ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

21A-2020090447-NUR · State Board of Nursing · 2021-03-10

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN THE MATTER OF REGISTERED NURSE LICENSE NO. RN078242

ISSUED TO:

STEVEN BRADFORD CHAPMAN,

RESPONDENT

No. 21A-[number redacted]-NUR

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: February 16, 2021 with the record held open until February 25, 2021.

APPEARANCES: Respondent Steven Bradford Chapman did not appear. The Arizona State Board of Nursing was represented by Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Campbell who appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Board has the authority to regulate and control the practice of nursing in the State of Arizona, pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-1606, 1663, and 1664. The Board also has the authority to determine whether licensees have committed unprofessional conduct, thereby furnishing cause for discipline under the Nurse Practice Act, A.R.S. §§ 32-1601 through 1667.

Respondent holds Board-issued registered nurse license number 078242.

The Board presented the testimony of Maria Degroote, RN, and Diane Caruso the assigned Board investigator, and offered four exhibits into evidence.

Ms. Degroote testified that on September 15, 2020, while working as a registered nurse in the recovery room at HonorHealth Shea Endoscopy suite in Scottsdale, Arizona, she was working in a bay next to Respondent. Ms. Degroote testified that her and Respondent were “chit chatting” as their patients were recovering from their respective procedures. Ms. Degroote pulled back the curtain on Respondent’s bay, and witnessed Respondent’s right hand under the patient’s blanket. Ms. Degroote testified that it appeared that Respondent was stroking the patient’s genitalia while the patient was still under anesthesia. Ms. Degroote testified that there was no clinical reason for Respondent to have his hand under the blanket.

Ms. Degroote testified that she believed she startled Respondent as he turned away and grabbed a blanket to put on his patient. Ms. Degroote testified that she witnessed Respondent’s cheeks get flushed, became flustered, and even stated, “man, I’m hot.”

Ms. Degroote testified that she then kept an eye on Respondent’s patient for the remainder of his time in the suite.

Ms. Degroote testified that she had known Respondent for quite some time and never saw him do anything like this before. Ms. Degroote testified that upon her knowledge, Respondent always requested to be assigned to the recovery room and always requested the bay farthest from the door where there was less traffic.

Ms. Caruso, testified she spoke with Ms. Degroote about the above incident. Further, during the course of her investigation, she was made aware of another incident.

Ms. Caruso testified that on September 17, 2020, a male patient (M.B.), reported to facility staff that Respondent, who was on duty as an RN, had groped M.B.’s genitals while he had been sedated for a procedure that day at HonorHealth Shea Endoscopy suite in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Ms. Caruso testified that she interviewed Amar Thosani, M.D. Dr. Thosani reported to Ms. Caruso that his patient, M.B., awoke after his procedure and wondered if he was inappropriately touched. Dr. Thosani believed that M.B. was mistaken, yet he continued to report that he was inappropriately touched. Dr. Thosani then mentioned his patient’s report to a technician, who stated, “[o]h no, not again.”

Ms. Caruso further testified that Respondent was terminated from HonorHealth on October 3, 2020.

Ms. Caruso testified that she attempted to contact Respondent via mail, telephone and email, however, Respondent failed to communicate.

Ms. Caruso testified that correspondence was sent to Respondent requesting that he complete a comprehensive psychological evaluation with a psychosexual evaluation. Respondent returned the form, indicating that he would not comply with the request.

Ms. Caruso then made a recommendation to the Board for a summary suspension of Respondent’s license.

On or about January 28, 2021, the Board summarily suspended Respondent’s registered nurse license and requested that proceedings be promptly instituted and determined.

On or about February 1, 2021, the Board issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing, Summary Suspension Expedited Hearing, that alleged violations of A.R.S. § 32-1601(26)(d), (g), (h), and (j) and A.A.C. R4-19-403(2), (3), (4), (31).

The Notice of Hearing was sent via certified mail to Respondent at his address of record. Further, on or about February 1, 2021, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) sent an Order converting the hearing to a “Google Meet” to Respondent’s address of record.

Respondent did not file a response or exhibits with OAH, nor did he request that the hearing be continued prior to the hearing convening. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes to allow Respondent additional time, he did not appear, personally or through an attorney, and did not contact the OAH to request that the start of the hearing be further delayed prior to the hearing convening. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend his Registered Nurse License.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Notice of Hearing that the Board mailed to Respondent at his address of record was reasonable, and Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.04; A.R.S. § 41-1061(A).

This matter lies within the Board’s jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 32-1606(B)(10).

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. 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 the Board affirm its order summarily suspending Respondent Steven Bradford Chapman’s Registered Nurse License number 078242.

It is further recommended that the Board revoke Respondent Steven Bradford Chapman’s Registered Nurse License number 078242.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, March 10, 2021.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted electronically to:

Joey Ridenour, RN, MN, Executive Director

State Board of Nursing

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000