Radonda Vaught v. Tennessee Board of Nursing
Syllabus
This is an appeal arising from a decision by the Tennessee Board of Nursing (\the Board\)to revoke a registered nurse's license after she retrieved the wrong medication from anautomatic dispenser and administered it to a hospital patient, resulting in the patient'sdeath. The Tennessee Department of Health (\the Department\) brought an initialcomplaint against the nurse concerning the incident, which it first determined did not meritfurther action but then later re-opened. Simultaneously, the nurse faced criminalprosecution and was ultimately convicted of two criminal charges related to the incident.Following a contested hearing in the administrative proceedings, the Board revoked thenurse's license. The nurse sought judicial review of this decision pursuant to Tennessee'sUniform Administrative Procedure Act. During the judicial review proceeding, the nurseraised, for the first time, the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel as affirmativedefenses to the Department's complaint. In response, the Board argued that the nurse hadwaived these affirmative defenses because she had failed to raise them during theadministrative proceedings. While the petition for judicial review remained pending, thecriminal case moved to the sentencing phase. A doctor, who had testified as an expertwitness in both the contested administrative proceeding and the criminal case, wrote a letterof support for the nurse to the criminal court judge in preparation for her sentencing. Whenthe nurse learned of the doctor's supportive letter, she moved the trial court to remand theinstant case to the Board so that the Board could consider the contents of the letter in itsdecision. The trial court declined to remand the matter to the Board or to allow the nurseto present the letter to the Board as additional evidence. The trial court subsequentlyentered a final order, determining that the nurse had not waived the affirmative defenses ofres judicata or judicial estoppel but declining to rever
Judges: Judge Thomas R. Frierson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.