You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Delaware Board of Nursing v. Francis

Citation: 195 A.3d 467Docket: 69, 2018

Court: Supreme Court of Delaware; October 2, 2018; Delaware; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Delaware Supreme Court addressed a case involving disciplinary actions by the Delaware Board of Nursing against two nurses accused of unprofessional conduct. The nurses retrieved and administered hepatitis C medication from a medical waste container to an inmate, following instructions from a pharmacist and physician. The Board found this violated established nursing standards, which require discarding contaminated medication. The Superior Court initially overturned the Board's decision, arguing that the State failed to prove actual harm or a breach of nursing standards. On appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's ruling, emphasizing that the Board's interpretation of 'unprofessional conduct' under Rule 10.4.1 does not require proof of actual harm; the potential risk to public health suffices for disciplinary action. The Court affirmed that the nurses' actions breached professional standards, irrespective of expert testimony on the safety of the pills. Consequently, the Supreme Court reinstated the Board's sanctions, including probation and mandatory training for the nurses, underscoring the importance of adhering to established nursing protocols to maintain public trust and safety.

Legal Issues Addressed

Interpretation of Unprofessional Conduct Rules

Application: The Delaware Supreme Court clarified that unprofessional conduct does not require proof of actual harm, but rather a breach of standards that could potentially affect public health.

Reasoning: The argument posited that a nurse engaging in behavior that breaches standards may still adversely affect public health, regardless of whether specific harm occurred.

Professional Standards in Nursing

Application: The Delaware Board of Nursing's decision to discipline nurses was based on their failure to adhere to professional standards by retrieving and administering contaminated medication.

Reasoning: The hearing officer concluded that the accepted standard of nursing practice required the disposal of medications that fell on the floor, and the nurses' retrieval and administration of those pills breached this standard.

Reliance on Pharmacist and Physician Instructions

Application: The nurses' defense of following directives from pharmacists and physicians was insufficient to excuse their breach of nursing standards.

Reasoning: However, the Board concluded that the nurses' defense—that they were merely following orders—was not valid in this context.

Role of Expert Testimony in Establishing Standards

Application: The absence of expert evidence from the State on nursing standards did not negate the Board's findings, given the Board's reliance on testimony regarding standard protocols.

Reasoning: Testimonies indicated that the Department of Corrections had established a standard for handling spilled medications and that both nurses had been trained to discard such pills due to contamination concerns.

Rule 10.4.1 and its Application

Application: The Supreme Court emphasized that the possibility of harm, not the occurrence of actual harm, suffices for disciplinary action under Rule 10.4.1.

Reasoning: The language of the rule suggests that the possibility of harm is sufficient for sanction, indicating that improper conduct creating a risk does not exempt a nurse from accountability if no harm actually results.