impairment connection to practice; rejected where statute defines misconduct)
- Donaldson v. Department of Real Estate, 134 Cal.App.4th 948 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (discusses substantial relation as a matter of law)
- Krain v. Medical Board, 71 Cal.App.4th 1416 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (discusses whether conviction’s relation to qualifications is a legal question)
- Petropoulos v. Department of Real Estate, 142 Cal.App.4th 554 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (historical discussion of the §490 substantial-relations standard)