Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2023

Flint v. Board of Nursing

Flint v. Board of Nursing
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Decided February 1, 2023 · Kamins
324 Or. App. 94

Flint v. Board of Nursing

Opinion

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

Argued and submitted January 5, affirmed February 1, 2023

In the Matter of Corrine FLINT, RN, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE BOARD OF NURSING, Respondent.

Oregon State Board of Nursing 1800819; A175061

Richard D. Cohen argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner.

Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Kamins, Judge.

KAMINS, J.

Affirmed.

Nonprecedential Memo Op: 324 Or App 94 (2023) 95 KAMINS, J.

Petitioner appeals from the Oregon State Board of Nursing’s final order imposing a six-month suspension for conduct derogatory to the standards of nursing. ORS 678.111(1)(f), (g); OAR 851-045-0070(2)(e) (May 4, 2012) (con- duct derogatory to the standards of nursing includes “[f]ail- ing to report actual or suspected incidents of child abuse or elder abuse to the appropriate state agencies”). Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the board’s findings and conclusions were supported by substantial evidence and substantial reason and that it did not abuse its discretion by imposing a six-month suspension. ORS 183.482 (setting forth our standard of review). Specifically, the record sup- ports the board’s conclusions that petitioner had reasonable cause to believe that the incident in question constituted child abuse and that she chose not to report it because she feared the consequences to herself, not because she rea- sonably determined that the incident was not reportable.

See ORS 419B.010(1) (requiring immediate disclosure if a mandatory reporter has “reasonable cause to believe” that child abuse has occurred). In light of our standard of review, petitioner’s arguments to the contrary provide no basis for reversal.

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.