SCLICENSELAW.COM

South Carolina Licensed Attorneys May Engage in Credit Counseling

2009-05-13T14:59:00Z

            Lexington Law Firm v. S.C. Dep't of Consumer Affairs,No. 26648 (S.C.May 12, 2009).

            South Carolina Supreme Court reversed an order by the South Carolina Administrative Law Court (ALC) granting summary judgment in favor of Lexington Law Firm, a Utah-based law firm. The Court determined the scope of the South Carolina Consumer Credit Counseling Act (Act).

            Pursuant to section 37-7-102 of the Act, a person may not engage in credit counseling in South Carolina unless properly licensed to do so. A credit counseling organization is a person providing credit counseling for a "fee, compensation, or gain, or in the expectation of a fee, compensation, or gain, including debt management plans." S.C. Code Ann. Section 37-7-101. However, the Act exempts from the definition of credit counseling organization "attorneys at law".

            Plaintiff first argued that the Department of Consumer Affairs (Department) did not have authority to grant or deny exemptions. While ALC agreed, the Supreme Court denied such conclusion and found the Department charged by the Legislature to issue licenses and consequently authorized to determine whether a party is exempt from the license requirement.

            The Court then held that the exemption for attorneys at law referred to conduct in the regular course of the respective profession. Furthermore, the attorney at law must be licensed to practice law in South Carolina to be exempt. Because the Utah law firm engaged in credit counseling without being licensed to practice law in South Carolina, the firm did not qualify for the exemption and was found in violation of the Act.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

The Supreme Court Reinstates Requirements to Reestablish Surgeon's Competency

2009-05-06T12:35:00Z

            The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed in part a decision by the Administrative Law Court regarding a surgeon's reestablishment of competency to practice medicine. Osman v. S.C. Dep't of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, 2009 S.C. LEXIS 99 (Apr. 27, 2009). The surgeon performed a Caesarean section ("C-Section") on a patient who, due to complications, almost lost her life.

            The South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners ("Board") alleged about thirteen deviations from the standard of care. The surgeon admitted to the following: inappropriately performing the surgery in a community county hospital with limited resources; failing to ensure surgical backup; and failing to obtain written consent. The Board then issued a public reprimand, imposed costs of the proceedings, and required that the surgeon meet certain conditions to be able to return to the practice of surgical obstetrics. The Administrative Law Court, while allowing the public reprimand and the costs, stroke the competency requirements.

            The Supreme Court agreed with the Board. Section 40-1-120(A)(3) of the South Carolina Code of Laws permits the Board to put the licensee on probation and require that certain conditions be met during this period, including additional education or supervision. The surgeon, therefore, had to comply with the Board's conditions to be able to return to her practice.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Helpful Chart Outlining the Disciplinary Process

2009-04-13T13:49:00Z

South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation prepared a flow chart to help people understand the agency's disciplinary process. Licensees may be subject to these procedures when either attempting to obtain a professional/occupational license, or possibly committing a violation of the laws. Note that one who committed a violation may initially only get a warning letter. To view the flow chart click here.

License Revocation May Violate South Carolina Constitution

2009-04-06T17:16:00Z

            Administrative agencies revoke professional and occupational licenses often. The reason most of the time is some unethical or unprofessional behavior. The South Carolina Constitution ("Constitution") gives licensees the right to due process. Such privilege has two components. Substantive due process prohibits the state from depriving persons of some entitlement or property. The procedural due process lays out the course of action the state must follow in carrying out its practices.

             Procedural due process may serve as an argument against a person's license revocation or cancellation. Article I, section 22 of the Constitution provides: "No person shall be finally bound by a judicial or quasi-judicial decision of an administrative agency affecting private rights except on due notice and an opportunity to be heard; nor shall he be subject to the same person for both prosecution and adjudication; nor shall he be deprived of liberty or property unless by a mode of procedure prescribed by the General Assembly, and he shall have in all such instances the right to judicial review." S.C. Const. Art. I, Sec. 22. Importantly, note that the same person may not act as both a prosecutor and adjudicator.

            The Supreme Court of South Carolina discussed the prohibition on prosecuting and adjudicating powers in Garris v. Governing Bd. of the State Reinsurance Facility, 333 S.C. 432 (1998). Appellant insurance agent brought a claim against the Facility alleging that the revocation of his agent status was unconstitutional. The Facility voted to revoke appellant's status for unethical behavior when underwriting.

            The Court first held, in opposition to the Facility's arguments, that the facility was a state and not a private agency. The Facility is an administrative agency with rule-making abilities and is therefore subject to the state Constitution. Due process requires that a licensee be provided with a notice, an opportunity to be heard, an impartial adjudicator, and judicial review. The purpose of section 22 is to ensure adjudications are conducted by impartial bodies. In the instant case, the Court found that five of the members who voted to change the licensee's status were also present at all open and executive sessions pertaining to the licensee's case. The Facility failed to offer procedural due process.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Commercial General Liability Insurance Carrier Did Not Cover Liability for Professional Services

2009-03-20T12:50:00Z

            Wimberly Allison Tong & Goo, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Casualty Co. of Am., 559 F. Supp. 2d 504 (D.C. N.J 2008).

            This case involved an architect who was sued by several parties who either sustained injuries or lost loved ones when a parking garage colapsed. Defendant, the architect, argued that its general commercial liability (GCL) insurance carrier and excess GCL insurance carrier had an obligation to defend under the architect's policy. The insurers, however, rejected the architect's claims, noting that the exclusion for liability resulting from professional services applies.

            The architect's argument in support of his position that the exclusion was inapplicable was that plaintiff's causes of action for "nuisance" and "negligence" were something "other than professional services." Also, the architect stated plaintiff did not mark the "professional malpractice" when filling out the Civil Case Information Statement.

            The New Jersey District Court rejected the architect's argument and found the "professional services" exclusion applicable. The court stated that the causes of action against the architect were not based on general business services, but on the particular professional services that fall under the policy exclusion. The insurance carriers had no duty to defend.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

A Licensee Must Be Given a Meaningful Opportunity to Contest a License Suspension

2009-03-11T14:51:00Z

            Anonymous Physician v. SCDLLR, 98-ALJ-11-0480-IJ (1998).

            A psychiatrist licensed to practice in South Carolina was charged with committing a lewd act upon a nine year old minor. The Board issued an Order for Temporary Suspension of the psychiatrist's license. The Board then denied the licensee's Petition for Reinstatement without holding a hearing.

            The Administrative Law Court cited section 1-23-270(c) of the South Carolina Code of Laws. The Court noted that a Board must make specific findings of fact in its orders. In the case at issue, no evidence of any such findings existed. Where material facts are in dispute, the Board may not simply recite the facts and reach a conclusion without any investigation.

            The Court therefore concluded that suspending the petitioner's license without offering him a meaningful opportunity to contest the suspension constitutes a denial of due process. The license was reinstated, therefore, pending a "prompt" resolution of the disciplinary claims against petitioner.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Employers Must Check that All Employees Have Valid Work Authorization

2009-03-11T13:16:00Z

            South Carolina adopted the Illegal Immigration Reform Act in 2008. The Act affects both private and public employers. The Act does not change an employer’s obligation to complete an Employment Eligibility Verification Form, also known as “Form I-9.” A business license is revoked if the employer does not properly verify that a newly hired employee has valid work authorization.

            To hire new employees, all private employers must have a valid employment license by July 1, 2009. The state will automatically impute a license to all private employers. The Act requires that all private employers verify if an employee is authorized to work. An employer may either (1) register in the federal program (E-Verify) or (2) employ only workers with, or eligible to get, a valid South Carolina driver’s license or identification ID. Employers cannot knowingly and intentionally employ unauthorized aliens.

            Public employers must use E-Verify for all new employees and must act in good faith to determine if a private service provider meets the Act requirements. A written statement by the private contractor certifying compliance is sufficient. Also called the Basic Pilot Program, E-Verify is available in all 50 states. The Act has only been extended until March 6, 2009 and it is up to Congress to authorize a longer extension. Employers may register for the program at https://www.vis-dhs.com and must give notice to employees and applicants.

            Employers must enter the information on Form I-9 into the E-Verify system and continue checking the employees’ statuses. Most inquiries are resolved immediately; an employer will receive a “tentative non-confirmation notice” otherwise. An employee has 8 federal workdays to clear up his status once a tentative non-confirmation notice is received. Employers must remember they cannot take adverse action (fire, suspend, not pay) against employees meanwhile. Once they receive a final non-confirmation, employers must terminate the employee. For more information about E-Verify, go to www.dhs.gov/e-verify.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Physician Disciplinary Proceedings Are Confidential until Final Order Is Issued

2009-02-27T14:07:00Z

            Physician disciplinary proceedings are considered confidential until a final order is issued by the Board of Medical Examiners. Also, proceedings may be made public if the physician desires and requests so.

            Section 1-23-600(A) of the South Carolina Code of Laws Annotated provides: "Proceedings before administrative law judges are open to the public unless confidentiality is allowed or required by law . . . The decisions or orders of administrative law judges are not required to be published, but are available for public inspection unless the confidentiality thereof is allowed or required by law." (Emphasis Added).

           Also, section 40-47-213 of the Code states: "No person . . . may mention the existence of the complaint, investigation, or other proceeding, disclose any information pertaining to the complaint, investigation, or other proceeding, or discuss any testimony or other evidence in the complaint, investigation, or other proceeding, except to persons involved and having a direct interest in the complaint, investigation or other proceeding, and then only to the extent necessary for the proper disposition of the complaint, investigation, or other proceeding. . . ."

            Note, however, that although the administrative law court may keep disciplinary proceedings confidential until an order is final, as a public body, the court must make specific findings of fact when faced with issues in which there are disputes.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

The South Carolina Administrative Law Court May Only Review "Final" Orders

2009-02-27T13:36:00Z

        Island Packet v. Kittrell, 365 S.C. 332, 617 S.E.2d 730 (2005).

            The South Carolina Supreme Court held that the South Carolina Administrative Law Court cannot review interlocutory orders by the Board of Medical Examiners in disciplinary proceedings against a physician. Interlocutory orders are those that are not considered final, thus not immediately appealable.

            The Board's orders temporarily suspended the physician's license based on findings of alcohol abuse. While the orders suspended the license, they also included language stating that a Board hearing was to be held before the Board's decision would become final. The Supreme Court noted S.C. Code Section 1-23-600(D) and S.C. Code Section 1-23-380 and stated that the Administrative Law Court has authority to review final decisions of the Board.

            Importantly, however, the Supreme Court emphasized that its holding was not a general one: "We refrain from stating a general rule that any interlocutory order by the Board is or is not immediately appealable to the [Administrative Law Court]." The decision of whether an order is final or not should be made on a case-by-case basis.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Employers, Keep in Mind Possible OSHA Inspections

2009-02-24T14:25:00Z

            Employers should be prepared for a possible workplace inspection by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). An inspection may be conducted because of a complaint, fatality in the facility, a scheduled inspection, or a follow-up visit.

            Violations vary depending on the nature of the operations. Common violations include machine guarding, lockout/tagout, ladders and scaffolding, hazardous chemicals, and electrical safety. Even if an inspection is limited to the area, it can be expanded if the inspectors find something inside.

            The OSHA inspection has four steps. First, the employer and the inspector have an opening conference. The inspector provides a copy of the complaint, if any, but cannot mention the name of the employee who submitted it. The parties discuss the inspection process and relevant information. If lying, an employer can be subject to a fine up to $10,000 and up to a year in jail.

            Then, the inspector asks to see the OSHA 300 Log and all other forms pertaining to accidents and other safety problems. Next, for the walk-through, the inspector and his assistants must wear the required PPE. The inspector has the right to talk to employees and they have the right to answer, even privately if so requested. Take the direct route to the location if one was specified in a complaint.

            Fix any hazard that the inspector notes, even if it does not violate OSHA regulations. The company may refuse to let the inspector see machinery in operation. But it is better to allow such observation unless it is unsafe or out for repair. Keep all documentation of the walk-through.

            Finally, the closing conference reviews violations and suggests correction methods. The company has the opportunity to defend itself then.

            All requirements that an employer must meet are set forth in the Occupational Safety and Health Act ("Act"). The agency has compiled a OSHA Checklist for the Construction Industry to aid employers in complying with the Act. A company prepared for an inspection will be less worried about when OSHA might show up.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Surgery at the Office

2009-02-24T13:50:00Z

            Effective July 27, 2007, Regulation 81-96 of the South Carolina Code of Regulations sets forth the requirements that need to be met to perform non-hospital surgeries during procedures requiring local or general anesthesia, sedation/analgesia, or a conduction block.

            Each office-based practice must ensure it has policies and procedures concerning emergency care and transfer, medical record maintenance, infection control, performance improvement, reporting of adverse events, federal and state laws and regulations, and patient bill of rights.

            Physicians that perform moderate or deep sedation or general anesthesia must be accredited by an appropriate agency within the physician’s first year of practice. Moreover, the procedures that a physician engages in must be proportional to the physician’s level of education and experience. Some of the considerations in determining the physician's qualifications include a state license, education and training in the specific field, and adequate medical malpractice insurance. In addition, thephysician may only perform those procedures that he has staff privileges for at a hospital.

            Other procedural requirements are: the physician and an immediate assistant must have current certification in advanced resuscitative techniques; physicians may only provide those services that they are certified to perform; and a registered nurse or other qualified assistant must monitor the patient postsurgery and be able to administer medicine as prescribed.

            The regulation in its entirety is available at http://www.scstatehouse.gov/coderegs/c081.htm.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Contractors, Consider Upgrading Your License Over Risking Disciplinary Action

2009-02-23T13:52:00Z

            In South Carolina, general and mechanical contractors have limitations on the amount of money a project they undertake may cost, unless the contractors qualify for the unlimited group. The limit is calculated based on the licensee's net worth. There are five groups of limitations for mechanical and general contractors respectively. The groups range from limitations of up to $30,000 to unlimited cost on projects.

            The limit refers to the total cost of construction: all cost incurred by the owner, all contractors, subcontractors, and other parties, for labor, materials, equipment, and other expenses. Design expenses will only be included if the construction contract expressly includes them. The same rules apply to the cost of mechanical contractors.

            As a contractor, if you have a limited license you should be very careful. Unexpected additions to cost are not uncommon in the course of construction. Such increases could significantly exceed the licensee's limitation, which may lead to disciplinary action by the Contractors' Licensing Board. Consider upgrading your licenses instead of taking such risk. The form for upgrading your license is available at http://www.llr.state.sc.us/pol/contractors/Forms/DOC180T.dot.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Physicians Cannot Refer Patients to an Employee Therapist

2009-02-13T22:27:00Z

            The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed a circuit court's summary judgment in favor of the appellees: South Carolina Board of Physical Therapy Examiners (Board), the South Carolina Chapter of the American Physical Therapy Association, the South Carolina Attorney General and the Richland County Circuit Court (South Carolina). Sloan v. S.C. Bd. of Physical Therapy Exam'rs, 370 S.C. 452, 473 (2006). The appellants, or plaintiffs initially, were physicians, physical therapists, and other professional associations.

            The physicians employed the physical therapists while also referring their patients to these therapists. Different medical associations had different positions on the issue of whether a physician may employ the therapist to whom he or she refers patients. While one association considered the situation an inevitable conflict of interest, another association argued patients should have access to quality service by physicians and therapists in the same office for comprehensive care.

            The Supreme Court noted that South Carolina has enacted the "Provider Self-Referral Act" in 1993. S.C. Code Ann. Sections 44-113-10 to -80.  The act prohibits a health care provider from referring patients to an entity in which the provider has an investment interest or from accepting kickbacks for referring patients. The Court also noted that Title 40 of the South Carolina Code was amended to reflect the act's enactment and added violation of the act to be a ground for refusal to renew, or suspesion of, a license. S.C. Code Ann.Section 40-45-110(A)(1).

            The Supreme Court held that the South Carolina Provider Self-Referral Act prohibited physical therapists from working as employees of a physician when the physician refers patients to that physical therapist for services. The court further rejected the appellants' argument that restricting the person to whom a physician may refer his patients infringes upon the physician's right to practice medicine, as provided by S.C. Code Ann. Sections 40-47-5 to -1620. The court recognized the legislature's power to regulate the profession.

            Appellants also argued that the law at issue violates the equal protection rights of therapists wishing to be employed by physicians who refer patients to them. The court disagreed. The court applied a rational basis test to its analysis, stating that the law will be upheld if it bears a rational relationship to a legislative purpose. The court described the legislative purpose to be avoiding "overuse of physical therapy services by physicians who, for their own financial gain rather than their patients' medical needs, refer patients to therapists employed by the physician who will generate additional fees for the physician." Sloan, at 482. The rational basis test was met.

            The court lastly held that appellants substantive and procedural due process rights had not been violated. The Board held a meeting at which appellants were able to and did make comments in support of their positions.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Sexual Misconduct and Inappropriate Prescription of Drugs Cost a Doctor the Right to Practice Medicine

2009-02-12T20:00:00Z

South Carolina Administrative Court affirmed the decision by the South Carolina Labor, Licensing, and Regulation Department (LLR) to revoke a doctor's license to practice medicine. The agency revoked appellant's license because of proof of inappropriate prescription of drugs and sexual misconduct.

As to the prescription of drugs findings, the court found substantial evidence supporting the agency's finding. The record indicated that appellant inappropriately prescribed Stadol, Stadol NS, Hydrocodone, Fioricet, Ultram, Zoloft, Nubain, and Phenergan. Appellant prescribed the medicine without adequate medical justification, monitoring, and record keeping. The court noted that much of the evidence, actually, came from the doctor's own kept records, after being investigated by experts.

            On the issue of sexual misconduct, the court cited South Carolina LLR State Board of Examiners Regulations. A physician must provide medical services in a manner that maintains respect for human dignity (Regs. 81-60(A)), that demonstrates honest dealings with the patient (Regs. 81-60() and that respects the rights of the patient (Regs. 81-60(D)). In addition, Section 40-47-200(F)(12) of the South Carolina Code of Laws states that a physician must not engage in dishonorable, unethical, or unprofessional conduct that will likely deceive, defraud, or harm the public must also not lack the ethical competence to practice medicine. The court's review found that there was substantial evidence supporting the agency's finding that appellant had sexual contacts with two patients that were not in compliance with the South Carolina codes and regulations.

            To read all allegations, findings, and detailed reasoning of the court's holding, you may visit http://www.scalc.net/decisions.aspx?q=4&id=8099.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

The Standard for the Administrative Law Court to Reverse an Agency's Order Is High

2009-02-12T19:41:00Z

            Orders by professional and occupational agencies are appealable to the Administrative Law Court. However, keep in mind that the Administrative Law Court will reverse an order only if the agency's findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are "arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion" or are "clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." S.C. Code Ann. Sections 1-23-380(A)(6)(e) and 1-23-380(A)(6)(f).

            Just because the evidence allows the drawing of two separate conclusions does not mean that the administrative court will find an agency's conclusion unsupported by substantial evidence. In addition, the administrative court cannot substitute any fact findings that the agency made. Finally and importantly, the appellant carries the burden to prove that the evidence indeed does not support the agency's decision. Appellant must prove such lack of support convincingly. See Hamm v. AT & T, 302 S.C. 210, 213, 394 S.E.2d 842, 844 (1990).

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Psychologists Must Take Examinations at Least Once a Year

2009-02-09T13:57:00Z

            Applicants for a license to practice psychology must take an examination at least once a year. S.C. Code Ann. Section 40-55-100. The Board administers these examinations, which can be written or oral or both. The written examinations will designate the applicant by a number rather than the applicant's name. The Board will thus not be aware of the applicant's identity when determining the score for the examination.

            A majority of the Board must affirmatively vote that the applicant has passed the oral examination. An applicant who fails the oral examination will receive a written evaluation of the applicant's performance.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Dentists, Never Include "Practice Limited To" in Advertising

2009-02-06T13:21:00Z

            The South Carolina Administrative Law Court held that a general dentist did not violate board ethics regulations in advertising his practices. Wagner v. SCDLLR, No. 06-ALJ-11-0716-AP (S.C. Admin. Ct. 2008). Wagner appealed a final order by the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation Department (SCLLR) that found Wagner in violation of S.C. Code Ann. Section 40-15-190(A)(15) and imposed sanctions. Section 40-15-190(A) calls for, among others, suspension of a licensee's license for violations of regulations by the State Board of Dentistry. Regulation 39-11, Principle 4(D), promulgated by the dentistry board, provides: "General dentists who wish to announce the services available in their practices are permitted to announce the availability of those services so long as they avoid any communications that express or imply specialization. General dentists shall also state that the services are being provided by general dentists. No dentist shall announce available services in any way that would be false or misleading in any material respect. The phrase “practice limited to” shall be avoided."

            Appellant had two dentistry practices. He advertised his practices in newspapers and the Yellow Pages. The advertisements had "Coastal Orthodontics" in larger font on top and a statement that appelant was a general dentist in smaller font on the bottom. After a formal accusation and a hearing, the SCLLR board issued a final order to suspend appellant's license for one year. However, the license could be reinstated if Wagner met the following conditions: (1) paid a fine of $3,000 within 30 days of the board's final order; (2) published advertisements only after the board's review; and (3) submitted appellant's dental records to review by the board at appellant's expense.

            The administrative court noted that while South Carolina law allows general dentists to provide all dental services without a specialist license, a dentist must have such a license to be able to hold him/herself out to the public as limiting his practice to a special area. Once a dentist gets a license as a specialist and announces such specialization to the public, the dentist must limit his practice to the published specialty. S.C. Code Ann. Reg. 39-11(4)(C).

            The court first held that SCLLR's sanctions violated appellant's constitutional rights to free economic speech. The statute only prohibits general dentists from using the phrase "practice limited to" in advertising. The terms appellant used were descriptive only, did not express specialization, and included other descriptions besides "orthodontics." Citing the United States Supreme Court, the administrative judge noted that states cannot impose absolute prohibitions on certain types of potentially misleading commercial information such as listing practice areas.

            Also, appellant was found to be in compliance with the statutes and regulations. Wagner did not use the terms "practice limited to," he included a disclaimer in the ad to avoid misleading the public, and he also listed several descriptions of practices. The administrative court, therefore, reversed the decision of the SCLLR board.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Possible Fines for Violations by Architects

2009-02-05T13:46:00Z

            Architects who violate the South Carolina statute relating to the their profession, or regulations under that statute, may face a fine of up to $2,000 for each violation. However, the total fines imposed on one architect may not exceed $10,000.

            Importantly, the board's final order that an architect is guilty of an offense will become public knowledge. A final order dismissing an accusation or imposing a private reprimand is not public information. S.C. Code Section 40-3-120.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

A Physician-Patient Relationship Is Required for Prescribing Drugs

2009-02-05T13:05:00Z

            Physicians, surgeons, and osteopaths must establish a proper physician-patient relationship before being able to prescribe drugs to an individual. S.C. Code Ann. Section 40-47-113. Prescribing drugs outside a proper physician-patient relationship constitutes unprofessional conduct.

            A proper physician-patient relationship requires that the licensee:

            1) make an informed medical judgment based on the circumstances of the situation and the licensee's training and experience;
            2) personally perform and document a history and physical examination of the patient;
            3) make a diagnosis;
            4) formulate a therapeutic plan;
            5) discuss with the patient the diagnosis and evidence of it;
            6) note the risks and benefits of different treatment options;
            7) be available to patient for, or ensure that the patient gets, follow-up care.

            Nevertheless, sometimes the licensee may prescribe drugs to a patient whom the licensee has not personally examined. Examples include situations when the licensee: writes an admission order for a newly hospitalized patient, proscribes for another licensee for whom the prescriber is taking call, prescribes for a patient who has been examined by a licensed advance practice registered nurse or another qualified person, or continues medication for a new patient before the patient has the first appointment.

            Lastly, the licensee would act unprofessionally if he or she would prescribe drugs to a individual solely based on answers to some questions and without personally examining the individual.

            This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.

Failure to Pay Costs or Fines that the Board Imposes

2009-02-04T03:25:00Z

If a occupation's or profession's board imposes fines or costs on a licensee, he or she must pay them immediately or at the time the board's order becomes final. If the licensee does not pay the fines within 60 days after the order becomes final, the order becomes a judgment against the licensee. This means that the order can be executed in the same way as a judgment executed in a court of common pleas. In addition to the costs, a board may collect attorney's fees and interest that accrues until the owed amount is paid. S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 40-1-180.

This site and any information contained herein is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.