RN fraudulently practicing nurse midwifery suspended.

THE PRACTICE OF NURSE MIDWIFERY HAS FLOURISHED. Anyone seeking the services of a nurse midwife should be zealous in ascertaining that the person who purports to be a Certified Nurse Midwife (CNM) is, in fact, duly licensed and qualified. In this unusual Illinois case, an individual held herself out as a direct-entry or lay midwife from 1983 to August of 2001. She was licensed as a registered nurse, However, her licensure as a registered nurse was obtained by virtue of her failure to disclose that she had been the subject of a cease and desist order relative to her direct-entry or lay midwife practice. After being licensed as a registered nurse, albeit under false pretenses, she began working as a registered nurse at a hospital in its Labor and Delivery Room. While so employed the individual fraudulently represented herself to be a CNM and operated a midwifery service out of her home. The hospital that employed the nurse learned that she had been practicing midwifery when a patient who, following a home birth with the bogus CNM, was admitted to the hospital for postpartum bleeding. The hospital terminated the nurse and reported her directly to the Department of Professional Regulation, which took disciplinary action against the nurse.

THE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION (DEPARTMENT) ISSUED AN ORDER FOR NURSE VALERIE RUNES (F/K/A VALERIE MORRIS) TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM THE PRACTICE OF NURSE MIDWIFERY. On September 8, 2000, Nurse Runes filed a complaint seeking administrative review of the Department's cease and desist order. Nurse Runes argued that the Department did not have the statutory power to regulate direct-entry midwives, and that Department was without jurisdiction to issue a cease and desist order against her. On June 18, 2001, the Circuit Court, Cook County entered an order affirming the Department's cease and desist order. Nurse Runes appealed.

THE COURT OF APPEALS OF ILLINOIS AFFIRMED THE CEASE AND DESIST ORDER. However, the court vacated that portion of the order, which required the nurse to complete a 12-hour ethics course. The court noted that an administrative hearing was held upon the nurse's complaint, in which an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the nurse provided nursing care that she was not qualified or licensed to provide. The ALJ recommended a 30-day suspension of the nurse's license followed by two year's probation during which the nurse was to complete a 12-hour ethics update course, report her activities, and pay a $1,000.00 fine. The court further noted that alter reviewing the case, the Nursing Board (Board) adopted the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, the Board recommended that the nurse's license be indefinitely suspended for at least three years followed by a two-year probation, and that the nurse pay a fine of $2,500.00 and complete a 12-hour ethics course and that she not misrepresent herself as a CNM. The Director of the Department of Professional Regulation adopted the Board's decision and suspended the nurse's license for period of three years in addition to the other penalties.

THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE NURSE ILLEGALLY PRACTICED MIDWIFERY AND ADVANCED PRACTICE NURSING. The court noted that the nurse treated her patients by both ordering and reviewing diagnostic tests including ultrasounds and assisted her patients during labor and delivery. The court also noted that pursuant to precedent, the nurse could legally engage in midwifery and advance practice of nursing only if she complied with licensing requirements of the Nursing Act (NA). The nurse tailed to comply with the license requirements of the NA. Accordingly, the court found that the Department did not err in ordering her to cease and desist in the practice of nurse midwifery. The court rejected the nurse's contention that she was denied due process. The court noted that the nurse waived review of the due process issue by failing to make any argument regarding how the discipline imposed rose to a level of a Constitutional violation. A court will not overturn a reviewing agency's decision to impose a particular sanction unless the sanction is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unrelated to the purpose of the relevant statute. The purpose of the NA is to "promote a public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that those individuals who engage in conduct described in the Act are properly trained and licensed." The court affirmed the Department's order. However, the court vacated the requirement that the plaintiff complete the ethics course. Morris v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 2005 WL 396582 N.E.2d--IL

A. David Tammelleo, JD, is a nationally recognized authority on health care law. Practicing law for over 40 years, he concentrates in health care law with the Rhode Island firm of A. David Tammelleo & Associates. He has presented seminars on medical, nursing and hospital law throughout the United States. In addition to his writings as Editor of Medical Law's, Nursing Law's & Hospital Law's Regan Reports, his legal articles have been published in the most prestigious health law journals. A prolific writer, his thousands of articles, as well as his achievements as an attorney and lecturer, have won him recognition in Martindale Hubbell's Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Marquis Who's Who in American Law, and Who's Who in America.