-
OPINIONS OF THE ATTO RNE Y GENER AL
HOS PITALS: NURS ES:
PU BLIC HEALTH:
Nurs e’s refusal to work overt ime as groun ds for discipline un der Pu blic Health Code.
A nur se’s refusal of an employer’s deman d to work overtime does not, in an d of itself, con stitut e groun ds for discipline un der th e Pu blic Health Code.
Opi nion No. 7084 J un e 19, 2001
Honora ble Bob Em erson Stat e Senat or
The Capitol
Lan sing, Michigan 48913
You ha ve asked wheth er a nur se’s refusal of an employer’s deman d to work overt ime, in an d of itself, con stitut es groun ds for discipline un der th e Pu blic Health Code.
Informat ion supplied with your reques t suggests a shorta ge of nur ses over th e last severa l year s ha s prompted health car e facilities to require licensed nur ses to work overt ime.
The Pu blic Health Code (Code), 1978 PA 368 , MCL 333 .1101 et seq; MSA 14.15(1101 ) et seq, grant s th e Michigan Dep artm ent of Consum er an d Industr y Services (DCIS ) an d th e var ious health professi ona l boar ds, including th e Michigan Boar d of Nurs ing, th e auth ority to license an d to regulat e health professi ona ls. This auth ority includes th e ability to tak e disciplinar y action against licensed health car e professi ona ls based upon violat ions of a genera l dut y, persona l disqua lificat ions, un eth ical business practices, un professi ona l con duct, an d oth er specific cat egories. Section 16221 .
The DCIS an d th e health professi ona ls boar ds do not ha ve broad comm on law powers an d ar e not auth orized to comm ence disciplinar y action if th e allege d miscon duct is unr elat ed to professi ona l com petence or oth er specific violat ions of th e Pu blic Health Code. “Their powers ar e limited by th e statut es creat ing th em to those conferr ed exp ressly or by
necess ar y or fair implicat ion.” Coffm an v S tat e Bd of Exam iners in Opt om etry , 331 Mich 582 , 590 ; 50 NW2d 322 (1951 ). (Quoting 42 Am J ur , § 26, p 316 .)
Section 16221 (a) of th e Code auth orizes discipline of health car e pr ofessi ona ls for “negligence or fa ilur e to exercise due car e, . . . or an y con duct, pra ct ice, or con dition which impairs, or ma y impair, th e ability to safely an d sk illfully pra ct ice th e health pr ofessi on.” Noth ing in section 16221 , or an y oth er section of th e Code, spe cifically requires a nur se to com ply with an employer’s deman d to work overt ime, or renders th e refusal of such deman d, in an d of itself, a violat ion of th e Code. There is no report ed Michigan case law addressi ng man dat ory overt ime in th e cont ext of a health pr ofessi ona l’s license. Ea ch case, however, mu st be evaluat ed on it s own merits to determ ine if a health pr ofessi ona l’s con duct “in th e cru cial an d exacting matt er of health car e,” Bu rns v Bd of N ursing, 495 NW2d 698 , 700 (Iowa, 1993 ), falls below th e required stan dar d of car e.
For exam ple, in Hu sher v Comm ’r of Edu cation of the S tat e of New York , 188 AD2d 739 ; 591 NYS2d 99 (1992 ), th e court upheld disciplinar y action against th e license of a registered nur se who was required by her employer to work overt ime. There th e nur se did not refuse to work overt ime; in fact she agreed , but sudde nly left her work ar ea 45 minut es after her overt ime began , leaving 29 seriously ill pat ient s in th e han ds of aides , orderlies an d a respi rat ory th era pist. In upholding a one-year suspe nsion of th e nur se’s license, th e court foun d that th e nur se kn ew th ere was a nur sing shorta ge, agreed to sta y unt il properly relieved , gave assuran ces she would sta y for severa l hour s, yet sudde nly left her un it with out proper nur sing covera ge, thu s providing her supervisor with litt le or no opportun ity to obta in a replacement . Und er th ese facts, an appe llat e division of th e New York Supreme Court con cluded that th e nur se aban doned her pr ofessi ona l employment with th e hospita l an d pra ct iced her pr ofessi on with gross negligence, seriously impairing th e delivery of pr ofessi ona l car e to pat ient s.
Similar facts, depe nding on th e specific circum stan ces, cou ld prompt th e Michigan Nurs ing Boar d to find negligence or fa ilur e to exercise due car e su fficient to warrant discipline un der th e Pu blic Health Code. Of cour se, such factua l determ inat ions mu st be ma de on a case-by-ca se basis. A nur se’s refusal of an employer’s deman d that he or she work overt ime, however, does not by itself con stitut e a violat ion of th e Code.
It is my opinion, th erefor e, that a nur se’s refusal of an employer’s deman d to work overt ime does not, in an d of itself, con st itut e groun ds for discipline un der th e Pu blic Health Code.
J ENN IFE R M. GRANH OLM
Att orn ey Genera l
