Michael Anderson, RN, remembers stopping by a bar one night in 2009 after Christmas shopping. He remembers ordering some food and downing a few drinks. What he doesn't recall is groping a woman's crotch while drunk on a crowded dance floor, the incident that cost him his 16-year surgical nursing career at Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota in Minneapolis.
One year after being charged with criminal sexual conduct and placed on 2 years' probation, Mr. Anderson, who court documents say was in "exceptional standing" at Children's, received a letter from the Minnesota Department of Human Services informing him that state law prevented his direct contact with patients at DHS-licensed facilities. The letter also stated he "posed an imminent risk of harm to the people he serves."
Mr. Anderson appealed the decision on grounds that state law requires the health department to conduct a risk-of-harm analysis before disqualifying him from his job. Minnesota Commissioner of Health Edward Ehlinger, MD, MSPH, however, denied his request twice before the issue was brought before a state appeals court, which recently upheld the health department's initial ruling.
The Minnesota Department of Health's chief legal counsel says Dr. Ehlinger "has no discretion to set aside permanent disqualifications" for individuals convicted of criminal sexual conduct. Essentially, the appeals court ruled that a risk-of-harm assessment in Mr. Anderson's case was rendered moot by state law.
However, Mr. Anderson's attorney, Daniel Guerrero, says it's a "travesty" that health officials did not determine if Mr. Anderson was an actual risk to patients, despite the "reams" of support he received from his supervisor at Children's, doctors who worked with him and nurse colleagues. A hospital spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Guerrero says his client continued to work for over a year while the criminal case slogged through the court system. "It was only after the DHS was apprised of the conviction that it disqualified him," says Mr. Guerrero. "You would think if he posed such a risk, he would've been removed immediately from his position."
He says the appellate court's ruling means Mr. Anderson will be prohibited from working in his chosen field because of an isolated incident that had no relation to his role as a nurse or ability to administer proper care.
Mr. Guerrero believes Minnesota state law has to change before more good nurses like Mr. Anderson are cast aside for personal transgressions. "There must be some credible evidence, beyond a conviction itself, to permanently disqualify an individual from direct contact with patients, " he says.
Daniel Cook
