I write blogs about Pennsylvania professional licensing legal developments. I am also licensed to practice law in New Jersey. I routinely counsel Pennsylvania professionals concerned about their NJ licenses. There is a huge difference between Pennsylvania’s PHMP and New Jersey’s RAMP (“Recovery and Monitoring Program “). RAMP was established in 2003 as an Alternative to Discipline program, managed by the Institute for Nursing for the New Jersey Board of Nursing. http://njsna.org/ramp/Pennsylvania medical professionals who live in New Jersey or Pennsylvania residents also licensed in NJ, but only use their PA licenses, are exposed to RAMP. (Obviously also are NJ licensees working in NJ.) Any Pennsylvania medical professional, who is also licensed in NJ – who receives Pennsylvania PHMP letter – must consider how RAMP will respond if Pennsylvania restricts their professional license. Any Pennsylvania disciplinary action based upon an alleged impairment of alcohol and drugs will come to NJ’s RAMP attention. Also, NJ licensees must carefully respond to RAMP communications.A recent NJ appellate case reveals just how different RAMP is from Pennsylvania’s PHMP. On November 16, 2017 a New Jersey appellate court decided In The Matter of the license of Kevin Rafferty, RN. He was a certified registered nurse anesthetist and an Advanced Practice Nurse. Mr. McCafferty‘s licensing problems began in 2013 when three co-workers smelled alcohol on his breath during work. They levied anonymous complaints to the Nursing Board, which contacted RAMP. This was the only evidence against him.RAMP contacted Rafferty via letter, setting forth the allegations that he may have problems related to mental health and or substance-abuse that could affect his ability to practice his profession. RAMP offered him a private letter agreement and enrollment for a minimum of 90 days. During this time RAMP requires random observed drug tests, monthly self evaluation reports, and regular attendance in peer support meetings. Post-enrollment, RAMP then requires an initial intake evaluation. In my experience this evaluation typically finds the professional needs to be in RAMP for 12 months. The 90-day initial RAMP invite is a fraud!It is this context (which the McCaffrey case reveals) that RAMP’s enrollment process is distinctly different from Pennsylvania’s PHMP. RAMP’s initial letter of invite is not really an offer, but an order to each licensee. PHMP’s initial “Letter of Concern” is a non-mandatory offer for help and does not constitute a demand to enroll.RAMP’s initial 90-day evaluation period is not based upon a medical expert assessment or determination the licensee suffers from a drug or alcohol addiction that renders them an impaired professional. That assessment comes only after RAMP enrollment and signing of the RAMP 90-day contract. The licensee is then stuck.The RAMP evaluation takes place after enrollment, when the agreement sign requires compliance with the terms and condition of the program. Licensee thinking they are just going to get the 90 days meet the expert, who determines more time in RAMP is required. Now they are stuck and can’t break the agreement.PHMP’s letter of concern offers an assessment and voluntary disclosure to determine in an impairment exists. PHMP requires either a finding of an impairment or a voluntary admission of such before enrollment in the program. Pennsylvania Voluntary Recovery Program (“VRP”) questionnaire includes a provision that the licensee admit to suffering from an impairment. This the voluntary admission part of the VRP contract. I counsel against signing this agreement. NEVER ADMIT you are an impaired professional.Wait for the Board to file a formal petition to Compel and Mental and Physical Evaluation. (See my other blogs.)McCaffrey did not respond the initial 90 day RAMP letter. He was determined to be “non-compliant“ with RAMP. RAMP notified the Nursing Board that “it could not insure the board or the public that McCaffrey was safe to practice.” The Board subpoenaed McCaffrey to appear before a committee of the Board to answer questions about appearing at work smelling of alcohol. McCaffrey appeared, denied the allegations, and brought numerous letters of reference. The Board still concluded he should enroll in RAMP and proposed a 2nd private letter agreement requiring McCaffery participate. He refused.The Board issued a provisional order of discipline compelling McCaffrey to submit to an evaluation and monitoring to determine whether his continued practice may jeopardize the safety and welfare of the public. This a distinct different legal standard and burden of proof compared to Pennsylvania’s impairment burden of proof.NJ’s licensing boards and Courts have long recognized a “community care-taking responsibility” as legal justification that allows government license restriction. The NJ Nursing Board thereafter issued a final order compelling McCaffrey to enroll in RAMP. The Board determined such was required to satisfy its “mandate to protect the public.” McCaffrey‘s failure to comply with this final order was reported to the national practitioner data Bank. Still no medical determination of any impairment!McCaffery appealed claiming there was no medical or legal basis to compel RAMP and that absent such, a general order requiring such denied him due process of law. The appellate court reviewed McCaffrey’s objections to the Board’s order. The appellate court determined the Board maintains oversight over professional licensing for nurses pursuant to the Nursing Law. Because the New Jersey professional nursing law requires an applicant not be a “habitual user of drugs and alcohol”, McCaffrey‘s potential for alcohol and drug abuse rendered him suspect of meeting the legal requirements of both the Nursing Licensing and Nurse Anesthetist laws. The court found the Board had the authority even absent a medical conclusion of any impairment.McCaffrey complained that absent an expert determination that he was impaired or suffered from a chemical dependency, he met the requirements for licensure. The Board rejected this argument. The court determined the Nursing Board was within its statutory authority based upon the factual allegations, even without even an expert evaluation, that the Board was within its authority to compel McCaffrey to participate in the 90 day private letter RAMP program. The decision was handed down in 2017. McCaffrey’s work place situation occurred in 2013.For the many licenses that practice in Pennsylvania, these procedural differences between the PHMP and RAMP are significant and should be respected. Pennsylvania’s regulatory and statutory framework allow for licensee participation in and evaluation by a board chosen medical expert before mandatory enrollment in the PHMP. NJ does not allow for this pre-enrollment evaluation, compels participation, and then subjects the licensee to a bait and switch disciplinary monitoring program.Please call me to discuss either of these programs and any letters you receive from your licensing board.