Related Navigation

Administrative Hearing Commission

Richard Maseles, Esquire 

School nurse is not subject to discipline for violating school policy by taking medical administration book home, where she was ignorant of policy and no harm was caused. State Board of Nursing v. Hampton, No. 10-0687 BN (Mo. AHC, March 16, 2011), Chapel, C.
Hampton was a school nurse for a district that used a "Medical Administration Book" at Hampton's school to keep students' medical records, such as doctors' orders. District policy forbade employees from removing the book from the school. Hampton did not know that, and she had also been told that she had to take work home sometimes. She took the book home to bring it up to date. The information in the book was duplicated on the school's computer system and its log printout, both of which were at the school, so there was no harm caused by removing the book. The Commission decided that her actions did not subject her to discipline. She did not violate professional standards under Section 335.066.2(5), and did not violate a professional trust or confidence under Section 335.066.2(12).

Insurance producer selling Medicare Advantage plans held subject to discipline for falsifying insurance application and for violating Medicare marketing requirements, but not for misrepresenting terms of policy. Director of Insurance, Financial Institutions and Professional Registration v. Norphy, No. 09-0530 DI (Mo. AHC, March 15, 2011), Chapel, C.
Norphy sold Medicare Advantage (MA) plans to elderly people, often coming to their door without an appointment. He represented wrongly to customers that their MA copayments would be paid by Medicaid; that was not so. He was not subject to discipline for misrepresentation under Section 375.141.1(5) or (7), because he did not intend to deceive-he simply did not understand what he was selling. The plan also required the insured to have one of several health symptoms such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Norphy completed an application for coverage for one customer, showing that she had COPD when she did not have it. That was a false or fraudulent statement on a policy application under Section 375.141.1(7).  His practice of meeting potential insureds without appointments violated Medicare Advantage Marketing Requirements (42 C.F.R. Section 2268) and was a dishonest practice under Section 375.141.1(8).

The Missouri Bar Courts Bulletin, 11-Apr