FINACT18A-1309079-NUR.pdf

18A-1309079-NUR · State Board of Nursing · 2018-05-22

Doug Ducey Joey Ridenour Governor Executive Director

Arizona State Board of Nursing 1740 West Adams Street, Suite 2000 Phoenix. AZ 85007 Phone (602) 771-7800 Fax (602) 771-7888 E-Mail: [email redacted] Home Page: http://www.azbn.gov

TO: Case Management Office of Administrative Hearings

FROM: Trina Smith Legal Assistant Hearing Department

DATE: May 21, 2018

RE: Mark Phillip Moore Docket No. 18A-1309079-NUR ______________________________________________________________________________

On May 18, 2018, the Board considered the Administrative Law Judge Decision (“ALJ Decision”), which recommended that the Board place Mark Phillip Moore’s practical nurse license number LP040849 on probation under such terms and conditions as the Board deems as appropriate.

The Board adopted the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order in its entirety. ARIZONA STATE BOARD OF NURSING 1740 West Adams Street, Suite 2000 Phoenix AZ 85007 602-771-7800

IN THE MATTER OF THE PRACTICAL NURSE LICENSE NO. LP040849 FINDINGS OF FACT, ISSUED TO: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER NO. 18A-1309079-NUR MARK PHILLIP MOORE, RESPONDENT. A hearing was held before Thomas Shedden, Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), at 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level, Phoenix Arizona, on March 29, 2018. Sunita A. Krishna, Assistant

Attorney General, appeared on behalf of the State. Mark Phillip Moore (“Respondent”) appeared in

person on his own behalf. On May 2, 2018, the ALJ issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendations. On May 18, 2018, the Arizona State Board of Nursing met to consider the ALJ’s recommendations.

Based upon the ALJ’s recommendations and the administrative record in this matter, the Board makes

the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Arizona State Board of Nursing (“Board”) is the authority for licensing and

regulating the practice of nursing in the State of Arizona.

2. Respondent Mark Phillip Moore holds practical nurse license number LP040849. 3. On February 16, 2018, the Board issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on March 29, 2018 at the Office of Administrative Hearings in

Phoenix, Arizona.

4. Mr. Moore appeared and testified on his own behalf.

5. The Board presented the testimony of Michael Pilder RN, a nurse practice consultant with the Board, and Tracy Kruse, RN. 6. On September 19, 2013, the Board received from El Rio Community Health Center a

complaint alleging that Mr. Moore had been terminated from its employment because he: (1) had been

careless in the performance of his duties; (2) exhibited unsafe nursing practices; and (3) failed to follow policies. 7. Based on this complaint the Board began an investigation, which was conducted by Mr.

Pilder. On January 15, 2015, the Board received from Devon Gables Health Care a complaint regarding

Mr. Moore. Mr. Pilder also investigated this complaint. El Rio’s Complaint 8. Mr. Moore began working for El Rio in or about February 2011. At some point he became the Associate Health Center Manager for the Broadway Road clinic. On November 8, 2012, El

Rio issued to Mr. Moore a Performance Improvement Plan. The majority of that plan addresses

deficiencies in his managerial functions, but it also shows there was missing documentation in the NextGen system, which could cause patient care issues. 9. On March 4, 2013, El Rio issued a to Mr. Moore a letter regarding issues that had arisen

during the time the Performance Improvement Plan was in effect. In addition to Mr. Moore’s

management functions, the letter addresses two issues regarding documentation. One of these clearly shows that there were concerns as to whether Mr. Moore had completely documented a call to a patient. The other entry however is ambiguous as to whether missing documentation was for a patient Mr.

Moore had seen or whether it was addressing a failure on his part to insure that another employee had

prepared the required documentation.

10. On April 5, 2013, El Rio informed Mr. Moore that he was being asked to step down from his role as Associate Health Center Manager for the Broadway Road clinic and accept a position as an LPN at Internal Medicine Congress. The reason for this demotion was a continuing decline in his

managerial skills.

11. On or about April 8, 2013, Mr. Moore transferred from the Broadway clinic to the Congress clinic, where Ms. Kruse became his supervisor. 12. While working under Ms. Kruse’s supervision, Mr. Moore on multiple occasions failed

to meet the standards of care for treatment of patients and for documenting this treatment. 1

13. On August 28, 2013, Mr. Moore was discharged from El Rio for cause, including incidents that put patient safety at risk. Mr. Moore was not eligible for rehire at El Rio. 14. El Rio follows a progressive discipline approach and Mr. Moore’s employment records show that during the five months he was under Ms. Kruse’s supervision he received multiple warnings

to the effect that he was not meeting the standards of care required of him.

15. Ms. Kruse testified that Mr. Moore had been experiencing similar lapses while he was working at the Broadway clinic. Part of the reason Mr. Moore had been assigned to Ms. Kruse was to afford him the opportunity to get any required retraining. Ms. Kruse explained however that Mr. Moore

was not receptive or responsive to that training and to the contrary, she described his attitude toward the

training as blasé. 16. Ms. Kruse’s opinion is that based on his unwillingness to accept the proffered training, Mr. Moore is not safe to practice, but she did acknowledge that she was basing that on her interactions

with him during 2015.

Patient A Ms. Kruse acknowledged that she had little recollection of any of the specifics regarding care Mr. Moore

provided to any patient and she relied on the medical records for that information. She did however have personal knowledge and recollection of the broader issues regarding Mr. Moore’s work at El Rio.

17. On July 9, 2013, Patient A came to El Rio as a “walk-in.” Mr. Moore completed the triage on the patient, who had diabetes. Mr. Moore should have checked Patient A’s blood sugar, but did not, and he should have consulted with either an RN or doctor for a disposition, but did not. Mr.

Moore took Patient A’s blood pressure, which was 157 over 97, and sent the patient home with what is

colloquially known as a “doctor’s note” showing that she should not work for two days. 18. Mr. Moore testified that he sent Patient A home because there were no available treatment slots open and she could not be seen that day.

19. A diastolic blood pressure of 97 is very high and Mr. Moore should have escalated this

matter by reporting it to a provider competent to make a disposition, but he failed to do so. Mr. Pilder’s opinion was that this was a potentially dangerous situation. 20. Mr. Pilder had reviewed Patient A’s medical records and found that these records support the allegation in El Rio’s complaint regarding this patient.

Patient B

21. Patient B was taking warfarin (aka Coumadin) a blood thinner and had a history of venous embolism and thrombosis. 22. An “INR” is a ratio related to the clotting ability of the blood. The higher the INR, the

slower blood will clot.

23. On August 7, 2013, Mr. Moore conducted a PT/INR check on Patient B. At that time her INR was 5.3. 24. An INR of 5.3 is high for any patient, and for Patient B it was outside the range ordered.

Standard of care required Mr. Moore to escalate the issue by reporting the INR to a provider, but he

failed to do so. 25. Mr. Moore sent Patient B to the lab, which contacted El Rio to report the INR of 5.3.

26. The Board alleges that Mr. Moore told Patient B to stop taking the warfarin. Although the medical records are ambiguous on this point, Mr. Pilder testified that information he learned during his interviews confirms this. Mr. Moore denied that he had told Patient B to stop taking the warfarin.

27. Stopping the warfarin was the proper course of action, but ordering a patient to do so

exceeds the scope of a nurse’s authority. 28. On August 3rd, Patient B’s blood pressure was also low at 102 over 60. Patient B’s low blood pressure while taking warfarin is a concern because there is a possibility of internal bleeding.

29. Mr. Pilder’s review of Patient B’s medical records showed that these supported the

allegations in El Rio’s complaint regarding this patient. Patient C 30. Patient C had a history that included subdural hematoma, retroperitoneal bleed, hemarthrosis, embolic CVA, and embolic myocardial infarction. These are related to bleeding and

blood clotting. Patient C was also taking warfarin.

31. Patient C’s provider had issued an order showing that her INR should be maintained between 1.9 and 2.1. Mr. Moore had a duty to look at the patient’s chart/orders and should therefore have been aware of this order.

32. On June 14, 2013, Mr. Moore conducted an INR check of Patient C that showed a value

of 2.4. 33. Because this was above the range specified by the patient’s provider, standard of care required Mr. Moore to escalate the matter to a provider who could order the appropriate action, but he

failed to do so.

34. Mr. Moore testified that El Rio’s policy was that INRs were to be maintained between two and three. Mr. Pilder explained however that even if that were the case, the provider’s order for Patient C would control in her case. 2

35. On June 20, 2013, Mr. Moore conducted an INR check of Patient C that showed a value

of 2.6. Because this was above the range specified by the patient’s provider, standard of care required Mr. Moore to escalate the matter to a provider who could order the appropriate action, but he failed to do so. Instead he counseled the patient and sent her home.

36. On June 28, 2013, Mr. Moore conducted an INR check of Patient C that showed a value

of 2.8. Because this was above the range specified by the patient’s provider, standard of care required Mr. Moore to escalate the matter to a provider who could order the appropriate action, but he failed to do so. 37. Patients on warfarin need to be tightly regulated to maintain their INR values in the

proper range; INR values that are too high or too low can both cause problems. Because Patient C was

taking warfarin, the elevated INRs were potentially life threatening and should have been reported ASAP so the warfarin dose could be adjusted. Mr. Pilder’s review of Patient C’s medical records showed that these supported the

allegations in El Rio’s complaint regarding Patient C.

Devon Gables 39. On or about December 1, 2014, while investigating the complaint from El Rio, Mr. Pilder subpoenaed records from Devon Gables Health Care where Mr. Moore was employed at that

time. In February 2017, Mr. Pilder issued a second subpoena to Devon Gables, which provided

additional records related to Mr. Moore’s employment.

The record was held open to allow Mr. Moore to try to locate and file a copy of that policy, but he did not do so.

40. Devon Gables responded to the subpoena by providing to the Board employment records for Mr. Moore. 41. On January 15, 2015, Devon Gables filed with the Board its complaint showing that Mr.

Moore’s employment had been terminated for job performance concerns regarding “follow up” and a

policy violation when he failed to inform a physician or the patient’s family about a skin injury. The complaint shows that Mr. Moore also had other job performance concerns/counseling actions regarding medication documentation.

42. The Devon Gables complaint shows that during his termination meeting, Mr. Moore

effectively requested that the matter not be reported to the Board. 43. The Devon Gables complaint shows that when it responded to the December 2014 subpoena there were no documented disciplinary issues for Mr. Moore, and when the DON asked him if there was an open complaint, he stated that the subpoena was related to a closed complaint.

44. Records provided by Devon Gable show that Mr. Moore had failed to notify a provider

when he observed a burn on a patient’s thigh and he failed to notify the patient’s family. Mr. Pilder testified that this was a failure to meet the standard of care and he explained that it should have been reported to a provider so an order for proper treatment could be issued.

45. Mr. Moore applied to Devon Gables on September 22, 2014.

46. In his application, Mr. Moore wrote that he was assistant clinic director at the El Rio Broadway clinic from Feb 2011 to August 2013, and that he left that position due to a “change in assignments.” This was true, but Mr. Moore did not include on his application the information showing

he transferred to the Congress clinic and was subsequently fired from that position.

47. On January 8, 2015, Devon Gables issued a Notice of Counseling Action to Mr. Moore showing multiple violations related to incomplete tasks.

48. On January 15, 2015, Mr. Moore was terminated from employment at Devon Gables for job performance concerns including failure to report the patient’s burn and medical documentation issues.

49. Mr. Pilder found that Mr. Moore’s deficiencies at Devon Gables were similar to those at

El Rio and that there was a pattern of such deficiencies over several years. Mr. Moore’s Testimony 50. Mr. Moore testified to the effect that he should be judged based on his current behavior,

not issues that occurred years ago.

51. Mr. Moore had admitted into evidence an employee review from Aspen Pointe where he was hired in November 2016. That review shows that Mr. Moore had shown growth and improvement over the prior year, and that he was a great asset to the team. Mr. Moore met or exceed expectations in all areas except administration and documentation, where he was shown to need improvement.

Conclusions

52. Based on his interaction with Mr. Moore during the investigation, Mr. Pilder’s opinion was that Mr. Moore was not accepting responsibility for his failures, but rather was blaming others or making excuses.

53. Mr. Pilder explained that some of Mr. Moore’s lapses (e.g., the failure to escalate

matters and failure to properly review the patients’ charts) were basic nursing functions. 54. When Mr. Pilder was asked his opinion as to whether Mr. Moore is safe to practice, he responded that monitoring could be effective for Mr. Moore if he was willing to undergo education to

continuously ensure patient safety. As such, the Board is requesting that Mr. Moore be placed on

probation, which would include a requirement that his work be monitored and that the Board be provided regular reports from any employer.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Board bears the burden of persuasion. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).

2. The standard of proof on all issues is that of a preponderance of the evidence. ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119. 3. A preponderance of the evidence is:

The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1373 (10th ed. 2014). 4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Mr. Moore repeatedly failed to alert providers of patient-conditions that put these patients at risk and, in some cases, were potentially life

threatening. As such Mr. Moore committed unprofessional conduct under ARIZ. REV. STAT. section

32-1601(26)(d)(conduct that is, or might be, harmful or dangerous to the health of a patient). 3 5. Mr. Moore’s actions are also violations of ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE sections 4-19-403(1) (pattern of failure to maintain minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice) and 4-

19-403(9)(failure to take appropriate action to safeguard a patient’s welfare or follow policies and

procedures of the nurse’s employer designed to safeguard the patient), which are also unprofessional conduct under ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 32-1601(26)(d) and (j). 6. The preponderance of the evidence shows that by failing to inform Devon Gables that he

had been fired from El Rio, Mr. Moore made an incomplete and misleading statement on an

employment application, which is a violation ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE section 4-19-403(27) and is unprofessional conduct under ARIZ. REV. STAT. sections 32-1601(26)(d) and (j). The current versions of the applicable statutes and rules are cited.

7. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Mr. Moore willfully and repeatedly violated a provision of this chapter or a rule adopted pursuant to this chapter, which is unprofessional conduct under ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-1601(26)(g).

8. The Board alleges that Mr. Moore violated ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE section 4-19-

403(31)(practicing in any other manner that gives the Board reasonable cause to believe the health of a patient or the public may be harmed). The Board has not proven this allegation because all the alleged violations have been addressed through the statutes and rules listed above.

9. Because Mr. Moore has committed unprofessional conduct, the Board has authority to

discipline his license. ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-1663 and 32-1664. 10. Factors in mitigation are that the Board has received no complaints against Mr. Moore since January 2015, and his review from Aspen Pointe is largely favorable. That review also shows however that Mr. Moore needed improvement in administration and documentation, which were

problem areas for Mr. Moore at El Rio and Devon Gables.

11. Although Mr. Moore testified to the effect that he has improved as a nurse, his testimony tended to confirm Mr. Pilder’s opinion that Mr. Moore was not accepting responsibility for his actions, which is a factor in aggravation.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of this matter, it is recommended that Mr.

Moore be placed on probation under such terms and conditions as the Board deems appropriate. ORDER In view of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Board issues the following Order:

A. The Practical Nurse License No. LP040849 issued to MARK PHILLIP MOORE, is

placed on PROBATION for at minimum 18 months with terms and conditions.

B. Prior to termination of probation, Respondent shall work as a licensed practical nurse for a minimum of 18 months (not less than sixteen hours a week). C. While this Board Order is in effect and/or Respondent’s license is subject to discipline,

up to and including revocation or voluntary surrender, Respondent is not eligible to renew any other

expired license or certificate previously held by Respondent without prior review and approval by the Board. D. At any time Respondent is required by terms of the Board Order to provide a copy of the

Board Order to another individual or facility Respondent shall provide all pages of the Board Order.

E. If Respondent is convicted of a felony, Respondent’s license shall be automatically revoked and Respondent may not apply for reissuance for a minimum period of five years. Respondent waives any and all rights to a hearing, rehearing or judicial review of any revocation imposed pursuant to this paragraph.

F. If Respondent is noncompliant with any of the terms of the Board Order, Respondent’s noncompliance shall be reviewed by the Board for consideration of possible further discipline on Respondent's nursing license.

G. Probation is subject to the following terms and conditions:

TERMS OF PROBATION

1. License on Probation

While this Board Order is in effect, if the Board issues any licenses or certificates authorized by statute except a nursing assistant certificate, such certificate or license shall be marked “Probation.” Respondent is not eligible for a multistate “Compact” license.

While this Board Order is in effect, any license or certificate that Respondent presents to any employer or other member of the public shall be clearly marked “Probation.” 2. Educational Course/Program LPN Scope of Practice

Within thirty days of the effective date of this Order, Respondent shall submit to the Board

or its designee for prior approval, a course outline/objectives of an educational course or program related to practicing within scope as a LPN which shall be completed within 90 days of the effective date of this Order. Upon approval of Respondent’s plan for enrollment by the Board or its designee,

Respondent shall provide a copy of this Order to include Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to

the Program Director. Within seven days of enrolling in the Program, Respondent shall cause the Program Director to inform the Board in writing, and on Program letterhead, acknowledgment of the Program’s receipt of a copy of the Order and Respondent’s entry into the Program. Upon completion of the program, Respondent shall provide written proof from the instructor or provider of the course

verifying enrollment, attendance, and successful completion of the course.

3. Educational Course/Program Nursing Documentation Within thirty days of the effective date of this Order, Respondent shall submit to the Board or its designee for prior approval, a course outline/objectives of an educational course or program

related to nursing documentation which shall be completed within 90 days of the effective date of this

Order. Upon approval of Respondent’s plan for enrollment by the Board or its designee, Respondent shall provide a copy of this Order to include Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to the Program Director. Within seven days of enrolling in the Program, Respondent shall cause the Program Director

to inform the Board in writing, and on Program letterhead, acknowledgment of the Program’s receipt of

a copy of the Order and Respondent’s entry into the Program. Upon completion of the program,

Respondent shall provide written proof from the instructor or provider of the course verifying enrollment, attendance, and successful completion of the course. 4. Notification of Practice Settings

Any current or future setting in which Respondent is employed in any capacity requiring

nursing licensure, shall be provided with a copy of the entire Board Order within 3 days from the date of hire or within 3 days of the effective date of this Board Order if currently employed. Within 3 days of Respondent’s date of hire, or within 3 days from the effective date of this Board Order if currently

employed, Respondent shall cause licensee’s immediate supervisor to inform the Board, in writing and

on employer letterhead, acknowledgment of the supervisor’s receipt of a copy of this Board Order and the employer’s ability to comply with the conditions of probation. In the event Respondent is attending a nursing program, Respondent shall provide a copy of the entire Order to the Program Director. Respondent shall cause the Program Director to

inform the Board, in writing and on school letterhead, acknowledgment of the program’s receipt of a

copy of the Order and the program’s ability to comply with the conditions of probation during clinical experiences. 5. Practice Under Direct Supervision

Respondent shall practice as a nurse only under the direct supervision of a registered

nurse in good standing with the Board. Direct supervision is defined as having a registered nurse present on the unit whenever Respondent is practicing nursing. The supervising nurse shall have read this Order to include the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Order, and shall provide input

on Respondent’s performance evaluations to the Board. The supervising nurse shall be primarily one

person, who may periodically delegate to other qualified personnel, who shall also have read this Order to include Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law. In the event the assigned supervising nurse is no

longer responsible for the supervision required by this paragraph, within 7 days of the assignment of a new supervising nurse, Respondent shall cause license’s new supervising nurse to inform the Board, in writing and on employer letterhead, acknowledgment of the new supervising nurse’s receipt of a copy

of this Order to include the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the new supervising nurse’s

agreement to comply with the conditions of probation. 6. Acceptable Hours of Work Respondent may work any shift. Within a 14-day period Respondent shall not practice nursing more than 84 scheduled hours.

Respondent may work three 12-hour shifts in one seven-day period and four 12-hour shifts in the other

seven-day period, but Respondent may not work more than 3 consecutive 12-hour shifts during this probationary period. Respondent shall not work 2 consecutive 8 hour shifts within a 24 hour period or be scheduled to work 16 hours within a 24 hour period.

7. Work Prohibited

Respondent may not work for a nurse’s registry, home health, traveling nurse agency, any other temporary employing agencies, float pool, or a position in which the supervision requirements identified above are unable to be maintained.

8. Performance Evaluations/Self-Reports By the first date on the Quarterly Reporting Due Date form, and quarterly thereafter, Respondent shall cause every employer Respondent has worked for to submit to the Board, in writing, quarterly performance evaluations on the Board-approved form and completed by Respondent’s direct

supervisor. In the event Respondent is not employed in nursing or attending nursing school during any quarter or portion thereof, Respondent shall submit to the Board, in writing, a self-report describing other employment or activities on the Board-approved form.

Receipt of confirmation of employment disciplinary action, including written counseling(s), suspension, termination or resignation in lieu of termination from a place of employment, any of which pertains to improper patient care, unsafe practice, inappropriate medication

removal or administration, substandard documentation, or impairment on duty, positive drug test

showing evidence of any drug other than an authorized drug, and/or refusal to submit to an employer- requested drug test, shall be investigated by Board staff. If the Board’s designee reviews and substantiates the employment disciplinary action, it shall be considered as noncompliance with the

terms of the Board Order.

Failure to provide employer evaluations or if not working in nursing, self-reports, within seven days of the reporting date is noncompliance with this Board Order. 9. Out-of-State Practice/Residence Respondent is currently residing and employed in the State of Colorado. Unless

otherwise prohibited by the Colorado Board of Nursing, Respondent may fulfill the terms of this Order

through his current employment at Aspen Point contingent upon compliance with all terms and conditions of this Order including Respondent’s employment setting being consistent with the requirements provided in paragraphs Notification of Practice Setting; Practice Under Direct

Supervision; Acceptable Hours of Work; Work Prohibited; and Performance Evaluations/Self-Reports.

While this Board Order is in effect, and prior to accepting any other out-of-state nursing practice/employment, Respondent shall notify the licensing/certification Board of the State(s) in which Respondent seeks to practice as a nurse of this Board Order and shall obtain written permission from

the licensing/certification Board(s) to practice as a nurse in another State. Respondent shall direct the

licensing Board of the other State(s) to submit written authorization to the Board verifying Respondent is approved to practice nursing in that State. Once written verification is received by the Board,

Respondent may submit a written request to the Board requesting an amendment to the Board Order to permit Respondent to fulfill the terms and conditions of this Order in that State. Respondent shall comply with all terms and conditions of this Board Order whether

practicing in Arizona or practicing in any other State.

10. Release of Information Forms Respondent shall sign all release of information forms as required by the Board or its designee and return them to the Board within 10 days of the Board’s written request. Failure to provide

for the release of information, as required by this paragraph constitutes noncompliance with this Board

Order. 11. Interview With the Board or Its Designee Respondent shall appear in person, or if residing out of state telephonically, for interviews with the Board or its designee upon request with notice of at least 2 days.

12. Renewal of License

In the event Respondent’s registered nurse license has or is scheduled to expire while this Board Order is in effect, Respondent shall apply for renewal of the license, pay the applicable fee, and otherwise maintain qualification to practice nursing in Arizona.

13. Change of Employment/Personal Address/Telephone Number

Respondent shall notify the Board, in writing, within 7 days of any change in nursing employment. Changes in nursing employment includes, but is not limited to, a change in nursing supervisor, the acceptance, resignation or termination of employment.

Respondent shall notify the Board, in writing, within 7 days of any change in personal

address or telephone number. Written notification shall be satisfied if Respondent updates her address through the Board’s secure online “My Services” portal.

14. Obey All Laws Respondent shall obey all laws/rules governing the practice of nursing in this state and obey all federal, state and local criminal laws. Respondent shall report to the Board, within 10 days,

any misdemeanor or felony arrest, citation, or charge. Additionally, Respondent shall notify the Board

of any felony or undesignated offense conviction within 10 days of the conviction. 15. Costs Respondent shall bear all costs of complying with this Board Order.

16. Violation of Probation

If Respondent is noncompliant with this Board Order in any respect, the Board or its designee may notify Respondent’s employer of the noncompliance. Additionally, the Board may take further disciplinary action for noncompliance with this Order after affording Respondent notice and the opportunity to be heard. If a complaint or petition to revoke probation is filed against Respondent

during probation, the Board shall have continuing jurisdiction until the matter is final, and the period of

probation shall be extended until the matter is final. 17. Voluntary Surrender of License Respondent may, at any time this Board Order is in effect, voluntarily request to

surrender Respondent’s license.

18. Completion of Probation Respondent is not eligible for early termination of this Board Order. Upon successful completion of the terms of probation, Respondent shall request formal review by the Board, and after

formal review by the Board, Respondent’s nursing license may be fully restored by the appropriate

Board action if compliance with this Board Order has been demonstrated.

RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REHEARING OR REVIEW Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09, Respondent may file, in writing, a motion for rehearing or review within 30 days after service of this decision with the Arizona State Board of Nursing. Service is complete five days after the date that this decision is mailed. A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(C).

The motion for rehearing or review shall be made to the attention of Hearing Department,

Arizona State Board of Nursing, 1740 West Adams Street, Suite 2000, Phoenix AZ 85007, and must set forth legally sufficient reasons for granting a rehearing. A.A.C. R4-19-608. For answers to questions regarding a rehearing, contact the Hearing Department at (602)

771-7844. Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(B), if Respondent fails to file a motion for rehearing

or review within 30 days after service of this decision, Respondent shall be prohibited from seeking judicial review of this decision. This decision is effective upon expiration of the time for filing a request for rehearing or

review, or upon denial of such request, whichever is later, as mandated in A.A.C. R4-19-609.

DATED this 18th day of May, 2018. ARIZONA STATE BOARD OF NURSING SEAL

Joey Ridenour, R.N., M.N., F.A.A.N Executive Director

COPIES mailed this 21st day of May, 2018, by First Class Mail and Certified Mail No. [account number redacted] 5654 to:

Mark Phillip Moore 902 Lowell Dr Rocky Ford, CO 81067

COPIES of the foregoing mailed this 21st day of May, 2018 to: Case Management Office of Administrative Hearings 1740 West Adams Street, Lower Level Phoenix AZ 85007

Sunita A. Krishna Assistant Attorney General Arizona Attorney General’s Office 2005 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004

By: T. Smith