711 S.E.2d 260
W. Va.2011Background
- Board appeals a circuit court reversal of its two-year license suspension for Harrison for practicing outside the scope of his radiologic technology license.
- The Board found Harrison administered Benadryl intravenously to a patient without physician involvement in violation of West Virginia Code § 30-23-1 et seq. and 18 C.S.R. §§ 5-5.1 and 5.1.17.
- Harrison admitted to giving Benadryl IV to a patient with a contrast allergy after the patient developed hives and respiratory distress, with no timely physician involvement.
- Hospital records showed a protocol excerpt suggesting Benadryl could be used for mild to moderate allergic reactions, but the director testified it did not authorize radiologic technologists to administer meds without a physician order.
- The Hearing Examiner and Board relied on scope-of-practice provisions (including W.Va. Code § 30-23-10(10)) to conclude Harrison acted outside the scope; the circuit court reversed, citing lack of explicit prohibitions and vague policy.
- The Supreme Court of Appeals reverses the circuit court, holding Harrison did act outside the scope and reinstating the Board’s two-year suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the circuit court's reversal of the Board's order improper? | Harrison argues there were no explicit prohibitions or controlling policies authorizing Benadryl admin without a physician. | Board contends § 30-23-10 limits administration to contrast media with physician involvement and that the protocol excerpt does not authorize otherwise. | Circuit court abused discretion; Board's order proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Modi v. West Virginia Bd. of Medicine, 195 W.Va. 230 (1995) (standard of review for contested administrative cases)
- Hoover v. West Virginia Board of Medicine, 216 W.Va. 23 (2004) (abuse of discretion and clearly wrong standards in appellate review)
- Berlow v. West Virginia Board of Medicine, 193 W.Va. 666 (1995) (contested case review and substantial evidence standard)
- Walker v. West Virginia Ethics Comm'n, 201 W.Va. 108 (1997) (procedural and evidentiary standards in review)
- In re Queen, 196 W.Va. 442 (1996) (clearly wrong/arbitrary and capricious standards; deference to agency findings)
- Crouch v. West Virginia Div. of Motor Vehicles, 219 W.Va. 70 (2006) (abuse of discretion standard; appellate review framework)
- Webb v. West Virginia Bd. of Medicine, 212 W.Va. 149 (2002) (deferential review; substantial evidence standard)