NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

APRIL COBIA, Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

ARIZONA BOARD OF NURSING, Defendant/Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CV 19-0547

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. LC2018-000334-001

The Honorable Sigmund G. Popko, Judge Pro Tempore

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

April Cobia, Anchorage, Alaska

Plaintiff/Appellant

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Sunita A. Krishna

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Maria Elena Cruz and Judge David B. Gass joined.

FILED 6-8-2021
COBIA v. ABON

Decision of the Court

2

W I N T H R O P, Judge:

¶1 April Cobia (“Cobia”) appeals the superior court’s order 

affirming revocation of her registered nursing license by the Arizona State 

Board of Nursing (“the Board”). Cobia argues the superior court erred by 

not properly considering the law related to mandatory reporting of 

vulnerable adults, protection of religious rights, and the Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). She also contends the court 

improperly relied on falsified or altered documents and hearsay evidence

in making its decision. To the contrary, the record here is replete with 

multiple and repetitive instances of conduct potentially or actually harmful 

to patients, co-workers, and the public, in clear violation of the Nurse 

Practice Act (“the Act”). Cobia was afforded more than sufficient due 

process throughout administrative and judicial proceedings. Accordingly,

we affirm the revocation of her registered nursing license.

FACTS1 AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. Licensure and Prior Board Discipline

¶2 Cobia was licensed as a registered nurse on February 5, 2002. 

On April 29, 2006, Cobia entered a Consent Agreement and Board Order, 

which placed her registered nursing license on probation for a period of 

twenty-four months after she admitted she falsified medical record entries 

related to a patient’s blood sugar levels and rate of infusion of an insulin 

drip.

¶3 On September 23, 2009, Cobia consented to a second 

agreement and order, which extended her probation for an additional 

twelve months.2 In evaluating whether to extend her probation, the Board 

found Cobia had been involuntarily terminated from a recent job without 

possibility of rehire because of interpersonal conflicts. The Board also 

considered the evaluation of a psychologist, who recommended Cobia’s 

1 We view the evidence in the light most favorable to upholding the 

Board’s decision. Baca v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ. Sec., 191 Ariz. 43, 46 (App. 

1997).

2 Both agreements included a provision stating Cobia “admits the 

Board’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.” The facts surrounding 

these incidents are not in dispute and the validity of the agreements is not 

a subject of this appeal.
COBIA v. ABON

Decision of the Court

3

probation be extended, her interactions with co-workers be monitored, and 

she continue to attend designated counseling.

II. Cornerstone Health Care

¶4 In May 2014, Cobia was hired by Cornerstone Health Care 

(“Cornerstone”), a home-health provider serving vulnerable patients. On 

May 21, 2014, Cobia called Adult Protective Services (“APS”) on a patient’s 

wife to make a report of potential adult abuse, but failed to report the call 

to her supervisor, as required by Cornerstone’s written policy. Cobia 

received a verbal warning related to the incident, which noted employees 

have the right to contact APS when they suspect abuse, but must report 

such referral to an immediate supervisor; Cobia refused to sign an 

acknowledgement of the warning. In the following months, Cobia was 

involved in multiple conflicts with patients, resulting in additional written 

warnings.3 In October 2014, Cobia personally transported a patient to the 

emergency room but, contrary to Cornerstone’s policy, did not notify her 

supervisor that the patient was transferred. Following this incident, 

Cornerstone terminated Cobia for failing to coordinate patient care with 

agency supervisors on multiple occasions. Cornerstone also reported Cobia 

to the Board.

III. Mountain Vista Medical Center

¶5 In January 2016, Cobia began working at Mountain Vista 

Medical Center (“Mountain Vista”). In her employment application for 

Mountain Vista, Cobia noted her reason for leaving Cornerstone was 

“school”—she did not disclose that her employment had been terminated. 

As part of orientation, Mountain Vista paired Cobia with a preceptor who 

gave her assignments, followed her through the day, and checked her work 

quality. Cobia complained about her first preceptor and was assigned to a 

second preceptor. The second preceptor worked with Cobia for 

approximately one week, but refused to continue the assignment after 

Cobia became argumentative. A third preceptor worked with Cobia and 

documented additional patient care concerns. None of the preceptors who 

3 The record submitted as part of the subsequent administrative 

hearing also shows Cobia made improper entries in patient medical records 

during this time. One such entry read, “I do not take orders from speech 

therapists, physical therapists, occupational therapists, LNPs, CNAs, cows, 

chickens or roosters, dogs or cats of any kind. I take orders only from M.D.s, 

D.O.s, and NPs.”
COBIA v. ABON

Decision of the Court

4

worked with Cobia would confirm she was competent, noting Cobia’s 

problems with drawing blood, time management, administering 

medication, keeping accurate documentation, arguing with authority,

improperly interacting with patients and their families, and constantly 

speaking poorly of past employers and the Board. On or about February 9, 

2016, Cobia was involuntarily terminated without possibility for rehire 

based on patient safety concerns and her inability to perform the basic 

functions of an ICU nurse.4

IV. Southwest Network

¶6 In late May 2016, Cobia was hired by Southwest Network 

(“Southwest”). On her employment application for Southwest, she listed 

her reason for leaving Cornerstone as “temporary work” and her reason for 

leaving Mountain Vista as “schedule not working.” Cobia did not disclose 

her involuntary termination from either facility. Soon after Cobia started at

Southwest, co-workers reported she was hostile, aggressive, paranoid,

refused to listen or follow directions, and spoke of having a gun and a 

concealed carry permit on multiple occasions. Based on these reports, 

Cobia was involuntarily terminated with no possibility of rehire after only 

nine days of work.

V. Curo Health Services

¶7 On June 26, 2017, Cobia began working as a home-health 

nurse with Curo Health Services (“Curo”). Cobia’s trainer for the position 

reported Cobia seemed paranoid. For example, Cobia placed tape over the 

camera of the company-issued tablet and said the sound should be turned 

off on the tablet to prevent “corporate” from monitoring employees. Cobia 

also told her trainer that the bag she used for work was a gun bag. In the 

following month, as documented by the employer, Cobia had negative 

interactions with co-workers, patients, and patients’ families. Cobia’s 

trainer, as well as Curo’s chaplain, noted Cobia had made disparaging 

comments to a patient about the patient’s Mormon faith, which was 

particularly inappropriate because Cobia was providing end-of-life care at 

a time many patients find solace in their religious beliefs. The chaplain also 

reported that Cobia made concerning statements about guns and about 

4 Cobia’s employment termination was conducted by phone because 

her supervisors “felt that she was a threat to the facility.”
COBIA v. ABON

Decision of the Court

5

shooting a neighbor’s dog. After one month of working at Curo, Cobia and 

Curo agreed on a mutual separation. Cobia was not eligible for rehire.

VI. Termination from Other Health Care Providers

¶8 In addition to the incidents above, Cobia was terminated from 

additional jobs. In December 2013, Victory Medical Solutions terminated 

Cobia’s employment after a few weeks of working because she failed 

multiple competency tests and had conflicts with co-workers. In December 

2015, Celestial Care, a home-health agency, terminated Cobia’s 

employment after only a month for failing to follow physicians’ orders to 

properly medicate a patient.5 In March 2017, Maravilla Care Center 

terminated Cobia’s employment for improper documentation, problems 

with co-workers, and allegations of racism. In August 2017, North Phoenix 

Infectious Disease terminated Cobia’s employment because of her inability

or unwillingness to get along with co-workers.

¶9 Cobia repeatedly failed to report her terminations in 

subsequent employment applications. In total, the record shows at least ten 

instances where Cobia made false statements about past terminations on 

subsequent employment applications.

VII. Garden Grove Apartment Complex

¶10 In addition to the employment issues, Cobia was also 

involved in concerning incidents outside of work. In November 2016, 

Cobia called the leasing office of her former apartment complex and yelled 

racial slurs and profanity at the leasing agent who answered the phone.6 

The leasing agent hung up the call, but Cobia called back and continued 

screaming and using racially-charged profanity. The leasing agent took a 

picture of Cobia’s number on her phone during the call and put the call on 

speaker phone so the other four employees in the office could witness the 

call. After the call, the employees reported the incident to the Tempe Police

Department. As a result, Cobia was charged with disorderly conduct,

5 The director of Celestial Care told the Board that Cobia “behaved 

strangely” and “acted as if she had some sort of disorder that made her 

hypercritical of everyone else, while not seeing deficits in herself.”

6 It is unclear what prompted this call, but the record shows Cobia had 

a history of incidents with the complex, including altercations with 

neighbors, use of racially-charged language and harassment against staff, 

and eventual involvement in eviction proceedings.
COBIA v. ABON

Decision of the Court

6

issued a citation, and later ordered to attend an adult diversion program. 

Cobia did not report the charge to the Board until February 2017, which was 

well outside the ten-day notice required by state regulation. See Ariz. 

Admin. Code (“A.A.C.”) R4-19-403(28).

VIII. Board Investigation; Administrative and Judicial Proceedings

¶11 As a result of the 2014 complaint filed with the Board by 

Cornerstone and Cobia’s self-reporting of the disorderly conduct charge, 

the Board began investigating Cobia. The Board obtained Cobia’s 

employment records dating back to 2013, as well as the police and court 

records related to Cobia’s disorderly conduct charge. The Board also 

reviewed Cobia’s mental health records.

¶12 As part of the investigation, the Board conducted an 

interview with Cobia. The interviewer documented that Cobia was 

“tangential,” “hard to follow,” and had to be asked to stop using profanity. 

The interviewer also noted Cobia repeatedly referred to a particular Board 

staff member (“D.H.”) by first and last name, even though D.H. was not 

involved at all in the instant case. Cobia alleged D.H. had caused all of her 

employment problems by putting false information about Cobia’s previous 

Board actions online for employers and co-workers to see.

¶13 The State filed a complaint and notice of hearing regarding 

Cobia’s registered nursing license. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. (“A.R.S.”) §§ 32-

1606(B)(10), -1663(D), -1664(I). A hearing was held before an administrative 

law judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ issued a decision to the Board recommending 

revocation of Cobia’s license, and the Board adopted the decision in its 

entirety. Cobia filed a request for rehearing and review, which the Board 

denied. Cobia appealed to the superior court, which affirmed the Board’s 

decision. Cobia timely appealed to this court, and we have jurisdiction 

pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-913, -2101(A)(1).

ANALYSIS

I. The Nurse Practice Act

¶14 The Act governs the practice, licensure, and regulation of 

nurses. A.R.S. §§ 32-1601 to -1667. It also establishes the Board, tasked with 

administering disciplinary action against individuals found in violation of 

the Act. A.R.S. § 32-1606(B)(10). Corresponding administrative regulations

provide additional rules to carry out the intent of the Act. A.A.C. R4-19-

101 to -815.
COBIA v. ABON

Decision of the Court

7

¶15 If the Board finds a nurse has committed unprofessional 

conduct, it may take disciplinary action, including revocation of the nurse’s 

license. A.R.S. §§ 32-1601(12)(h), -1663(D). The Act defines “unprofessional

conduct” as including “[a]ny conduct or practice that is or might be harmful 

or dangerous to the health of a patient or the public.” A.R.S. § 32-

1601(26)(d). The administrative regulations clarify this definition to

include, as relevant here:

1. A pattern of failure to maintain minimum standards of 

acceptable and prevailing nursing practice;

2. Intentionally or negligently causing physical or emotional 

injury;

. . . .

7. Failing to maintain for a patient record that accurately 

reflects the nursing assessment, care, treatment, and other 

nursing services provided to the patient;

8. Falsifying or making a materially incorrect, inconsistent, or 

unintelligible entry in any record . . . [;]

9. Failing to take appropriate action to safeguard a patient’s 

welfare or follow policies and procedures of the nurse’s 

employer designed to safeguard the patient;

. . . .

26. Making a written false or inaccurate statement to the 

Board or the Board’s designee in the course of an 

investigation;

27. Making a false or misleading statement on a nursing or 

health care related employment or credential application 

concerning previous employment . . . [;]

28. [F]ailing to notify the Board in writing [of a felony or 

misdemeanor charge], as required under A.R.S. § 32-3208, 

within 10 days of being charged[; and]

. . . .

31. Practicing in any other manner that gives the Board 

reasonable cause to believe the health of a patient or the 

public may be harmed.

A.A.C. R4-19-403.

II. Standard of Review

¶16 We will affirm the Board’s decision unless it is “not supported 

by substantial evidence, is contrary to law, is arbitrary and capricious or is 

an abuse of discretion.” Ritland v. Ariz. State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 213 Ariz. 
COBIA v. ABON

Decision of the Court

8

187, 189, ¶ 7 (App. 2006) (quoting A.R.S. § 12-910(E)); see also Ethridge v. Ariz. 

State Bd. of Nursing, 165 Ariz. 97, 100 (App. 1989). An action is not arbitrary 

or capricious if it is “exercised honestly and upon due consideration” of the 

facts. Tucson Pub. Sch., Dist. No. 1 v. Green, 17 Ariz. App. 91, 94 (1972).

¶17 We will not reweigh evidence nor substitute our judgment for 

that of an administrative agency when factual questions and agency 

expertise are involved. DeGroot v. Ariz. Racing Comm’n, 141 Ariz. 331, 335-

36 (App. 1984); see also Berenter v. Gallinger, 173 Ariz. 75, 77 (App. 1992) 

(“The purpose of judicial review of an administrative decision is not to 

decide whether the record supports appellant’s version of the facts.”).

¶18 We review de novo an agency’s application of law. Ritland, 213 

Ariz. at 189, ¶ 7.

III. Mandatory Reporting

¶19 Cobia argues the ALJ erred by failing to properly consider the 

law related to mandatory reporting of abuse or neglect of vulnerable adults. 

She takes particular issue with the fact that she called APS anonymously, 

but APS revealed to Cornerstone that she had made the call.

¶20 In support of her argument, Cobia relies on A.R.S. § 46-

460(A), which states that “all personally identifying information concerning 

any person who is involved in an adult protective services program, 

including the reporting source’s identity . . . is confidential and may not be 

released except as provided in subsections B, C and D of this section.” 

Cobia suggests APS violated this statute when it disclosed her identity to 

Cornerstone. APS, however, is not a party to this action and our jurisdiction 

is limited to reviewing the Board’s decision to revoke Cobia’s license. See

A.R.S. §§ 12-913, -2101(A)(1).

¶21 The record does not support Cobia’s contention that the 

ALJ— and, in turn, the Board and the superior court—failed to consider the 

laws related to mandatory reporting. Cornerstone never disputed that 

Cobia had the right to call APS and stated in the warning Cobia received, 

“As an employee, you have the rights to call APS or CPS if you suspect an 

abuse or neglect.” Cornerstone’s issue was that Cobia failed to notify her 

supervisor that she called APS and when asked, denied she made the call. 

Cobia later acknowledged that she did not notify her supervisor, in 

violation of Cornerstone’s policy and the Act. See A.A.C. R4-19-403(9) 

(stating unprofessional conduct includes “[f]ailing to . . . follow policies and 

procedures of the nurse’s employer designed to safeguard the patient”).
COBIA v. ABON

Decision of the Court

9

¶22 Moreover, apart from the failure to report the APS call, there 

was additional sufficient evidence supporting Cornerstone’s subsequent 

disciplinary action of Cobia. The ALJ appropriately concluded Cobia 

violated the Act on multiple occasions in connection with her employment 

at Cornerstone, including transporting a patient to the emergency room 

without informing her supervisor in violation of Cornerstone’s policy,

improperly keeping patient medical records for personal use after 

termination from Cornerstone, and making “inappropriate and self-serving 

entries into patients’ medical records” while employed at Cornerstone. See

A.A.C. R4-19-403(7)–(9). The Board’s findings in this regard were wellsupported and were neither arbitrary nor constituted an abuse of 

discretion.

IV. Religious Discrimination

¶23 Next, Cobia argues both the ALJ and the superior court judge 

erred in not properly considering “the law of Conspiracy against Religious 

Rights,” citing 18 U.S.C. § 241.

¶24 As a preliminary matter, we note that 18 U.S.C. § 241 is a 

federal criminal statute, which does not create a private right of action.

Further, the statute is not applicable in this action. However, liberally 

construing the gist of Cobia’s contention, she appears to argue the ALJ 

improperly brought up her religion during the hearing, suggesting some 

form of bias. The exchange at issue is as follows:

[COBIA]: This [referring to a physician’s evaluation of Cobia 

for her nurse practitioner program] is at Deseret Family 

Medical, and he is Mormon. He is a Mormon physician, and 

I know him out of my ward.

[ALJ]: Okay. So who is this doctor?

[COBIA]: His name is Robert Allen.

[ALJ]: And you said you know him out of your ward. Are 

you also --

[COBIA]: Yes, LDS, and that is how he -- that is how I was 

connected to him to complete my --

[ALJ]: So you are a practicing Mormon?
COBIA v. ABON

Decision of the Court

10

[COBIA]: I am, and so I will get to that where it was made

comments about me and being derogatory about Mormons.

[ALJ]: Okay.

¶25 There were no additional questions posed to Cobia regarding 

her faith, and Cobia fails to give any reason on appeal why the above 

exchange was inappropriate, reflected bias, or constituted error. Further, 

the record reflects that Cobia herself was the first to bring up her religious 

beliefs. In her response to the initial Board complaint concerning

allegations that she had made derogatory comments about a patient’s 

Mormon faith while working for Curo, Cobia advised she could not have 

made anti-Mormon statements because she “was raised in the church” and 

was “an active member in the church.” We see no error with the ALJ’s 

clarifying question during the hearing and no evidence of bias or prejudice 

as a result of either the question or the answer.

V. “Falsified” Documents and Hearsay

¶26 Cobia argues the ALJ and superior court judge erred in 

considering what Cobia claims are “altered” and “falsified” documents in 

evaluating her case, as evidenced by alleged conflicts between her exhibits 

and those submitted by the state. “It is the administrative law judge’s duty 

to resolve all conflicts in the evidence and to draw all warranted 

inferences,” and thus, we will not reevaluate perceived conflicts in 

evidence. Aguayo v. Indus. Comm’n, 235 Ariz. 413, 416, ¶ 11 (App. 2014).

Further, our review of the record shows no indication that any of the subject 

documents were altered or falsified.

¶27 Cobia also objects because the ALJ allowed hearsay testimony 

and claims that by doing so the ALJ exhibited bias against her.

7 However, 

these administrative proceedings are not governed by the rules of evidence 

and hearsay evidence is allowed. A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(F)(1) (stating an 

administrative hearing may be conducted “without adherence to the rules 

of evidence required in judicial proceedings”); Brown v. Ariz. Dep’t of Real 

Est., 181 Ariz. 320, 328 (App. 1995) (“An administrative hearing is not a 

7 Cobia also claims the ALJ abused her discretion by allowing “false 

testimony” from the state’s witnesses. We do not address this argument, as 

“[i]t is not the prerogative of this court to determine the credibility of 

witnesses. The credibility of witnesses is a matter peculiarly within the 

province of the trier of fact in an administrative hearing.” Berenter, 173 Ariz. 

at 79.
COBIA v. ABON

Decision of the Court

11

criminal proceeding. Otherwise inadmissible evidence such as hearsay 

may be considered. . . . In some circumstances, hearsay may even be the 

sole support of an administrative decision.”). Simply stated, failure to 

adhere to the rules of evidence required in judicial proceedings does not 

warrant reversal of an administrative decision or order. A.R.S. § 41-

1092.07(F)(1). The ALJ did not err nor exhibit bias in allowing hearsay 

evidence.

VI. Due Process

¶28 Cobia argues the ALJ did not give adequate consideration to 

the evidence she submitted. She also claims she was not allowed to

adequately cross-examine witnesses. Whether Cobia received adequate 

due process is a question of law that we review de novo. See Mack v. 

Cruikshank, 196 Ariz. 541, 544, ¶ 6 (App. 1999).

¶29 Procedural due process requires a party to have the 

opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful 

manner.” Comeau v. Ariz. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs, 196 Ariz. 102, 106-07, 

¶ 20 (App. 1999) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976)). It 

requires a party be given adequate time to present arguments and the 

opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Volk v. Brame, 235 Ariz. 462, 468-

69, ¶¶ 19, 24 (App. 2014).

¶30 Here, the record shows Cobia was afforded adequate due 

process. The ALJ gave Cobia extensive instructions regarding the process 

by which her exhibits would be entered. Because Cobia failed to submit an 

exhibit list, the ALJ went through each proposed exhibit with Cobia so that 

she could name the exhibit and explain how it related to the case. When it 

became clear that they would not have enough time to get through all of 

Cobia’s exhibits, the ALJ scheduled an additional day for the hearing to 

ensure all evidence could be properly admitted and discussed.8 The record 

also reflects that Cobia was given reasonable opportunity to cross-examine 

all witnesses. The ALJ also asked Cobia on multiple occasions if she had 

any additional information to present or testimony she would like to give, 

including after her initial testimony, after the state’s cross-examination of 

Cobia, and before closing arguments. Each time, Cobia declined the 

opportunity to provide additional information. Finally, the ALJ decision 

8 Cobia admits during her opening brief that she “presented 162 pages 

of documents during the hearings.”
COBIA v. ABON

Decision of the Court

12

adopted by the Board included numerous citations to Cobia’s exhibits, 

demonstrating the ALJ properly considered the evidence Cobia presented.

VII. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Violations

¶31 Finally, Cobia argues that the ALJ erred in determining she

violated HIPAA and the Act by retaining copies of patient records after she 

was terminated from various facilities. She argues the Board could not 

know whether she retained patient records because “the [Board] has never 

had access to my computer, nor have they looked through my computer, 

nor have I allow [sic] or given them access to look through my computer.”

¶32 To the contrary, there is sufficient information to support the 

conclusion that Cobia improperly kept patient medical and hospital records 

after termination of her employment. As part of the Board investigation, 

Cobia submitted responses to an investigative questionnaire; along with the 

completed questionnaire, Cobia submitted medical records from a patient 

at Cornerstone, hospital records from Banner Thunderbird Medical Center 

where Cobia worked in 2014, and from various doctors. Later, in the 

investigative interview, the Board asked Cobia why she had retained 

patient records. Cobia responded, “[O]h now you’re going to try to get me 

on that. Well, that is what happens when the woman nurse is told that she 

has to provide the computer, printer, phone and ink, while getting paid $10 

an hour.” The Board investigator then clarified with Cobia that what she 

meant was these records were still on her personal computer because she 

had, in certain instances, used that computer while on the job. During the 

subsequent administrative hearing, Cobia also submitted an exhibit 

containing additional patient medical records from her employment in 

2005.

¶33 Although Cobia testified at the hearing that she received the 

medical records from her attorney at the time, the ALJ was in the best 

position to judge the credibility of witnesses and evaluate conflicts in 

evidence. See Aguayo, 235 Ariz. at 416, ¶ 11; Berenter, 173 Ariz. at 79. Cobia 

violated HIPAA when she retained these records after the patient care was 

concluded and/or her employment was terminated. 9 As such, we find no 

abuse of discretion.

9 The nurse practitioner consultant at the Board handling Cobia’s case 

testified that it was a violation of HIPAA for Cobia to retain these records, 

stating, “[Y]ou can only keep records to care for these patients. She wasn’t 

doing that anymore.”
COBIA v. ABON

Decision of the Court

13

VIII. Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶34 Cobia does not challenge, and has therefore waived any 

argument regarding, the Board’s determination that her actions constitute 

“unprofessional conduct” under the Act and related state regulations. See

A.R.S. §§ 32-1601, -3208; A.A.C. R4-19-403. Nevertheless, substantial 

evidence supports the Board’s determination and resulting revocation of 

Cobia’s license. As detailed more fully in the facts above, the record reflects 

Cobia exhibited unprofessional conduct in the following ways: failing to 

follow employers’ operating policies; acting in an aggressive, 

argumentative, and hostile manner with co-workers, patients, and patients’ 

families; making inaccurate or inappropriate patient record entries;

retaining former patients’ records for personal use; refusing or failing to 

provide proper medications; disparaging a patient’s religious beliefs; 

failing to disclose prior terminations on subsequent employment 

applications; using racial slurs and threats against apartment complex 

employees; and failing to report a misdemeanor charge within the time 

required by regulation. See A.R.S. §§ 32-1601(26)(d), (e), (j), -3208(A), (D); 

A.A.C. R4-19-403(1)–(2), (7)–(9), (26)–(28), (31).

¶35 The Board explicitly concluded Cobia “has a long history of 

refusing to take any personal responsibility for her practice or personal 

interactions with other[s]” and “seemingly refuses to consider the 

possibility that she has anything to learn from persons to whom she feels 

superior or that her termination from numerous jobs was based on her 

actions on the job rather than retaliation for the numerous complaints that 

she has filed [with] various agencies.” The Board also concluded, “Because 

[Cobia] will not or cannot take responsibility for her actions, it does not 

appear that she can be regulated at this time.”

¶36 Accordingly, sufficient evidence supports the Board’s 

determination that Cobia committed numerous acts of unprofessional 

conduct and her nursing activities cannot be effectively regulated, giving 

the Board adequate cause to revoke her registered nursing license pursuant 

to A.R.S. §§ 32-1663(D), -1664(N).
COBIA v. ABON

Decision of the Court

14

CONCLUSION

¶37 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the revocation of Cobia’s 

registered nursing license.