Kimberly A. McQueary-Layne v. Louisiana Board of Nursing - RN Division, through LSBN ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                    NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
    STATE OF LOUISIANA
    COURT OF APPEAL
    FIRST CIRCUIT
    2019 CA 0641
    KIMBERLY A. MCQUEARY-LAYNE
    VERSUS
    LOUISIANA BOARD OF NURSING - RN DIVISION, THROUGH LSBN
    Judgment rendered:    MAR 1 0 2020
    On Appeal from the
    Nineteenth Judicial District Court
    In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
    State of Louisiana
    No. C670400, Sec. 24
    The Honorable Michael Caldwell, Judge Presiding
    Kimberely A. McQueary-Layne                  In Proper Person
    Naples, FL
    Carrie Leblanc Jones                         Attorneys for Defendant/ Appellee
    Caroline T. Bond                             Louisiana State Board of Nursing
    Baton Rouge, LA
    BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.
    HOLDRIDGE, J.
    Kimberly A. McQueary-Layne appeals a district court judgment affirming
    the final order of the Louisiana State Board of Nursing ( Board) ordering the
    suspension of her nursing license. We maintain the appeal and affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    On April 3, 2017, the Board sent Ms. Layne, a licensed registered nurse, a
    letter stating that it had information indicating that between the dates of June 8,
    2016, through the present, while employed as a nurse at Advantage Medical
    Staffing Agency, Ms. Layne violated the Nurse Practice Act, La. R.S. 37: 911, et
    Leg., and the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to that law.    Specifically,
    Ms. Layne was apprised that the Board had obtained videos indicating that Ms.
    Layne violated patient confidentiality and exceeded professional boundaries,
    including but not limited to sexual misconduct. Ms. Layne was directed to submit
    a written statement explaining the video incidents.    On April 10, 17, and 20, 2017,
    Ms. Layne wrote letters to the Board explaining the videos. In the first, regarding
    a video of Ms. Layne examining a patient catheter, Ms. Layne explained that on
    January 6- 7, 2017, while doing an overnight shift in Covington, she had been
    talking with her ex- boyfriend on her cell phone, dropped her phone in her pocket,
    and went into a patient' s room.      According to Ms. Layne, it was dark in the room
    and she did not want to wake the patient by turning on the overhead lights, so she
    took her cell phone out of her pocket to use as a flashlight. Ms. Layne stated that
    the screen was black, and she was completely unaware that on the other side of the
    phone,
    her examination of the patient was being viewed and recorded by her
    disgruntled ex- boyfriend.   Ms. Layne claimed that the ex- boyfriend threatened to
    turn in the video to ruin her life.
    0
    With respect to a second video showing Ms. Layne rendering care to a
    patient, Ms. Layne explained that she was working an overnight shift and was
    talking to her ex-boyfriend using an app that allowed her to make video calls from
    her phone.        Prior to walking into the patient' s room, Ms. Layne told her ex-
    boyfriend to " hang on," and put the phone on the bedside table.              Because the
    screen was        black, Ms.    Layne        thought the   call was actually on hold,   but
    unbeknownst to her, the care she administered to the patient was visible on the
    phone, and Ms. Layne' s ex- boyfriend recorded that incident to use against her.
    On July 13, 2017, Ms. Layne' s nursing license was summarily suspended
    and a complaint was filed, in which Ms.                Layne was charged with violating
    numerous provisions of the Nurse Practice Act. The complaint alleged that while
    employed     as    a   registered   nurse,    Ms. Layne    demonstrated unprofessional and
    unethical behavior by intentionally/recklessly violating the confidentiality of
    patients through videos and exceeding professional boundaries, including but not
    limited to sexual misconduct.           The complaint identified two videos, the first of
    Patient # 1,"    in which Ms. Layne allegedly used her personal cell phone to record
    herself cleaning the genitals of a male patient, and in which the patient appears to
    be sitting up in a hospital bed with a remote control in his hand. Regarding the
    video of "Patient # 2," it was alleged that Ms. Layne again used her personal cell
    phone to record the exposed genitals of a male patient and then recorded the
    patient' s face, exposing his identity. According to this allegation, the patient in the
    video appeared to be asleep, and Ms. Layne alternated between recording her face
    and recording the patient' s genitals.
    The administrative record reflects that Ms. Layne received notice of the
    complaint,       was notified of the summary suspension of her license,           and   was
    apprised of the charges levied against her.            A full-blown administrative hearing
    3
    was held on February 21,        2018,   during which Ms. Layne was represented by
    counsel.    The videos with respect to Patient # 1 and Patient # 2 were shown to the
    Board.      The Board heard testimony from staff members who investigated the
    complaint against Ms.       Layne and the testimony of Ms. Layne.          Ms. Layne
    explained her version of the events leading to the recording of the patient videos,
    insisting that she did not make the videos of Patient # 1 or Patient # 2 herself and
    had no idea at the time she administered care to her patients that her ex-boyfriend
    Ms.
    was making the videos.               Layne offered evidence of an audio recording
    between herself and her ex- boyfriend in which her ex- boyfriend threatened to send
    the videos to the Board if she did not pay him money.             During the hearing,
    individual Board members questioned Ms. Layne regarding the circumstances
    surrounding the making of the videos.
    Following the conclusion of the hearing, on March 2, 2018, the Board issued
    a "   Final Order," in which it found that the evidence constituted sufficient cause
    pursuant to La. R.S. 37: 921 to ratify the July 13, 2017 summary suspension issued
    by the Board and to continue the suspension of Ms. Layne' s license to practice as a
    registered nurse in Louisiana.       The Board found that Ms. Layne, among other
    things: ( 1)   failed to practice nursing in accordance with the legal standards of the
    nursing practice; ( 2) failed to utilize appropriate judgment; ( 3)    violated patient
    confidentiality; and (4) exceeded professional boundaries, including but not limited
    to sexual misconduct.     The Board also found Ms. Layne to be unfit and guilty of
    moral    turpitude.   The Final Order permitted Ms. Layne to seek reinstatement
    following the completion of a number of stipulations and further stated that the
    Board' s findings would be reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB)
    as a breach of patient confidentiality and sexual misconduct. The NPDB Narrative
    stated that Ms. Layne demonstrated sexual misconduct by recording the genitals of
    11
    two male patients and demonstrated breach of patient confidentiality by recording
    the face of one of the patients.
    Ms. Layne filed a petition for re -hearing before the Board. A hearing was
    held before the Board on June 13, 2018, during which Ms. Layne argued that the
    Board' s decision was clearly contrary to the law and evidence.   Again, Ms. Layne
    insisted that the video footage was surreptitiously made and maintained that
    because she did not make the video footage, she could not have been found guilty
    of any of the acts of misconduct outlined by the Board in its Final Order. On June
    14, 2018, the Board denied Ms. Layne' s petition for re -hearing and affirmed its
    March 2, 2018 Final Order.
    Ms. Layne sought judicial review of the Board' s Final Order with the 19th
    Judicial District Court.   On January 23, 2019, the district court signed a judgment
    which affirmed the Board' s Final Order.
    Representing herself, Ms. Layne took this appeal, contending that she was
    denied due process throughout the course of this matter, that Board staff members
    were guilty of wrongdoing, and that state and federal laws, as well as the Board' s
    own    rules, were violated.   Ms. Layne contends that: ( 1)   information stemming
    from the original complaint was withheld from the Board by Board staff,
    constituting fraudulent behavior; ( 2) the Board violated its own procedural rules
    and process and in turn, violated her due process rights; ( 3)   factually inaccurate
    information was submitted to a national database,      damaging and defaming her
    reputation; and ( 4) evidence not previously shown to Ms. Layne was used against
    her.   She asks that this court overturn the final decision of the Board and require
    the Board to inform the NPDB that the case was overturned.
    5
    APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    The district court' s judgment, signed on January 23, 2019, decrees that " the
    Louisiana State Board of Nursing' s Final Order dated March 2, 2018, that is the
    subject of Plaintiff Kimberly McQueary-Layne' s Petition for Judicial Review is
    affirmed."      On May 24,            2019, this court issued a rule to show cause order,
    pointing out that the district court' s order references a document outside the
    judgment that was not attached to the judgment. The show cause order cited the
    case of Laird v. St. Tammany Parish Safe Harbor, 2002- 0045 ( La. App. 1St Cir.
    12/ 20/ 02), 
    836 So. 2d 364
    , 365, for the proposition that to be considered a final,
    appealable judgment, the specific relief should be determinable from the judgment
    without reference to any extrinsic source or to other documents in the record.
    Moreover, this court observed, a valid judgment must be precise, definite,                              and
    certain.   See Laird, 836 So. 2d at 365- 66.
    Both Ms. Layne and the Board responded to this court' s show cause order.
    By order dated August 19, 2019, this court maintained the appeal, but reserved the
    final determination as to whether the appeal is to be maintained to this panel.
    Louisiana Revised Statutes 37: 923 provides that any decision of the Board
    may be appealed to a court of competent jurisdiction within thirty days after
    mailing    of   notice    of    the     decision       by    certified   mail.     Judicial    review    of
    administrative decisions,         such as those by the Board, is governed by La. R.S.
    49: 964 of the Louisiana Administrative Procedure Act, which provides that a court
    may   affirm    the     decision       of     the    agency      or   remand    the   case   for   further
    proceedings,"    and sets forth those circumstances under which an administrative
    decision may be modified or reversed.                        La. R.S. 49: 964G.        In reviewing the
    Board' s    decision     in    this    case,    the    district    court   was    exercising    appellate
    jurisdiction.   See La. Const. art. V, Sec. 1613; Thigpen v. Louisiana State Board
    G'7
    of Nursing, 2013- 0841 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 2/ 14/ 14),   138 So. 3d
    district court was clearly authorized by law to " affirm" the
    we find its judgment was sufficient to constitute a final appealable jug.,
    may be reviewed by an appeal to this court. Accordingly, we maintain the app,
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    An appellate court sitting in review of an administrative agency reviews the
    findings and decision of the administrative agency, not of the district court.
    Thigpen, 138 So. 3d at 23.     No deference is owed by this court to the findings of
    the district court.     Thigpen, 138 So. 3d at 22.       Consequently, this court will
    conduct its own independent review of the record and apply the standards of
    review set forth in La. R. S. 49: 964G. Id.
    Louisiana Revised Statutes 49: 964G permits an appellate court to reverse or
    modify the decision of the Board only if the substantial rights of the appellant have
    been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences,       conclusions,   or
    decisions are:
    1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
    2)   In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
    3) Made upon unlawful procedure;
    4) Affected by other error of law;
    5) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion
    or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or
    6) Not supported and sustainable by a preponderance of evidence as
    determined by the reviewing court. In the application of this rule,
    the court shall make its own determination and conclusions of fact
    by a preponderance of the evidence based on its own evaluation of
    the record reviewed in its entirety upon judicial review. In the
    application of the rule, where the agency has had the opportunity to
    judge the credibility of witnesses by first-hand observation of
    demeanor on the witness stand and the reviewing court does not,
    due regard shall be given to the agency' s determination of
    credibility issues.
    7
    After an independent review of the record, we find no merit in any of Ms.
    Layne' s challenges to the Board' s Final Order.   In determining that Ms. Layne was
    guilty of the charges levied against her with respect to the patient videos, the Board
    clearly made a credibility determination, to which this court must give due
    deference.    The Board' s findings and conclusions are neither arbitrary nor
    capricious and are supported by a preponderance of the evidence and the
    applicable law.   Furthermore, Ms. Layne failed to demonstrate that the Board' s
    findings and its disciplinary action against her violated any constitutional or
    statutory provision, exceeded the Board' s statutory authority, or were made upon
    unlawful procedure.    In accordance with the dictates of La. R.S. 49: 964G, we find
    no basis upon which to reverse or modify the decision of the Board, and we affirm
    the judgment of the district court.
    CONCLUSION
    For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. All
    costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellant, Kimberly A. McQueary-Layne.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2019CA0641

Filed Date: 3/10/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024