Sec. 10.65.09.05. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

A. Sanctions in a particular case may fall outside the range of the sanctioning guidelines established by the Board.

B. If the sanctions imposed by the Board fall outside the range of the sanctioning guidelines the Board shall state its reasons on its worksheet.

C. Depending on the facts and circumstances of each case, and to the extent that the facts and circumstances apply, the Board may consider the following aggravating and mitigating factors in determining whether the sanction in a particular case should fall outside the range of the sanctioning guidelines:

(1) Aggravating Factors:

(a) Previous criminal or administrative discipline history;

(b) Whether the offense was committed deliberately or with gross negligence or recklessness;

(c) Whether the offense has the potential for, or caused, serious patient harm;

(d) Whether the offense was part of a pattern of detrimental conduct;

(e) Whether the respondent pursued the respondent’s financial gain over the patient’s welfare;

(f) Whether the patient was especially vulnerable;

(g) Whether the respondent attempted to hide error or misconduct from patients or others;

(h) Whether the respondent:

(i) Concealed, falsified, or destroyed evidence; or

(ii) Presented false testimony or evidence;

(i) Whether the respondent willfully and without legal justification failed to cooperate with a lawful investigation conducted by the Board; and

(j) Whether previous attempts to rehabilitate the respondent were unsuccessful; and

(2) Mitigating Factors:

(a) Absence of a prior disciplinary record;

(b) The passage of time since any prior offenses;

(c) Whether the respondent self-reported to the Board;

(d) Cooperation with the Board’s investigation;

(e) Full disclosure to the Board;

(f) Implementation of remedial measures to correct or mitigate harm arising from the misconduct;

(g) Timely good-faith efforts to make restitution or to rectify consequences of misconduct;

(h) Evidence of rehabilitation or rehabilitative potential;

(i) Absence of premeditation to commit the offense;

(j) Absence of potential harm to the public;

(k) Absence of adverse impact;

(l) Whether the offense was an isolated incident and not likely to recur;

(m) How and when the respondent has been involved in community service and the value of the community service to the community; and

(n) Voluntary admissions of misconduct.