ALJDEC - Licensing
24A-2021090283-NUR · State Board of Nursing · 2023-12-07
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
IN THE MATTER OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR LICENSE BY:
DEBORAH ANN AHMAD BEY,
TO PRACTICE REGISTERED
NURSING IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA
No. 24A-[number redacted]-NUR
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE ++++DECISION
HEARING: December 6, 2023 with the record held open until November 17, 2023.
APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Charles Hover, III represented the Arizona State Board of Nursing. Applicant Deborah Ann Ahmad Bey represented herself.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On, October 28, 2004, an Indictment was filed charging Applicant with felonies, in U.S. District Court (Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division), in case number 04CR-950. See Exhibit 4.
2. According to the Indictment, on or about October 29, 1999, Applicant filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of Bankruptcy code in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. See Exhibit 4. Applicant allegedly fraudulently omitted and failed to disclose more than $7,000 in five accounts, failed to disclose receipt of $28,501 in proceeds from a real estate sale, fraudulently omitted and failed to disclose her position as president and managing executive of Developing Economical and Better Living Inc., and fraudulently omitted and failed to disclose her true income for 2001, 2002 and 2003, all causing a loss to creditors of more than $30,000. See id.
3. On January 10, 2008, Applicant was convicted of seven felony counts of Concealment of Assets, False Oaths and Claims. See Exhibit 7. Applicant was sentenced to prison for 24 months in the United States Bureau of Prisons, and supervised release for 3 years on each count. Applicant was ordered to pay $132,486.00 in restitution. See id.
4. According to United States District Court Northern Division of Illinois Eastern Division Memorandum Opinion and Order in case # 04-CR-950, Applicant appealed the court’s decision and the Seventh Circuit affirmed her conviction but vacated the three month sentence as “unreasonably low” and instead ordered a two year sentence. See Exhibit 6. Applicant appealed once again and was denied certiorari in February of 2009 by United States Supreme Court. In April of 2010, Applicant filed a “pro se” motion to vacate her conviction and sentence, which was dismissed. See id.
5. On April 7, 2021, a “Third Party Citation to Discover Assets” was filed in Northern District of Illinois, which stated that Applicant still owed $73,145.15. See Exhibit 8.
6. On August 20, 2021, Applicant filed a practical nurse licensure application by endorsement with the Arizona State Board of Nursing (Board). See Exhibit 1.
7. On September 20, 2021, Applicant spoke with Board Staff, where they explained absolute discharge to Applicant. Applicant stated that she owes $30,000 or $40,000 in restitution connected with her felony convictions described above.
8. On October 15, 2021, Board Staff mailed and e-mailed Applicant a questionnaire with instructions to provide a completed questionnaire, a written explanation and specific court and police records regarding each of her arrests, citations or charges by November 15, 2021.
9. On December 8, 2021, Board Staff received Applicant’s incomplete response. Applicant stated in her questionnaire that she was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment, 3 years of probation and a fine of $132,186.00, and for the date of completion Applicant wrote, “payment at 10% of net income.” Applicant provided an indictment document from United States District Court Northern District of Illinois.
10. On October 4, 2022, Board Staff e-mailed Applicant asking for the status of her court case and proof of absolute discharge. On October 14, 2022, Applicant responded, “Please be advised that everything has been completed.”, but did not provide any documents.
11. On December 16, 2022, Board Staff called Applicant at her number on file and there was no answer.
12. On February 1, 2023, Board Staff called and e-mailed the U.S. District Attorney’s Office Financial Litigation Unit to check the status of Applicant’s Restitution payments. There was no answer and as of June 12, 2023, there has been no response from the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
13. On May 20, 2023, Board Staff received a scanned court document from “SimpleScanTemp2” that contained 2 of 4 pages, showing that Applicant had to pay a $100 assessment fee. All other fields on the papers were blank or seemingly redacted. No contextual information was provided, and it was unclear how this document pertained to the large amount of restitution still outstanding.
14. On June 12, 2023, Board Staff called Applicant again and there was no answer and no voicemail available. As of June 12, 2023, Applicant has failed to provide the absolute discharge for her felony sentence.
15. On September 22, 2023, the Board issued a Notice of Public Hearing on Denial of Licensure setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on October 27, 2023 (Notice of Hearing). The Notice of Hearing provided that the issue set for determination is whether Applicant is qualified to hold a Practical Nurse license/certificate to perform as a nurse/certified nursing assistant in the State of Arizona.
16. A hearing was held on October 27, 2023.
17. At hearing, the Board presented the testimony of Harold Rodriguez, Senior Investigator. Applicant testified on behalf of herself.
18. Applicant contended that the evidence regarding her convictions should not be considered by the board because it is more than 15 years old. Applicant contended that such evidence is barred from admission under the Arizona Rules of Evidence Section 609(b). Applicant also alleged that she only owes $100 for restitution. However, Applicant failed to provide any written evidence to support her testimony.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Applicant bears the burden of persuasion. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).
The standard of proof on all issues is that of a preponderance of the evidence. Ariz. Admin. Code § R2-19-119.
A preponderance of the evidence is “[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evence 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 1182 (6th ed. 1990).
The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent committed unprofessional conduct as defined by Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1601(27)(b),(d),(g),(h), and (j); Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C) R4-19-403(15) and (25).
Because Respondent has committed unprofessional conduct, the Board has authority to deny Respondent’s application for licensure. Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 32-1606, 32-1663(A), and 32-1663(B).
Considering the facts and circumstances of this matter, it is recommended that Respondent’s application for licensure be denied.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the Board’s August 8, 2023 Order of Denial
No. [number redacted] be affirmed.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
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 forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, December 7, 2023.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Deborah Ann Ahmad Bey
[email redacted]
Joey Ridenour, RN, MN
State Board of Nursing
ATTN: Trina Smith
1740 W Adams, Suite 2000
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
[email redacted]
Charles S. Hover, III
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff