Home | Ways That Licensed Professionals Get in Hot Water
Ways That Licensed Professionals Get in Hot Water
WAYS THAT LICENSED PROFESSIONALS GET IN HOT WATER
In the 1950s, about five percent of employees needed a license for their jobs. Today, nearly one-quarter of employees have an occupational license. Regulatory agencies require that licensees not only be skilled in their profession, but also that they conduct themselves in a professional manner.
Each year, the State of Minnesota disciplines many licensed professionals who run afoul of their occupational licensing requirements. The discipline can range from a simple censure to monetary fines to suspension or even revocation of a professional license, depending on the severity of the offense. Licensees who are disciplined often face other significant ramifications. For example, a physician who is disciplined may be unable to change jobs or secure hospital privileges. A disciplined insurance agent may be unable to get appointed to a carrier.
So how do licensed professionals get in trouble with the State? The most common reasons vary depending on the occupational field. For example, physicians most commonly get in trouble for sexual relationships with patients and substance abuse disorders. By contrast, insurance agents are more likely to be disciplined for allegations of untimeliness, competency, or dishonesty. Real estate agents are more likely to be disciplined for divided loyalties.
The following are some examples of actions taken by the State of Minnesota in the last 24 months against licensed professionals.
Physicians
Sexual Relationships. A recurring way that physicians get in trouble with the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice (BMP) is through improper sexual relationships with patients.
For example, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice recently indefinitely suspended the license of a physician who engaged in alleged sexual conduct with a patient. The Board reinstated his license about six months later, conditioned on the physician practicing in an approved setting and being accompanied by a female chaperone when treating female patients.
Substance Use. Another way physicians get in regulatory hot water is for substance use disorders. State law allows physicians with medical, mental, or substance use impairments to self-report to and be monitored by the Health Professionals Services Program (HPSP). The BMP also refers impaired physicians to the HPSP in some cases. HPSP requires a participating physician to sign a contract agreeing to seek treatment and to undergo monitoring, including random urine drug screens. If a physician under HPSP monitoring fails to comply with the requirements, HPSP refers the physician to the BMP for potential disciplinary action.
For example, BMP received a report that a physician had falsified documents for a urine drug screen while under HPSP monitoring. The doctor admitted doing so. The Board stayed his suspension on the condition he fully comply with all HPSP requirements for at least four years. When HPSP thereafter advised the BMP that the physician admitted to tampering with his drug screens on several additional occasions, the Board indefinitely suspended his license to practice medicine in Minnesota.
Prescribing. Another reason physicians may face disciplinary investigations is for the prescribing of controlled substances. For example, earlier this year a physician voluntarily surrendered his license to practice medicine after the BMP investigated complaints that he overprescribed benzodiazepines and psychiatric medications. To compound matters, the physician also allegedly hugged and kissed a patient.
Substandard Treatment. In some cases, physicians are disciplined for the care provided to patients. In these cases, BMP often requires the physician to undergo additional coursework. For example, the BMP reprimanded a doctor after concluding that he performed a surgery that was unlikely to improve the patient’s medical condition and without first attempting non-surgical treatment. The Board required the doctor to undertake additional education regarding the treatment of certain medical conditions. The Board reprimanded another physician after a newborn infant was seriously injured during a delivery in which the physician allegedly failed to identify that the baby was in the breech position. The physician agreed not to provide labor and delivery care to patients.
Health Setting Conduct. The BMP disciplines physicians for other conduct too, typically in a health setting. For example, earlier this year, the BMP reprimanded a physician who admitted that he periodically accessed records of individuals who were not his patients. The doctor was required to take courses in health privacy and professional boundaries.
Insurance Agents.
The Minnesota Department of Commerce (DOC) most commonly takes action against insurance agents for different reasons, some of which are discussed below. Some of these complaints come from consumers, but others come from aggressive competitors.
Timeliness. Insurance agents often get in trouble for being untimely with their customers. For example, in May, the DOC censured an insurance agent for allegedly failing to remit insurance applications and premium checks to a carrier on a timely basis. In April, the DOC suspended an agent’s license for allegedly backdating 15 policy applications after the application deadline had passed. Last year, it fined an agent for not canceling two whole life insurance policies after repeated requests from the policyholder.
Consumer Harm. Agents may also face investigations for causing harm to consumers. For example, earlier this year an agent was required to pay a $10,000 fine for allegedly charging unreasonable, undisclosed service fees. The DOC fined another agency for allegedly failing to inform a consumer about their continued eligibility for long-term care insurance benefits.
Competency. The agency pursues numerous investigations each year based on allegations of professional competency. For example, last year it fined an agent for failing to obtain the coverage requested by the policyholder. In another recent case, it fined an agent for recommending an unsuitable change to a policy.
Signatures. The DOC has taken numerous cases against agents in the last 24 months for signing someone else’s name to insurance documents. In some cases, the agent gets in trouble for signing a policyholder’s name to an application at the request of or for the convenience of the policyholder. In other cases, signatures are flat-out forged. In April, the agency required an agent to pay a $2,500 fine when her unlicensed staff member signed an applicant’s name on an insurance application without the applicant’s knowledge. In another case, the DOC revoked an agent’s license for allegedly copying and pasting a client’s signature into an application. In another case, the DOC fined an agent for allegedly misrepresenting herself as another agent on a call with an insurance company.
Dishonesty. Earlier this year, the DOC revoked the license of an insurance agent for allegedly submitting insurance applications for multiple people without their knowledge or consent. In another case, the DOC fined an agent and required her to work under the supervision of a supervising agent for providing information on an insurance application that the agent allegedly should have known was false.
Information Security. The DOC has become more focused on information security in the last several years. For example, it recently required an agency to pay a $10,000 fine for not having an appropriate information security program to protect customers’ personally identifiable information, among other things.
The law firm of Swanson Hatch, P.A. represents businesses and professionals in legal compliance and enforcement matters, including licensing investigations. Former Minnesota Attorneys General Lori Swanson and Mike Hatch have decades of legal experience in the application of state laws to businesses and regulated professionals. They represented the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice and the Minnesota Department of Commerce as Attorneys General. Prior to her twelve years as Minnesota Attorney General, Lori Swanson previously served as Solicitor General and Deputy Attorney General of the State of Minnesota and chaired the Federal Reserve Board’s Consumer Advisory Council in Washington, D.C. Before he became Attorney General, Mike Hatch previously served as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Commerce for eight years. Lori Swanson can be reached at lswanson@swansonhatch.com, or at 612-315-3037. Mike Hatch can be reached at mhatch@swansonhatch.com, or at 612-315-3037. The firm’s website is www.swansonhatch.com.
Real Estate Agents
As is the case with insurance agents, many real estate complaints come from competitors within the industry. Examples of some of the DOC’s recent actions against real estate salespersons and brokers are discussed below.
Loyalty. In May, the Department of Commerce fined two real estate salespersons $5,000 each for allegedly not obtaining the consent of all parties for a dual agency in a residential real estate transaction. The agency also fined the broker $6,000 for failing to adequately supervise the salespersons. Last year, the Department fined a salesperson for allegedly advocating for one party to the detriment of another while acting as a dual agent. The DOC recently fined another salesperson $12,000 for, among other things, allegedly telling a prospective buyer to keep its price low while representing a seller.
Consumer Harm. In one recent case, the Department suspended a salesperson for three months for drafting a purchase agreement cancellation that allowed the seller to keep the buyer’s earnest money, allegedly without the client’s consent. In another situation, the agency fined a salesperson for allegedly not ensuring that the seller disclosed information about lead paint hazards.
Advertising. The Department sometimes pursues investigations based on real estate advertising. Many advertising complaints are filed by competitors. Last year, the DOC fined a salesperson $8,500 for allegedly promising to sell a property with no commissions and at a particular price, when the salesperson received commissions of over $25,000 and the property sold for significantly less than the price in the advertisement.
Honesty. The Department also launches investigations based on alleged dishonesty. For example, in a case last year, the DOC revoked a salesperson’s license for allegedly accessing the seller’s private personnel property without their permission.
License Renewal Applications. It is not uncommon for the Department to discipline real estate salespersons, insurance agents, and other professionals for failing to submit accurate license renewal applications. For example, earlier this year, the DOC fined a real estate brokerage and salesperson $10,000 for allegedly not disclosing administrative and misdemeanor zoning infractions on a renewal application. Many professional licensing renewal applications inquire about criminal or other infractions. If the professional omits required information, the licensing agency may discipline the professional for not supplying the requested information, regardless of whether the undisclosed information would have subjected the professional to discipline standing alone.
Conclusion
It is important that licensees appropriately respond to a regulatory investigation. Licensees have a duty to cooperate with their regulatory board or agency. Failure to cooperate, or to provide truthful information in an investigation, is grounds for disciplinary action, regardless of the merits of the underlying complaint.
Licensees faced with a regulatory investigation should treat the matter very seriously and obtain assistance from an attorney. A regulator in some cases can suspend or even revoke a professional license. And the fallout from a disciplinary action can sometimes be as—or even more—significant than the government penalty.
***
www.swansonhatch.com
431 S Seventh Street, Suite 2545
Minneapolis, MN 55415 612-315-3037
The materials in this article are for informational purposes and do not constitute legal advice, nor does your unsolicited transmission of information to us create a lawyer-client relationship. Sending us an email will not make you a client of our firm. Until we have agreed to represent you, nothing you send us will be confidential or privileged. Readers should not act on information contained in this article without seeking professional counsel. The best way for you to inquire about possible representation is to contact an attorney of the firm. Actual results depend on the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case. Past results do not guarantee future results in any matter.
In the 1950s, about five percent of employees needed a license for their jobs. Today, nearly one-quarter of employees have an occupational license. Regulatory agencies require that licensees not only be skilled in their profession, but also that they conduct themselves in a professional manner.
Each year, the State of Minnesota disciplines many licensed professionals who run afoul of their occupational licensing requirements. The discipline can range from a simple censure to monetary fines to suspension or even revocation of a professional license, depending on the severity of the offense. Licensees who are disciplined often face other significant ramifications. For example, a physician who is disciplined may be unable to change jobs or secure hospital privileges. A disciplined insurance agent may be unable to get appointed to a carrier.
So how do licensed professionals get in trouble with the State? The most common reasons vary depending on the occupational field. For example, physicians most commonly get in trouble for sexual relationships with patients and substance abuse disorders. By contrast, insurance agents are more likely to be disciplined for allegations of untimeliness, competency, or dishonesty. Real estate agents are more likely to be disciplined for divided loyalties.
The following are some examples of actions taken by the State of Minnesota in the last 24 months against licensed professionals.
Sexual Relationships. A recurring way that physicians get in trouble with the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice (BMP) is through improper sexual relationships with patients.
For example, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice recently indefinitely suspended the license of a physician who engaged in alleged sexual conduct with a patient. The Board reinstated his license about six months later, conditioned on the physician practicing in an approved setting and being accompanied by a female chaperone when treating female patients.
Substance Use. Another way physicians get in regulatory hot water is for substance use disorders. State law allows physicians with medical, mental, or substance use impairments to self-report to and be monitored by the Health Professionals Services Program (HPSP). The BMP also refers impaired physicians to the HPSP in some cases. HPSP requires a participating physician to sign a contract agreeing to seek treatment and to undergo monitoring, including random urine drug screens. If a physician under HPSP monitoring fails to comply with the requirements, HPSP refers the physician to the BMP for potential disciplinary action.
For example, BMP received a report that a physician had falsified documents for a urine drug screen while under HPSP monitoring. The doctor admitted doing so. The Board stayed his suspension on the condition he fully comply with all HPSP requirements for at least four years. When HPSP thereafter advised the BMP that the physician admitted to tampering with his drug screens on several additional occasions, the Board indefinitely suspended his license to practice medicine in Minnesota.
Prescribing. Another reason physicians may face disciplinary investigations is for the prescribing of controlled substances. For example, earlier this year a physician voluntarily surrendered his license to practice medicine after the BMP investigated complaints that he overprescribed benzodiazepines and psychiatric medications. To compound matters, the physician also allegedly hugged and kissed a patient.
Substandard Treatment. In some cases, physicians are disciplined for the care provided to patients. In these cases, BMP often requires the physician to undergo additional coursework. For example, the BMP reprimanded a doctor after concluding that he performed a surgery that was unlikely to improve the patient’s medical condition and without first attempting non-surgical treatment. The Board required the doctor to undertake additional education regarding the treatment of certain medical conditions. The Board reprimanded another physician after a newborn infant was seriously injured during a delivery in which the physician allegedly failed to identify that the baby was in the breech position. The physician agreed not to provide labor and delivery care to patients.
Health Setting Conduct. The BMP disciplines physicians for other conduct too, typically in a health setting. For example, earlier this year, the BMP reprimanded a physician who admitted that he periodically accessed records of individuals who were not his patients. The doctor was required to take courses in health privacy and professional boundaries.
The Minnesota Department of Commerce (DOC) most commonly takes action against insurance agents for different reasons, some of which are discussed below. Some of these complaints come from consumers, but others come from aggressive competitors.
Timeliness. Insurance agents often get in trouble for being untimely with their customers. For example, in May, the DOC censured an insurance agent for allegedly failing to remit insurance applications and premium checks to a carrier on a timely basis. In April, the DOC suspended an agent’s license for allegedly backdating 15 policy applications after the application deadline had passed. Last year, it fined an agent for not canceling two whole life insurance policies after repeated requests from the policyholder.
Consumer Harm. Agents may also face investigations for causing harm to consumers. For example, earlier this year an agent was required to pay a $10,000 fine for allegedly charging unreasonable, undisclosed service fees. The DOC fined another agency for allegedly failing to inform a consumer about their continued eligibility for long-term care insurance benefits.
Competency. The agency pursues numerous investigations each year based on allegations of professional competency. For example, last year it fined an agent for failing to obtain the coverage requested by the policyholder. In another recent case, it fined an agent for recommending an unsuitable change to a policy.
Signatures. The DOC has taken numerous cases against agents in the last 24 months for signing someone else’s name to insurance documents. In some cases, the agent gets in trouble for signing a policyholder’s name to an application at the request of or for the convenience of the policyholder. In other cases, signatures are flat-out forged. In April, the agency required an agent to pay a $2,500 fine when her unlicensed staff member signed an applicant’s name on an insurance application without the applicant’s knowledge. In another case, the DOC revoked an agent’s license for allegedly copying and pasting a client’s signature into an application. In another case, the DOC fined an agent for allegedly misrepresenting herself as another agent on a call with an insurance company.
Dishonesty. Earlier this year, the DOC revoked the license of an insurance agent for allegedly submitting insurance applications for multiple people without their knowledge or consent. In another case, the DOC fined an agent and required her to work under the supervision of a supervising agent for providing information on an insurance application that the agent allegedly should have known was false.
Information Security. The DOC has become more focused on information security in the last several years. For example, it recently required an agency to pay a $10,000 fine for not having an appropriate information security program to protect customers’ personally identifiable information, among other things.
As is the case with insurance agents, many real estate complaints come from competitors within the industry. Examples of some of the DOC’s recent actions against real estate salespersons and brokers are discussed below.
Loyalty. In May, the Department of Commerce fined two real estate salespersons $5,000 each for allegedly not obtaining the consent of all parties for a dual agency in a residential real estate transaction. The agency also fined the broker $6,000 for failing to adequately supervise the salespersons. Last year, the Department fined a salesperson for allegedly advocating for one party to the detriment of another while acting as a dual agent. The DOC recently fined another salesperson $12,000 for, among other things, allegedly telling a prospective buyer to keep its price low while representing a seller.
Consumer Harm. In one recent case, the Department suspended a salesperson for three months for drafting a purchase agreement cancellation that allowed the seller to keep the buyer’s earnest money, allegedly without the client’s consent. In another situation, the agency fined a salesperson for allegedly not ensuring that the seller disclosed information about lead paint hazards.
Advertising. The Department sometimes pursues investigations based on real estate advertising. Many advertising complaints are filed by competitors. Last year, the DOC fined a salesperson $8,500 for allegedly promising to sell a property with no commissions and at a particular price, when the salesperson received commissions of over $25,000 and the property sold for significantly less than the price in the advertisement.
Honesty. The Department also launches investigations based on alleged dishonesty. For example, in a case last year, the DOC revoked a salesperson’s license for allegedly accessing the seller’s private personnel property without their permission.
License Renewal Applications. It is not uncommon for the Department to discipline real estate salespersons, insurance agents, and other professionals for failing to submit accurate license renewal applications. For example, earlier this year, the DOC fined a real estate brokerage and salesperson $10,000 for allegedly not disclosing administrative and misdemeanor zoning infractions on a renewal application. Many professional licensing renewal applications inquire about criminal or other infractions. If the professional omits required information, the licensing agency may discipline the professional for not supplying the requested information, regardless of whether the undisclosed information would have subjected the professional to discipline standing alone.
It is important that licensees appropriately respond to a regulatory investigation. Licensees have a duty to cooperate with their regulatory board or agency. Failure to cooperate, or to provide truthful information in an investigation, is grounds for disciplinary action, regardless of the merits of the underlying complaint.
Licensees faced with a regulatory investigation should treat the matter very seriously and obtain assistance from an attorney. A regulator in some cases can suspend or even revoke a professional license. And the fallout from a disciplinary action can sometimes be as—or even more—significant than the government penalty.
www.swansonhatch.com
431 S Seventh Street, Suite 2545
Minneapolis, MN 55415
612-315-3037
The materials in this article are for informational purposes and do not constitute legal advice, nor does your unsolicited transmission of information to us create a lawyer-client relationship. Sending us an email will not make you a client of our firm. Until we have agreed to represent you, nothing you send us will be confidential or privileged. Readers should not act on information contained in this article without seeking professional counsel. The best way for you to inquire about possible representation is to contact an attorney of the firm. Actual results depend on the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client’s case. Past results do not guarantee future results in any matter.