Opinion ID: 1754113
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Board's Revocation of Robertson's License

Text: Upon a finding of unethical conduct, the Board's regulations authorize it to impose any of the following remedies: (a) advisory censure, (b) formal reprimand, (c) probation, (d) license suspension, or (e) license revocation with the opportunity for reinstatement without re-taking the licensure examination, or license revocation with no opportunity for reinstatement. Tenn. Comp. R. & Reg. 1365-1-.15. The Board chose the more lenient option in (e) for Robertson. For a first offense, license revocation with an opportunity for reinstatement is severe. At the same time, Robertson did not dispute the extent of her misconduct. In direct contravention of ethical rules, Robertson carried on an escalating personal relationship with D.W. over a period of many months. When confronted by her supervisor about her relationship with D.W., Robertson was not forthcoming about the extent of her unethical behavior. At the point Robertson broke off her personal relationship with D.W., she chose to do so in a personal setting (going for a walk near her home with D.W.) rather than in a professional one (for instance, at Great Starts). After the relationship's demise, D.W. fell into a depression and relapsed into drinking. In addition, the dual relationship's abrupt termination caused D.W. to threaten Robertson's supervisor's life, which, in turn, led to D.W.'s discharge from Great Starts and further setbacks in her recovery. These undisputed facts overwhelmingly support the Reasons for the Decision stated in the Board's Order: [Robertson] failed to make an effort to avoid a dual relationship with the client and/or a relationship that might impair her independent professional judgment or increase the risk of client exploitation. [Robertson] did knowingly form a dual relationship, and this relationship did harm to the client. The Board's remedy is warranted in law and clearly justified in fact, without even reaching the issue of the felony convictions' impact on the Board's choice of a remedy. While we might not have chosen the same remedy that the Board did, reviewing courts cannot reverse an agency merely because they might have decided the matter differently. Humana of Tenn. v. Tenn. Health Facilities Comm'n, 551 S.W.2d 664, 671 (Tenn.1977); see also Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-322(5)(B). We will not disturb the Board's order to revoke Robertson's license.