Opinion ID: 1113754
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the Chancellor Err In Reinstating Wilson's Nursing License?

Text: The chancellor found ... that the Appellant's license was revoked by Order of the Board of Nursing on the collective charges of the Appellant's alleged violations of Miss. Code Ann. Section 73-15-29(1)(h), 73-15-29(1)(j), and 73-15-29(1)(k) ... and that ... the Appellant's license should be reinstated based on the failure of the Board of Nursing to prove the collective allegations charged in its Complaint; ... [emphasis supplied]. The nursing board argues that since the Chancellor found that ... the board did meet its burden of proof with regard to [Wilson's] alleged violations of ... Sections 73-15-29(1)(j) and 73-15-29(1)(k) ..., she was required to affirm the decision of the board to revoke Wilson's nursing license. Although the Board of Nursing, upon a finding that a person is unqualified because of any one of the statutory grounds, is empowered to enter an order imposing one or more of the statutory penalties, the chancellor, under the facts of this case, did not err as a matter of law in viewing the charges collectively as opposed to one out of many. This is because nothing in the record refutes the idea that the board, in its discretion, considered the totality of the charges in imposing the harshest penalty available  revocation of Wilson's nursing license. If the Board of Nursing intended to revoke Wilson's license upon anything less than a finding of guilt on all three charges, it should have so stated in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Further explication follows. Miss. Code Ann. § 73-15-29(2) reads, in its pertinent parts, as follows: (2) When the board finds any person unqualified because of any of the grounds set forth in subsection (1) of this section, it may enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties:       (d) Revoking the license or other authorization to practice nursing or practical nursing; ... [emphasis supplied] We interpret subsection (2) to mean any one of the thirteen (13) grounds set forth in subsection (1). This is consistent with § 73-15-29(1)(m) which authorizes the board to revoke a license upon proof that a person has violated any provision, as opposed to provisions, of chapter 15. The word any is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as Some; one out of many; an indefinite number. Quite clearly, proof of any one violation found in § 73-15-29(1) is sufficient to justify imposition of one or more of the penalties found in § 73-15-29(2), including revocation of license. The use of the word may in § 73-15-29(2) and § 73-15-31(4) affords the Board of Nursing a great deal of discretion in determining the contours of the penalty to impose against a disobedient licensee. The word may, as utilized in § 73-15-29, imports permission or authorization. We note that during the testimony of Marcella McKay, custodian of records for the Board of Nursing, the board and defense counsel entered into a stipulation ... that after each and every [former] action of the Board, the Board in its discretion reinstated the license of Mr. Wilson. [emphasis supplied]. The board, in its discretion, may enter an order imposing one or more of the statutory penalties listed. Section 73-15-29(2) contains penalties less severe in nature than revocation of one's license. These penalties include administrative reprimands; suspensions; restrictions; mandatory care, counseling, and treatment; mandatory education; supervision, and fines. In short, the Board of Nursing can tailor the punishment to fit the severity of the transgressor's transgression. In the case at bar, the charges were brought collectively in a three-count complaint. Nothing in the record negates the idea that the Board of Nursing, in imposing the harshest available penalty, relied upon its finding that Wilson was guilty of all three charges. Stated differently, there is no indication in the record the board would have revoked Wilson's license had it found him guilty of only one or two of the charges. Although the board could  and should  have made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on this point, it did not do so. As stated, if the board intended to revoke Wilson's license on anything less than his guilt of all three charges found in the complaint, it should have said so. That said, however, it does not follow that the chancellor was correct in ordering that Wilson's license be reinstated. The proper course was a remand to the Board of Nursing for a determination of whether it would order revocation of Wilson's license or some lesser penalty based on the remaining charges. Miss. Real Estate Commission v. White, 586 So.2d 805, (Miss. 1991).