Professional License Defense Results
Leichter Law Firm Results
At the Leichter Law Firm PC, our Texas medical license attorneys have a wealth of experience helping clients with their professional license needs. For more agency-specific case conclusions, please see the representative cases and summary pages relevant to your particular agency/situation. Some of our Seminal Cases are listed below. To discuss your particular licensing defense concerns, please contact us today by calling 512.495.9995.
Texas Medical Board.
Texas Board of Nurse Examiners.
Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners.
Texas State Board of Pharmacy.
Texas State Board of Dental Examiners.
Other State Licensing Agencies.
Arin P. vs. PRN – Client A.P. is a registered pharmacist who underwent a Professional Recovery Network (PRN) approved mental health evaluation at the request of the attorneys and staff of the Texas Board of Pharmacy. For arbitrary reasons unknown The Texas State Board of Pharmacy (TSBP) rejected the evaluation. Subsequently, after Client presented at an informal conference and advanced the PRN approved and coordinated evaluation, the Pharmacy Board set the matter for a show cause hearing at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) to force Client to undergo a second evaluation.
The Leichter Law Firm, on behalf of registered pharmacist A.P., sent a subpoena to the Professional Recovery Network (PRN) requesting various documents to defend A.P. in the SOAH matter. These documents related to A.P.’s first evaluation as well as PRN and TSBP policies. PRN did not respond to the subpoena and subsequently sued A.P. seeking a declaratory judgment that the subpoenaed information was privileged. Leichter Law Firm counterclaimed with its own declaratory judgment request as well as a suit seeking enforcement of the subpoena under the Texas Administrative Procedure Act §201. After the Court denied PRN’s motion for summary judgment the case went to a final evidentiary hearing on the merits.
The Court ruled in Client A.P.’s favor, ordering PRN to produce the documents. PRN was also ordered to pay $40,000.00 of A.P.’s attorney’s fees. The PRN did not appeal and turned the documents over to A.P. for her use in the pending but abated SOAH show cause hearing. As a result of this case the Texas State Board of Pharmacy and the PRN lobbied the legislature for statutory changes to both the show cause hearings as well as the confidentiality provisions relating to PRN under the Texas Pharmacy Act. To read the Court’s final order and the answer to the PRN’s declaratory judgment filed by the Leichter Law Firm’s Texas Pharmacy Board Attorneys please click here. To read about more of Leichter Law Firm’s seminal or landmark cases in Texas administrative law and professional licensing law please click here.
Arin P. vs. TSBP – Client A.P. holds a registered pharmacist license / certification in both Texas and Arkansas. Although A.P. was initially licensed in Texas as an R.Ph., A.P. has always worked and resided in Arkansas. Due to Client’s remote criminal history for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), and alleged mental health issues, the Texas State Board of Pharmacy (TSBP) sought to force Client to undergo a second mental health evaluation coordinated and arranged by the Professional Recovery Network (PRN). Client’s work history was perfect and without error or complaint for almost twenty (20) years. Consequently, Client refused to undergo the evaluation maintaining the TSBP was on a witch-hunt. Pharmacy Board Staff set the matter for a show cause / contested case hearing at SOAH. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) definitively found for Client A.P. and concluded that Pharmacy Board Staff had failed to carry its burden by establishing probable cause that Client had developed an incapacity that would prevent her from practicing as a registered / licensed pharmacist with reasonable skill and safety. To read the ALJ’s opinion please click here. To read about more of Leichter Law Firm’s seminal or landmark cases please click here.
Scott M. vs TMB – On January 15, 2010 an Informal Settlement Conference (ISC) panel recommended to the Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board (TMB) that Client S.M’s medical license / physician registration be automatically revoked due to his submission of a urine drug screen which tested positive for EtG at a level of 130 ng/ml. This authority was given to the ISC panel through the entry of an Agreed Order between Client and the Board in 2004. The Order provided that a record need not be kept of the ISC. Client appealed the final order to the District Court seeking judicial review of the Texas Medical Board’s Order of Revocation maintaining that it was Arbitrary & Capricious, was not supported by substantial evidence and failed to provide plaintiff with both substantive and procedural due process. Plaintiff also brought forth other declaratory judgment claims relating to the Texas Open Meetings Act and the Texas Medical Practice Act.
The Texas Medical Board, through the Attorney General, filed a plea to the jurisdiction which was denied by the Court. As there was no evidentiary record kept by the Medical Board’s legal staff, and the issue before the Court concerning the use of EtG was still not well established under the Texas and Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court allowed plaintiff to present a quasi de novo case. After a final evidentiary hearing on the merits the Court reversed the revocation and reinstated Dr. S.M’s license by ruling that the Texas Medical Board’s final revocation order was arbitrary and unreasonable, not supported by substantial evidence and failed to provide Dr. S.M. with procedural due process. To read the Court’s final order and the petition filed in the case please click here. To read about more of Leichter Law Firm’s seminal or landmark cases please click here.
George S. vs. TMB – The Texas Medical Board sought the temporary suspension of Client’s Texas Medical License for allowing a revoked Texas Physician to work in his office. Leichter Law Firm attorneys mounted a vigorous defense for client impeaching all of Staff’s witnesses during the TMB’s direct presentation of its case. At the culmination of the State Board’s case in chief, Client’s motion for directed verdict was granted and Client’s Texas Physician Registration remained intact. Board Staff did not publish their loss in its press release.
Amy. S. vs. TMB, Martin D. vs. BON – Board Staff sought the revocation of Client’s Nursing License for unprofessional conduct. Specifically, Staff argued Client had inappropriate sexual contact with a minor child. After a three day hearing on the merits at the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found insufficient evidence had been presented by Staff indicating the Client had violated the Texas Nursing Practice Act as alleged in Staff’s complaint. The ALJ issued a proposal for decision favorable to Client which was subsequently adopted by the Board after a heated discussion between the Leichter Law Firm’s Texas nursing license defense attorneys and the members of the Texas Nursing Board.
Cahn T. vs. TSBP – Staff of the Texas State Board of Pharmacy (TSBP) sought the temporary suspension of Client’s R.Ph., registration, as well as the temporary suspension of his Texas licensed pharmacy. Board Staff presented numerous witnesses and documents in its effort to show Client’s pharmacy had filled numerous prescriptions for hydrocodone, Xanax, and Soma that Client, in his capacity as PIC, knew or should have known were invalid due to a lack of a therapeutic purpose. The TSBP defense lawyers of the Leichter Law Firm successfully impeached the Pharmacy Board’s evidence and mounted a vigorous defense on behalf of client.
The Client produced evidence demonstrating it filled prescriptions pursuant to appropriate protocols and procedures and that systemic controls were in place to protect against drug-seeking patients. During the middle of Client’s testimony the Board moved to go into executive session. Prior to Client completing his case in chief, the Board’s disciplinary chair moved to dismiss the case as Board Staff failed to prove Client or his pharmacy presented a danger to the public through their continued practice.