Related Navigation

Administrative Hearing Commission

Richard Maseles, Esquire

License of paramedic convicted of stealing drugs from his ambulance subject to discipline. Department of Health and Senior Services v. Stoner, No. 10-2094 DH (Mo. AHC, May 17, 2011), Dandamudi, C.
Stoner held an EMT-paramedic license and worked for an ambulance district as a paramedic. He was charged with and convicted of theft or stealing of a controlled substance based on his admission that he withdrew morphine and Fentanyl from sealed boxes and vials for his own use that were kept in the ambulance Stoner worked in. Stoner covered his thefts by gluing box tops shut, replacing the drugs with saline solution, and falsely reporting that he had administered the drugs to patients. There was cause for discipline under Section 190.165.2, because his crime was reasonably related to the qualifications, functions, and duties of his job; it was a crime of moral turpitude and constituted incompetency, misconduct, fraud, and misrepresentation; and because Stoner violated the professional trust and competence he held with patients and co-workers.

Real estate salesperson's license subject to discipline for preparing contract of sale falsely representing that buyer provided funds at closing, when seller provided funds. Missouri Real Estate Comm'n v. Libbert, No. 10-1366 RE (Mo. AHC, June 8, 2011), Dandamudi, C.
Libbert represented the sellers in a sale of residential real estate. The contract recited that the buyer would pay over $8,500 cash at closing, although Libbert knew that the buyer could not do so. The sales price was inflated to reflect the fact that the seller was in fact paying the amount the contract called on the buyer to pay at closing. The deception included the seller obtaining a certified check containing a notation that the funds came from the buyer. Libbert was found subject to discipline for her role in the transaction under Section 339.100 for misrepresentations, preparing false documents, failure to exercise reasonable care and skill, and lack of good moral character.

Veterinarian licensed in other states not entitled to licensure by reciprocity in Missouri, because standards for licensure in other states were not equal to or more stringent than Missouri's.  Jenkins v. Missouri Veterinary Medical Board, No. 09-1514 DVM (Mo. AHC, June 8, 2011), Dandamudi, C.
Jenkins had several degrees, including doctoral and masters' degrees in veterinary science, and had been a clinical professor of veterinary medicine, but she also failed the North American Veterinary Licensing Examination (NAVLE) four times before finally passing it. Then, she obtained a license to practice in Pennsylvania, and later obtained a North Carolina license. She applied for a Missouri veterinary medicine license, but was rejected. The Commission denied her application as well. The Commission decided that Jenkins was not entitled to licensure by reciprocity, because the standards for admission in Pennsylvania and North Carolina were not ".equal to or more stringent than the requirements for initial registration in Missouri at the time of the applicant's initial registration," as set out in Section 340.238.1(1). Pennsylvania and North Carolina laws allowed a candidate to fail the NAVLE four times before passage, but Section 340.232.3(3) gave candidates only three chances to fail before passing the exam.

The Missouri Bar Courts Bulletin, 11-Jun