The Pennsylvania's Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9124 controls how public and private entities use Pennsylvania criminal arrest and conviction records. CHRIA controls how potential employers and Pennsylvania's licensing boards may use prior criminal convictions in application and disciplinary matters. CHRIA also governs Pennsylvania's expungement process. CHRIA allows private lawsuits for illegal dissemination of expunged criminal histories. Two recent developments involving CHRIA are noteworthy.
Artifice and fraud schemes are rampant in healthcare and insurance. Typical insurance fraud criminal charges will result in licensee disciplinary action. By typical I mean submitting claims for unemployment benefits while working another job or failing to report accurately income amounts to qualify for child and other state Medicare/ Medicaid benefits.
On October 4, 2018 Commonwealth Court issued a significant decision in King v. BPOA discussing the Criminal History Record Information Act ("CHRIA").This statute gives licensing boards a discretionary authority to discipline, suspend, revoke, grant, or deny licensure based upon a criminal conviction related to the practice of a license. CHRIA's general purpose, however, is to control the collection, maintenance, dissemination or receive a criminal history record information.
PNAP case managers routinely contact nurses whom they think are impaired. Self reporting, DUI - ARD or convictions, or workplace complaints are the typical trigger. The goal is to secure PNAP/PHMP enrollment.
In April 2018 a Pennsylvaniappellate court issued a decision in Abruzzese v BPOA, --- A.3d --- (2018). This case is one of three Spring 2018 cases reversing a Pennsylvania licensing board arbitrary disciplinary decision. I've written about the other two cases, .
I routinely write about the overbearing criminal conduct and disciplinary environment that currently exists for Pennsylvania licensees. On May 10, 2018 Commonwealth Court decided Levengood v. BPOA. This cases involves a car salesperson's license and the excessive discipline this Board handed down. In this case, along with several other recent Commonwealth Court decision, the court rejects as excessive and manafestly unreasonable discipline that goes too far - such as revoking licenses and imposing civil penalties - when the facts do not warrant it.