The NJ Supreme Courted decided on February 28, 2012 that Padilla decision applies prospectively. It is important for criminal defense attorneys to secure accurate advice for their clients on whether a guilty plea to certain offenses will render them mandatorily removable, and numerous resources are available to help attorneys to this. Even if removal is not mandated, counsel must highlight for non-citizen clients that entering a guilty plea will place them at risk of removal and that they may seek legal advice on potential immigration consequences.

Finally, under Nuñez-Valdéz, if counsel provided affirmatively misleading advice about the removal consequences of a guilty plea, then deficiency may exist for purposes of establishing a prima facie ineffective assistance of counsel claim entitling defendant to an evidentiary hearing in a PR proceeding. (pp. 54-57)

Case can be found here.

In Selective Insurance Company of America v. Rothman, the court rejected Defendant’s argument that a PA can perform a needle EMG based on the statutory authorization for a PA to “assist” a physician, N.J.S.A. 45:9–27.16(b)(1) and said that such reading equates the word “assist” with “perform in the place of,” which is contrary to the clear word that the Legislature chose but also would expand the authority given to PAs well beyond the boundaries that the statute established.

See the full sample case here.

Effective September 1, 2011 New Jersey has instituted a ‘voluntary’ prescription monitoring program (PMP) for all licensed medical providers who are empowered with the ability to prescribe CDS and Human Growth Hormone dispensed on an out-patient basis. The intent of the program is to monitor those individuals who are attempting to obtain prescription medications through more than one source with the same single CDS prescription. Although the Medical Board and the Division of Consumer Affairs is couching this program and one to protect the patient, the real motive is more along the lines of BIG BROTHER.

The Prescription Monitoring Program will enable the Board of Medical Examiners and the Attorney General’s Office to monitor (a) ALL narcotic prescriptions any one doctor written based on your DEA AND NPI number, (b) the volume and regularity of the NARCOTIC prescriptions being written to any one patient, and (c) who and where the NARCOTIC prescription are being filled. As well, the program will enable a physician to investigate who else is writing any prescriptions for the patient under the doctor’s care.

The practice effects of this monitoring program are significant in two regards. On the surface it looks like the patient will now not be able to lie to the doctor about his prescription history. In addition, the doctor will be able to see who else is writing the narcotic prescription for the same patient. However, the monitoring program and access to this clearing house of patient information has created an additional standard of care. Now an attorney will be able to argue that if the patient’s prescription history is not checked prior to any narcotic medication being prescribed, and there is an overdose or other illegal activity, the doctor may have criminal or civil culpability.

This clearing house location will primarily assist the DEA, FBI, Board of Medical Examiners, Attorney General Office and local law enforcement prosecute doctors for writing illegal prescriptions which are filled by different locations and at a greater frequency that indicated by the medication in questions. FBI and DEA can not get the patient info, especially when cash is involved, as a result they are seeking to obtain the info from the source; where the narcotic prescription is originating.

A licensed health care provider has a fundamental vested right to her license; therefore, efforts to deprive her of that license require the licensing authority to prove its case by clear and convincing evidence. (Ettinger v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1982) 135 Cal. App. 3d 853, 856.)

Although attorneys are dedicated to making the justice and the legal system function smoothly, sometimes even ethical and dedicated legal professionals may find themselves facing the serious ramifications of a potential disbarring. One reason an attorney may be disbarred  is his/her willful disobedience or violation of an order of the court requiring him or her to do or forbear an act connected with, or in the course of, his or her profession, which he or she ought in good faith to do or forbear.

To view other grounds for disbarment or suspension, click here.