ALJDEC - Licensing

24A-2023080056-NUR · State Board of Nursing · 2024-09-03

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN THE MATTER OF THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE NURSING UNDER THE NURSE LICENSURE COMPACT IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA ISSUED TO:

SHANNON K. BOWMAN,

A.K.A.: SHANNON K BOWMAN, SHANNON K. FIORE

RESPONDENT

(Idaho) NURSE LICENSE NO.: RN 24816

No. 24A-[number redacted]-NUR

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 1, 2024, with the record held open to August 15, 2024 for the purposes of receiving the transcript.

APPEARANCES: The Arizona State Board of Nursing was represented by Assistant Attorney General Deborah Abbey. Respondent Shannon K. Bowman appeared on his own behalf.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona State Board of Nursing’s Exhibits 1-22 were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

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 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.

Shannon K. Bowman holds a compact multistate registered nurse license issued by the State of Idaho. From August 4, 2017, to September 2, 2022, Respondent worked in Arizona on his multistate privilege to practice.

On or about April 13, 2023, the Board received a complaint from SCL College of Nursing alleging Respondent failed to include prior employment from 2019 to 2022 on Coordinator Change Forms Respondent submitted to the Board.

Based upon the complaint received, the Board conducted an investigation.

5. Shannon Bitza, DNP, AGACNP-BC. AGPCNP-BC, who was the Associate Director-Education/Evidence Based Regulation from the Board, conducted an investigation and created an Investigative Report, as well as an Updated Investigative Report.

Based upon the investigation, the Board on March 28, 2024 entered an Interim Order whereby it ordered Mr. Bowman to “submit to a comprehensive psychological evaluation to include anger management...to be completed within 45 days...”

Respondent failed to complete the evaluation, and on or about June 13, 2024, the Board issued a Complaint and Notice of Hearing, setting a hearing on August 1, 2024, before the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency. The Complaint alleged that Respondent violated the Nurse Practice Act, A.R.S. §§ 32-1601 to -1669 and Arizona Administrative Code (“A.A.C.”) Rules 4-19-101 to -815. .

Shannon Bitza, DNP, AGACNP-BC, AGPCNP-BC, testified for the Board. She testified as to the above timeline, and concerns the Board had about Mr. Bowman.

Ms. Bitza testified that during the course of her investigation, she discovered the following as to omissions in Respondent’s resumes:

On or about December 13, 2022, the Board received a Nursing Assistant Training Program Instructor Change Form from Yond Institute of Learning regarding Respondent. In Respondent's attached resume, Respondent failed to include prior employment from 2019 to 2022.

On or about August 24, 2022, the Board received a Nursing Assistant Training Program Instructor Change Form from Arizona Technical Training Institute regarding Respondent. In Respondent's attached resume, Respondent failed to include prior employment from 2019 to 2022.

On or about May 4, 2022, the Board received a Nursing Assistant Training Program Instructor Change Form from Providence Training Institute (“PTI”) regarding Respondent. In Respondent's attached resume, Respondent failed to include prior employment from 2019 to 2022.

On or about July 21, 2021, the Board received a Nursing Assistant Training Program Coordinator Change Form from Medstar Academy regarding Respondent. In Respondent's attached resume, Respondent failed to include prior employment from 2019 to 2021.

Ms. Bitza testified that because of Respondent’s failure to properly list all prior employers, it derive future employers from properly vetting Respondent’s work history.

In addition, Ms. Bitza testified that during the course of her investigation, she discovered the following communications between Respondent and various employers as follows:

In mid-September, 2022, Respondent sent numerous emails to the owner of PTI. Respondent's emails read for example:

• Respondent demanded that he be paid 2 hours of RN pay in order to return supplies to PTI. Respondent discussed a "grudge" that the Owner of PTI had towards CNA students.

• Respondent wrote that he was not given the opportunity to safely return supplies and wrote because of this, "I have charged you & PTI with my RN time, gas, and inconvenience stated above which were all CAUSED BY YOUR ACTIONS kay"

• Respondent wrote, "deposit the $70 USD (plus cost of shipping supplies & insurance) in my bank account to resolve return of supply issue.”

• "like I said its (sic) my opinion, you need to get Professional Mental health therapy be you seem to think its (sic) appropriate to threaten PTI students and illegally try to fail them."

In mid-October, 2022 Respondent sent an email to the Owner of MedStar Academy, which read for example:

• Respondent wrote "Good, continue to complain [the Owner] about MedStar problems you are aware of and continue to let those problems happen, and also continue to complaint and to buy lunches for that waste of an employee Brenda, who doesn't do any work for you and just sponges off you."

• "It is obvious that you are not a person who uses good common sense judgment and business sense."

• "P.S. Don't bother writing back, your (sic) wasting your time, as I no longer wish to have ANY Communication with you in the future. Nor do I want to hear your lame reply, I wont (sic) read it and I will have your email and text messages blocked after this email is sent, to prevent ANY messages from you in the future.

Ms. Bitza testified further that on or about February 23, 2018, Respondent’s contract was not renewed due to lack of teaching credentials and “Engaging in Discourteous Treatment of Employees”.

Further, Ms. Bitza testified that based upon the above examples of Respondent’s communication style, it demonstrated a lack of professionalism.

Ms. Bitza also testified that while Respondent never responded to a voicemail nor completed the Investigative Questionnaire, he did provide an email which described the allegations as untrue, and requested dismissal of the Board action. Further, Ms. Bitza testified that without Respondent’s cooperation during the investigation, such as supplying his own witnesses, Ms. Bitza could only report on what she found through her witnesses.

Respondent passionately testified that he had never been denied a license, never been suspended, placed on probation, or has had a restricted license. Respondent testified further that but for traffic tickets, he has never had a criminal record.

As to the communication with PTI, Respondent testified that Kay believed that he turned the students against him, which was untrue. Further, as to the medical equipment, Respondent testified that he tried to return the same three times, but it was Kay who delayed the same.

Respondent also did not deny his various disagreements with his employers because he felt the heads of the schools were trying to dictate the education, when they were not even nurses.

As to the lack of placing recent employment history on his resume for his applications, Respondent testified that he was concerned about not getting a job offer for things for which he was found innocent.

Respondent also did not dispute that he did not comply with the Board’s Interim Order to undergo a psychological examination.

On August 14, 2024, the Board filed a Statement of Clarification in which it sought to revoke Respondent’s license.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Notice of Hearing that the Board mailed to Respondent at her 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 Vazzano 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).

Based upon the above, the Board established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct as alleged in the Complaint and Notice of Hearing having violated the Nurse Practice Act, A.R.S. §§ 32-1601 to -1669 and Arizona Administrative Code (“A.A.C.”) Rules 4-19-101 to -815.

Further, based upon the preponderance of the evidence, the Board demonstrated that Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct based not only upon his omissions in his resume/applications, but the tone and contents in his various communications, not only to employers and co-workers, but to the Board as well. Therefore, the tribunal finds that Respondent has violated A.R.S. § 32-1601(27)(d), (h) and (j), pursuant to A.A.C. R4-19-403(1), (27), and (31).

However, there was no evidence provided to demonstrate that Respondent was physically unsafe to practice, nor any evidence that Respondent was mentally incompetent to be dangerous to the public. While, it may be a leap to assume that Respondent was mentally incompetent based upon his refusal to submit to the psychological examination, the tribunal does not agree. Therefore, Respondent has not violated A.R.S. § 32-1601(27)(e).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Administrative Law Judge recommends that the Board place Respondent’s license on probation for a period of two years.

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, September 3, 2024.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Joey Ridenour, RN, MN, Executive Director

State Board of Nursing

Jeanne M. Galvin

[email redacted]

Shannon K. Bowman

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff