Looking over a few cases and the A Cobia case, a few things to point out, that the Arizona Corrupt board is more than willing to go along with and allow to happen. Even though the attorney’s have a duty to ensure fairness and when a manifest injustice occurs’ correct it. And may be added to the appeal , of the judges errors.
The case law from April Cobia’s case , we see the judge did not wright anything about the issue of the Administrative Law Judge frustrating Cobia’s efforts to question the witnesses , by multiple interruptions…. Depriving Cobia’s efforts to strategically question the witnesses, and concentrate on her defense and what needs to be brought out into evidence by this witness… Nothing was mentioned at all on this matter…. Its like she never even raised this as an issue…
On her Mandatory Reporting issue…
Notice the case law twists the review, as it states the issue is unprofessional conduct based upon —- failed to notify her supervisor she called Cornerstone. But in the review, the judge never identifies the employers of NPA’s *****policy or law**** which makes it mandatory for her to notice her supervisor she called cornerstone…. Apparently, there is no such policy or law…… the statute he used. was simply that the A.A.C. R4-19-403(9) states:: ” stating unprofessional conduct includes failing to… follow policies and procures of the nurses employer designed to safeguard the patient.. The judge never stated any employer policy which was noticed to Cobia nor in existence at the employer….. This was an improper denial…… Cobia should have won on this issue….
Cobia’s religious discrimination issue, from what the judge rights, is as looser…. can’t win this one…. Never ever seen a Judge ask a defendant to tell the court if they are a certain ‘religion” or currently practicing . ! Absurd !
Cobia’s falsified documents issue , the reviewing judge was correct, its the ALJ’s duty to review all evidence and draw all inferences… BOTH COBIA’S CASE AND THE CITED Aguayo V. Indus. Common, v 235 Ariz. 416 (app. 2014)..
The hearsay issue, this is a loosing issue… and went toward denial as a result.
The due process issue, to cross examine the. witness, we’ve already covered above….
The HIPAA ISSUE, I feel the judge twisted this to fit a denial as she was using her home computer to do her work, and I’m guessing the employer knew of this home computer use for patient data….. This was within the bounds of the law and HIPAA in my opinion, and arguable on appeal to a higher court. A ‘consultant, Millbren, told me she ( with the AZ BON) practices entirely from her house, what is the difference ?
Cobia’s sufficiency of evidence issue, the judge twisted this into. Cobia’s PAST EMPLOYMENT HISTORY…. Cobia’s Credibility!!!! He evaded the issue….
The rest of the judges comments are focused on bashing Cobia’s credibility….. and making her out to b a menace to the public….. This makes me believe the State/BON Agents wrote this opinion and got the judge to sign it, and move onto the next case file…. this saved this judge time…. This is all to common and a travesty of justice.
Revocation, well this is harsh but I would imagine those board members are pretty callused and could cut someone’s eyeballs out and make an excuse why it is the right thing to do and how many members of the public they helped by doing so. !