Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


BUREAU OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS, Petitioner-Appellee, v

UNPUBLISHED December 11, 2007

JAMES A. CARIS, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 273516 Department of Community Health, Bureau of Health Professions LC No. 2005-098291

Before: Davis, P.J., and Murphy and Servitto, JJ. PER CURIAM. Respondent appeals by leave granted the final order of the Michigan Board of Social Work Disciplinary Subcommittee (the disciplinary subcommittee) limiting his social work licenses for six months and placing him on concurrent probation based on an administrative finding that he violated MCL 333.16221(a) and (b)(i). We reverse. This disciplinary action arose as a consequence of a prior disciplinary action involving another registered social worker, referred to in the administrative proceedings as "AB." On March 11, 2003, the disciplinary subcommittee entered a consent order and stipulation suspending AB's social worker registration. Pursuant to the version of MCL 333.18503 then in effect,1 AB was therefore prohibited from representing herself as a registered social worker. AB became employed by the Lutheran Child and Family Service of Michigan (LCFSM) as a "residential social worker" while the complaint against her was pending. AB and LCFSM

At the time periods relevant to this case, and prior to the Legislature's enactment of 2004 PA 61, MCL 333.18503 provided as follows: An individual shall not represent that he or she is a certified social worker, social worker, or social work technician or use a title including "certified social worker," "social worker," "social work technician," or an abbreviation of those terms or the letters "c.s.w.," "s.w.," or "s.w.t" or similar words which would indicate that he or she is registered under this article unless the individual is registered in that capacity under this article.

1

-1-


discussed the terms of the consent order and stipulation after it was entered, and they concluded that she was permitted to continue her employment. On April 21, 2003, respondent was hired by LCFSM, where, among other duties, he was AB's supervisor. AB advised respondent that her social work license had been suspended. Respondent did not familiarize himself with the details of the consent order beyond the fact of AB's license suspension. He instead assumed that, because LCFSM knew about the suspension, it was legal for AB to continue working under the supervision of registered social workers. AB applied for reinstatement of her license, and respondent wrote a letter in support. The Michigan Board of Social Work (the Board) denied reinstatement. During the administrative hearing following the denial of the reinstatement application, respondent testified that AB continued to work at LCFSM and introduce herself as a residential social worker. Following the hearing, petitioner filed an administrative complaint with the disciplinary subcommittee, alleging that respondent, as the suspended subordinate's supervisor, violated MCL 333.16221(a) and (b)(i) by allowing the individual to hold herself out as a residential social worker in violation of MCL 333.18503, despite knowing that her social worker registration was suspended. Following an administrative hearing, the hearing referee submitted a proposed decision recommending a finding that respondent did not violate MCL 333.16221. The referee made findings of fact that, among other things: respondent did not know the precise terms of the consent order; AB's position title was "residential social worker," a position that was generally filled by LCFSM by individuals with Master's degrees in social work, but was sometimes filled by individuals with Master's degrees in other fields; and that AB's business cards only said "residential social worker." The referee made findings of law that it was unclear what respondent was actually charged with violating, but that he could not have violated a consent order to which he had not been named as a party, that respondent fully carried out his supervisory responsibilities as set forth in MCL 333.16109(2), and that respondent could not have aided and abetted or failed to report a violation of social work laws where he was unaware of any illegality. After reviewing the record, the disciplinary subcommittee accepted the hearing referee's findings of fact but rejected his conclusions of law. The disciplinary subcommittee greatly emphasized the fact that respondent did not know the terms of the consent order and had assumed that LCFSM was aware of AB's status. The disciplinary subcommittee concluded, without citation to any authority, that respondent was required, as AB's supervisor, to review the complete and exact terms of the consent order, determine how those terms would affect AB's and his own employment, and then ensure that the terms were fully complied with. On that basis, the disciplinary subcommittee found that respondent violated MCL 333.16221(a) and (b)(i) by allowing the subordinate to represent herself as a social worker. Pursuant to MCL 333.16226, the disciplinary subcommittee sanctioned respondent by limiting his social work licenses for six months, during which time he could only work under the general supervision of a licensed social worker. The disciplinary subcommittee also placed respondent on concurrent probation and ordered him to successfully complete a continuing education course in the area of supervision. This appeal followed. Our review of petitioner's disciplinary subcommittee's order is limited to the standard set forth in Const 1963, art 6,

Download IN RE JAMES A CARIS.pdf

Michigan Law