ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

20A-1712035-NUR · State Board of Nursing · 2020-04-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN THE MATTER OF REGISTERED NURSE LICENSE NO. RN177734;

ISSUED TO:

TRICIA JO HOPPER,

A.K.A. TRICIA JO PARRY,

RESPONDENT

No. 20A-1712035-NUR

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 5, 2020, with the record held open until April 27, 2020.

APPEARANCES: Tricia Jo Hopper, Respondent, appeared on behalf of herself. The Arizona State Board of Nursing was represented by Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Campbell.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Antara Nath Rivera.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Arizona State Board of Nursing (Board) has the authority to regulate and control the practice of nursing in the State of Arizona, pursuant to Sections §§ 32-1606, 1663, and 1664 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). The Board also has the authority to impose disciplinary sanctions against the holders of nursing licenses for violations of the Nurse Practice Act, A.R.S. §§ 32-1601-1667.

Tricia Jo Hopper (Respondent) holds Board-issued registered nurse (RN) license number RN177734 (initially issued in January 2013) in the State of Arizona.

On or about April 4, 2017, Respondent was employed by MGA Home Care (MGA). Respondent was assigned to provide home health nursing services to a Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD) patient, G.R.

Between August 14, 2017, and October 17, 2017, Respondent was employed by A Brighter Avenue (Brighter) to provide services to a DDD patient, V.B.

In November 2017, V.B.’s mother, Heather Betts, was asked by an unnamed supervisor at Brighter to verify her signature on Respondent’s timecard. Ms. Betts informed the supervisor that the signature on the timecard was not hers.

On or about November 28, 2017, Ms. Betts notified MGA that Respondent forged her timecard and forged signatures for the hours worked with V.B. while Respondent was employed with Brighter. Ms. Betts wanted MGA to know of Respondent’s actions in the event that Respondent was engaged in the same type of activity while employed at MGA.

MGA investigated this matter and spoke with G.R.’s mother. G.R.’s mother provided MGA with the dates and times Respondent worked with G.R. Additionally, G.R.’s mother recalled signing only a couple of nursing notes since April 4, 2017. G.R.’s father only signed one note.

A review of Respondent’s timesheets, for services rendered to G.R., revealed the following:

In September 2017, Respondent’s notes indicated she worked 211.25 hours. G.R.’s mother stated that Respondent worked 104 hours.

In October 2017, Respondent’s notes indicated she worked 231.15 hours. G.R.’s mother stated that Respondent worked 120.65 hours.

In November 2017, Respondent’s notes indicated she worked 204.83 hours. G.R.’s mother stated that Respondent worked 84 hours.

On or about November 29, 2017, an MGA investigator interviewed Respondent. Respondent admitted that she falsified her timesheets, falsified G.R.’s vital signs and narrative notes, and forged G.R.’s parents’ signatures for dates of service November 20, 2017, through November 24, 2017, because she did not work those days.

On or about November 29, 2017, MGA suspended Respondent pending further investigation.

On or about December 8, 2017, MGA terminated Respondent’s employment and reported the conduct to the Board.

Further investigation revealed that Respondent falsified documented hours when she provided services to V.B. Patient VB’s father had reported the conduct to the Board.

On or about May 30, 2018, Respondent was charged with numerous felony charges in Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona, under case number CR2018-002137. Respondent was charged with two felony counts of Fraudulent Schemes and Artifices, two felony counts of Theft, and 21 felony counts of Forgery in connection with the fraudulent documentation of hours worked she submitted to MGA for patient G.R. and submitted to Brighter for Patient V.B.

On or about April 30, 2019, Respondent pled guilty to four counts of Criminal Possession of a Forgery Device, a class 6 undesignated felony. Respondent was placed on supervised probation. Respondent was ordered to pay restitution to AHCCCS and Brighter.

Respondent failed to report the felony charges to the Board within ten days as required by statute.

On or about January 28, 2020, the Board issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing (Notice of Hearing), alleging that cause existed to discipline Respondent’s registered nurse license under A.R.S. §§ 13-604(A), 32-1601(24)(b), 32-1601(26)(d), 32-1601(26)(h), 32-1601(26)(j), 32-1601(26)(l), 32-1606(B)(16), 32-1663, 32-1664, 32-1669, 32-3208(A), 41-1092; Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R4-19-101, R4-19-403(8), R4-19-403(15), R4-19-403(31).

The Board referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an independent agency, for an evidentiary hearing. A hearing was held on March 5, 2020.

The Board submitted three exhibits and presented the testimony of Heather Betts, Katrine Atlung-Blair, and Stephanie Cruz.

HEARING EVIDENCE

Ms. Betts testified that Respondent provided services, as a private duty nurse, for her daughter, V.B. in 2017. Respondent provided physical and occupational therapy to children who are developmentally delayed and to offer respite to parents.

Respondent was employed with Brighter. When Brighter contacted Ms. Betts to verify Respondent’s hours, Ms. Betts learned that her husband signed a timecard which reflected hours worked by Respondent when V.B. was in school and when Respondent was not with her. Those hours were in excess of the time Respondent spent taking V.B. to school and home.

Ms. Betts testified that she was shocked to learn this because Respondent was like family. Respondent spent holidays and birthdays with Ms. Betts and her family. Ms. Betts testified that Respondent was in graduate school and was behind in her classes. Ms. Betts also noticed a personality change in Respondent during the latter months. Ms. Betts opined that Respondent allocated hours on her timecard for time when she did not provide services to V.B.

Ms. Atlung-Blair testified that she was the director of clinical services at MGA. MGA initiated an investigation after it was contacted by a mother. Ms. Atlung-Blair stated that Respondent was a field clinician who was responsible for home health care. Respondent’s patient with MGA was G.R.

On or about November 29, 2017, Respondent admitted to forging G.R. mother’s signatures on her timecard from November 20, 2017, to November 24, 2017. She also admitted that she was not with G.R. that week but stayed in touch with the family. Staying in touch with a family did not allocate for time worked and should not have been indicated as such. Also during that week, Respondent authored notes that included vital signs and other medical notes that pertained to G.R. Ms. Atlung-Blair testified that Respondent did not have to take notes on the patient if Respondent was not present.

Ms. Cruz testified that she was a senior investigator for the Board. Ms. Cruz investigated Respondent’s case after Ms. Atlung-Blair filed a complaint. Ms. Cruz testified that it was Ms. Betts who initially alerted MGA to review Respondent’s time sheets. When MGA found the discrepancy, Respondent admitted to falsifying the documents.

Respondent was terminated from MGA and charged with 25 felony counts forgery, theft, and fraudulent schemes. On or about May 1, 2019, Respondent plead guilty to four counts of felony criminal possession of forgery device. Respondent was sentenced to supervised probation and was ordered to pay restitution.

Respondent failed to report the felony conviction to the Board within ten days of the conviction.

Respondent testified that she filed a motion to set aside the felony convictions and reduce the charges to a misdemeanor designation. Respondent filed a motion to terminate her probation early. Respondent paid her restitution in full.

Regardless of her criminal case, Respondent acknowledged that she plead guilty to the charges and committed criminal acts when she falsified documents and signatures. Respondent admitted to her wrong actions, mistakes, and poor choices. She expressed remorse to all the parties for the inconvenience and stress she caused.

Respondent always provided safe nursing care to all patients. She cared for G.R. and V.B. for many months and loved each of them as they were her own daughters.

Respondent received counseling and had time to reflect on her mistakes and evaluate her actions. Respondent completed most of her master’s degree for family nurse practitioner so that she could move on with her life. Respondent apologized for her choices and apologized for the pain she caused the families.

Respondent testified that she did not know she had a duty to report her felony convictions to the Board ten days after her conviction. She stated that her attorney advised her not to inform anyone.

Respondent further testified that the chief operating officer of Brighter, Lamar, taught her how to chart and provide care for V.B. Respondent thought Lamar’s last name was Hill. Lamar told Respondent that her hours could overlap and told her to include overtime because of the nature of her job. All communication between Lamar and Respondent occurred via phone so there was no documentation of his advice.

Respondent opined that she redeemed herself and turned her life around. Once the felony charges were removed, she wanted to continue to practice nursing.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter lies within the Board’s jurisdiction under A.R.S. §§ 32-1606(B)(10), 32-1663, 32-1664, and 41-1092.11(B) to regulate and control the licensure and practice of nursing in the State of Arizona.

The Board bears the burden of proof and must establish cause to penalize Respondent’s registered nurse’s license by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and (B)(1); see also Vazanno v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952).

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960). A preponderance of the evidence is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1120 (8th ed. 2004).

The Board established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct as alleged in the Complaint and Notice of Hearing. The Board also established that Respondent’s actions would be deceptive, fraudulent, or harmful to the public and that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1601(26), as adopted by the Board. The evidence showed that Respondent was convicted of a felony and did not report that to the Board within ten days. Furthermore, Respondent admitted to forging and falsifying documents and time sheets.

Respondent acknowledged her wrongdoings and took responsibility for her actions. Respondent stated that she “got counseling and direction” since the event. She also stated that her self-evaluation made her realize why she made these “huge mistakes.” Respondent indicated that her mind and heart had been reshaped [sic] but she failed to indicate how she turned her life around or what realizations she had. Additionally, Respondent placed blame for her wrongdoings. Even if she believed she was misguided, Respondent was a professional who had a responsibility and expectation to know that forgery and falsification were wrong.

While Respondent appeared sincere in her assertions that she no longer posed a threat to the public through her work as a nurse as result of her rehabilitative actions, her testimony was not fully forthright. The Board’s primary purpose is to protect the public’s health and safety by regulating the practice of nursing in Arizona. The Board established that it would be difficult to regulate Respondent. See Laws 1982, Ch. 190, §§ 1 and 18; Laws 1992, Ch. 308, § 16.

As such, the Board established cause to impose a disciplinary sanction against Respondent’s license under A.R.S. § 32-1663(D) and A.R.S. § 32-1664(N).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Administrative Law Judge recommends that as a result of the statutory violations and unprofessional conduct the Board established in this case, the Board revoke registered nurse license number RN177734 previously issued to Respondent Tricia Jo Hopper.

In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be five days from the date of that certification.

Done this day, May 1, 2020.

/s/ Antara Nath Rivera

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Joey Ridenour, RN, MN, Executive Director

State Board of Nursing

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000