Case No. 11-2016-001...Case No. 11-2016-001 ACCUSATION 18 Respondent. 19 20 Complainant alleges: 21 PARTIES 22 1. Paul Sanchez (Complainant) brings this Accusation solely in his …

10

KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California JANE ZACK SIMON N Supervising Deputy Attorney General

w CAROLYNE EVANS Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 289206 A

455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 5 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Telephone: (415) 703-1211 6 Facsimile: (415) 703-5480

Attorneys for Complainant 7

8

FILED - STATE OF CALIFORNIA Speech-Language Pathology & Audiology & Hearing Aid Dispensers Board Sacramento, California on December 8, 2016

BEFORE THE SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY AND AUDIOLOGY

AND HEARING AID DISPENSERS BOARD DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

11

12

In the Matter of the Accusation Against:

GABRIELE ANNETTE BRANSGROVE 14

115A Seminary Drive 15 Mill Valley, CA 94941

16

Speech-Language Pathology License No. 17 SP10814

Case No. 11-2016-001

ACCUSATION

18 Respondent.

19

20 Complainant alleges:

21 PARTIES

22 1. Paul Sanchez (Complainant) brings this Accusation solely in his official capacity as

23 the Executive Officer of the Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology and Hearing Aid

24 Dispensers Board (Board), Department of Consumer Affairs.

25 2. On or about June 23, 1998, the Board issued Speech-Language Pathology License

26 Number SP 10814 to Gabriele Annette Bransgrove (Respondent). The Speech-Language

27 Pathology License was in full force and effect at all times relevant to the charges brought herein

28 and will expire on May 31, 2018, unless renewed.

ACCUSATION CASE No. 11-2016-001

5

10

15

20

25

JURISDICTION

N 3. This Accusation is brought before the Board, Department of Consumer Affairs, under

w the authority of the following laws. All section references are to the Business and Professions

4 Code unless otherwise indicated.

4. Section 2530.1 of the Code states:

a "The Legislature finds and declares that the practice of speech-language pathology and

J audiology and hearing aid dispensing in California affects the public health, safety, and welfare

and there is a necessity for those professions to be subject to regulation and control."

5. Section 2531.5 of the Code states: "The board shall issue, suspend, and revoke

licenses and approvals to practice speech-language pathology and audiology as authorized by this

11 chapter."

12 6. Section 2533 of the Code states, in pertinent part:

13 "The board may refuse to issue, or issue subject to terms and conditions, a license on the

14 grounds specified in Section 480, or may suspend, revoke, or impose terms and conditions upon

the license of any licensee for any of the following:

16 "(a) Conviction of a crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions, and duties

17 of a speech-language pathologist or audiologist or hearing aid dispenser, as the case may be. The

18 record of the conviction shall be conclusive evidence thereof.

19 "(c) (2) The use of any of the dangerous drugs specified in Section 4022, or of alcoholic

beverages, to the extent or in a manner as to be dangerous or injurious to the licensee, to any other

21 person, or to the public, or to the extent that the use impairs the ability of the licensee to practice

22 speech-language pathology or audiology safely.

23 "(3) More than one misdemeanor or any felony involving the use, consumption, or self-

24 administration of any of the substances referred to in this section.

"(4) Any combination of paragraph (1), (2), or (3).

26 "The record of the conviction shall be conclusive evidence of unprofessional conduct.

27 "(e) Committing a dishonest or fraudulent act that is substantially related to the

28 qualifications, functions, or duties of a licensee.

2


'(i) Any cause that would be grounds for denial of an application for a license.

N 7. Section 2533.1 of the Code states:

"A plea or verdict of guilty or a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere made to a

LA charge substantially related to the qualifications, functions, and duties of a speech-language

U pathologist or audiologist is deemed to be a conviction within the meaning of this article. The

board may order a licensee be disciplined or denied a license as provided in Section 2533 when

the time for appeal has elapsed, or the judgment of conviction has been affirmed on appeal, or

when an order granting probation is made suspending the imposition of sentence irrespective of a

subsequent order under Section 1203.4 of the Penal Code allowing the person to withdraw his or

10 her plea of guilty and to enter a plea of not guilty, or setting aside the verdict of guilty, or

11 dismissing the accusation, information or indictment."

12 CODE OF REGULATIONS

13 8 . California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 16, section 1399.156, states, in pertinent

14 part:

15 "Unprofessional conduct as set forth in Section 2533 of the Code includes, but is not

16 limited to the following:

17 "(f) Failure to provide to the Board, as directed, lawfully requested copies of documents

18 within 15 days of receipt of the request or within the time specified in the request, whichever is

19 later, unless the licensee is unable to provide the documents within this time period for good

20 cause, including but not limited to, physical inability to access the documents in the time allowed

21 due to illness or travel. This subsection shall not apply to a licensee who does not have access to,

22 and control over, the requested documents.

23 "(g) Failure to cooperate and participate in any Board investigation pending against the

24 licensee. This subsection shall not be construed to deprive a licensee of any privilege guaranteed

25 by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or any other constitutional or

26 statutory privileges. This subsection shall not be construed to require a licensee to cooperate with

27 a request that would require the licensee to waive any constitutional or statutory privilege or to

28 comply with a request for information or other matters within an unreasonable period of time in

3


5

10

15

20

25

light of the time constraints of the licensee's practice. Any exercise by a licensee of any

N constitutional or statutory privilege shall not be used against the licensee in a regulatory or

disciplinary proceeding against the licensee. w

4 "(h) Failure to report to the Board within 30 days any of the following:

"(1) The bringing of an indictment or information charging a felony against the licensee.

6 "(2) The arrest of the licensee.

7 "(3) The conviction of the licensee, including any verdict of guilty, or pleas of guilty or no

8 contest, of any felony or misdemeanor.

9. CCR, title 16, section 1399.156.1, states, in pertinent part:

"For the purposes of denial, suspension or revocation of a license or registration pursuant to

11 Division 1.5 (commencing with Section 475) of the code, a crime or act shall be considered to be

12 substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of a person holding a license under

13 the Act if to a substantial degree it evidences present or potential unfitness of a person holding a

14 license to perform the functions authorized by his or her license or registration in a manner

consistent with the public health, safety, or welfare. Such crimes or acts shall include, but not be

16 limited to, those involving the following:

17 "(a) Violating or attempting to violate, directly or indirectly, or assisting in or abetting the

18 violation of, or conspiring to violate any provision or term of the Act.

19 COST RECOVERY

10. Section 125.3 of the Code states, in relevant part:

21 "(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, in any order issued in resolution of a disciplinary

22 proceeding before any board within the department or before the Osteopathic Medical Board,

23 upon request of the entity bringing the proceeding may request the administrative law judge to

24 direct a licentiate found to have committed a violation or violations of the licensing act to pay a

sum not to exceed the reasonable costs of the investigation and enforcement of the case.

26 "(c) A certified copy of the actual costs, or a good faith estimate of costs where actual costs

27 are not available, signed by the entity bringing the proceeding or its designated representative

28 shall be prima facie evidence of reasonable costs of investigation and prosecution of the case. The

ACCUSATION CASE No. 1I-2016-001

costs shall include the amount of investigative and enforcement costs up to the date of the

N hearing, including, but not limited to, charges imposed by the Attorney General.

"(d) The administrative law judge shall make a proposed finding of the amount of w

A reasonable costs of investigation and prosecution of the case when requested pursuant to

U subdivision (a). The finding of the administrative law judge with regard to costs shall not be

reviewable by the board to increase the cost award. The board may reduce or eliminate the cost

award, or remand to the administrative law judge where the proposed decision fails to make a

8 finding on costs requested pursuant to subdivision (a).

"(e) Where an order for recovery of costs is made and timely payment is not made as

10 directed in the board's decision, the board may enforce the order for repayment in any appropriate

court. This right of enforcement shall be in addition to any other rights the board may have as to

12 any licentiate to pay costs.

13 "(f) In any action for recovery of costs, proof of the board's decision shall be conclusive

14 proof of the validity of the order of payment and the terms for payment.

15 "(g)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the board shall not renew or reinstate the

16 license of any licentiate who has failed to pay all of the costs ordered under this section.

17 "(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the board may, in its discretion, conditionally renew or

18 reinstate for a maximum of one year the license of any licentiate who demonstrates financial

19 hardship and who enters into a formal agreement with the board to reimburse the board within

20 that one-year period for the unpaid costs.

21 "(h) All costs recovered under this section shall be considered a reimbursement for costs

22 incurred and shall be deposited in the fund of the board recovering the costs to be available upon

23 appropriation by the Legislature.

24 "(i) Nothing in this section shall preclude a board from including the recovery of the costs

25 of investigation and enforcement of a case in any stipulated settlement.

26 "(i) This section does not apply to any board if a specific statutory provision in that board's

27 licensing act provides for recovery of costs in an administrative disciplinary proceeding."

28

5


FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

N (Substantially-Related Convictions)

10. Respondent's license is subject to disciplinary action under Code sections 2533(a) w

A [substantially-related crime], 2533(c) (2) [use of alcohol in a manner dangerous to self of others]

and 2533(c)(3) [more than one misdemeanor involving the use, consumption or self- u

administration of alcohol] in that she has two alcohol-related convictions. The circumstances are

7 as follows:

8 2012 DUI Conviction

11. On or about February 18, 2012, Sausalito Police Officer White was on patrol in a

10 fully marked police vehicle monitoring traffic when he observed a silver vehicle drift into the

11 bicycle lane by two feet and continue driving in the bicycle lane for about 200 feet. Officer

12 White activated his vehicle's red light and attempted to stop the driver but the driver did not stop.

13 Officer White then activated his police vehicle's air horn to get the driver's attention. The driver

14 then slowed down and began pulling over in the lane of traffic, and ran into the curb. He directed

15 the driver to pull into the driveway, but the driver continued down the street, then pulled to the

16 side to park.

17 12. Respondent was identified by her valid California driver's license. Immediately upon

18 speaking with Respondent, Officer White observed that her eyes were red and watery, her speech

19 was mildly slurred and he smelled the odor of alcohol coming from her vehicle. She was the sole

20 occupant of the car. He conducted a brief horizontal gaze nystagmus test and found the presence

21 of nystagmus and a lack of smooth pursuit.

22 13. Sausalito Police Sergeant Fraass arrived on scene. Officer White requested

23 Respondent step out of her vehicle and complete a series of field coordination tests. Before

24 starting the tests, he asked her questions, and she responded that she did not have any current

25 medical or physical limitations and did not take any medication. She admitted that she drank four

26 glasses of wine, and stated that she had just left a memorial service at Spinnaker Restaurant.

27 When asked if she had recently eaten anything, she stated that she had eaten popcorn at a bar.

28

6

ACCUSATION CASE No. 1I-2016-001 |

14. Officer White explained and demonstrated the field coordination tests to Respondent.

N The test area was an asphalt paved lot, dry, free of apparent defects and lit with patrol vehicle

w spot lights and flashlights. It was a clear night. Respondent did not perform the tests in a

satisfactory manner, losing her balance and stating that she forgot what she was supposed to do.

15. Officer White read the Preliminary Alcohol Screening (PAS) admonition to

6 Respondent, and she declined to give a breath sample. Based on Officer White's training,

J experience, and observations of Respondent's performance, he formed the opinion that

Respondent was under the influence of alcohol and unable to safely operate a motor vehicle. He

placed her under arrest for Vehicle Code (VC) section 23152(a) [driving under the influence of

10 alcohol and/or drugs.] He transported Respondent to the Sausalito Police Department to complete

11 pre-booking paperwork.

12 16. Officer White asked Respondent if she would take a breath or blood test, but she

13 would not or could not make a decision. He printed a copy of the Chemical Test Refusal and read

14 the form to her. She answered "No" when asked if she would provide a sample of breath or

15 blood. He gave her an additional opportunity to provide a breath sample, and she stated, "I don't

16 know what that means." Officer White showed her the E-PAS device and how simple it was to

17 provide a sample. Respondent replied, "It's going to be a little high." Later in the same

18 conversation, she repeated her concern about taking the test because "it is going to be high." This

19 conversation took place between approximately 12:18 - 12:20 a.m.

20 17. Officer White next transported Respondent to the Marin County Jail for a blood draw,

21 but the phlebotomist was not able to complete a non-forced blood draw from Respondent.

22 18. On or about March 1, 2012, a criminal complaint titled People of the State of

23 California vs. Gabriele Annette Bransgrove, case no. CR179502 was filed in Marin County

24 Superior Court. Count 1 charged Respondent with a misdemeanor violation of VC 23152(a). It

25 was further alleged that she refused to submit to and complete a chemical test in violation of VC

26 23612 and VC 23577. It was further alleged that she refused to submit to and complete a

27 chemical test in violation of VC 23612 within the meaning of VC 23578.

28

7

ACCUSATION CASE No. 11-2016-001 |

19. On or about April 13, 2012, Respondent was convicted on her plea of guilty to a

N misdemeanor violation of VC 23152(a) and the enhancement was stricken, and allegations 1 and

2 were stricken. She was placed on conditional sentence probation for three years, ordered to pay

A fines, given credit for one day in jail, ordered to complete a nine month First Offender Program

within 365 days, enroll and show proof of enrollment within 21 days, submit to a blood, breath or

6 urine test if she was arrested for driving under the influence in the future.

7 2016 DUI Conviction

20. On or about January 3, 2016, at 1:11 a.m., Mill Valley Police Officer Langeveld was

dispatched to the scene of a head-on collision between two vehicles. When he arrived, he

10 observed Respondent (identified by her driver's license) in the driver's seat of one vehicle. L.Y.,

11 the adult male driver in the other vehicle, was being treated by Mill Valley Fire Department

12 personnel in the back of an ambulance for pain to his left leg. L. Y. stated that he had been

12 driving southbound in his lane when he saw Respondent driving northbound in his lane. He

14 flashed his car's high beams at her to warn her that she was driving on the wrong side of the road;

15 however, she continued driving towards him. He slowed down and swerved to avoid her, but

16 their vehicles collided head-on. L. Y. told the officer that Respondent attempted to drive away

17 from the scene, but was unable to because of the damage to her vehicle. Officer Longoria was the

18 first to arrive on the scene and he removed Respondent's keys from the ignition to prevent her

19 from leaving.

20 21. Officer Langeveld spoke to Respondent, and asked her what happened. She stated,

21 "I was driving, and the next thing I know he pulled in front of me." He observed that Respondent

22 appeared heavily intoxicated, her eyes were bloodshot and watery, her speech was slurred and he

23 could smell a strong odor of alcohol on her breath. She was unable to tell him where she was

24 coming from or exactly where she was. Based on the objective signs of intoxication, Officer

25 Langeveld conducted field sobriety tests. Respondent did not state that she had any illness, injury

26 or medication which would prevent her from performing the tests. Respondent's performance on

27 the tests was unsatisfactory. She stated that she was driving home; however, she was driving in

28 the opposite direction of her home address. She denied drinking alcohol prior to the collision.

8


22. Based on Respondent's objective signs of intoxication, her performance on the field

N sobriety tests, and Officer Langeveld's determination that she had caused the collision resulting in

injury, he placed her under arrest for felony violations of VC 23153(a) [driving under the

A influence of alcohol causing injury or death] and VC 23153(b) [driving with a blood alcohol

content of .08% or more causing injury or death]. He advised Respondent of implied consent but

she refused to provide a blood or breath sample.

23. Officer Langeveld transported Respondent to Marin General Hospital to be medically

cleared prior to booking and for a blood test. Respondent was uncooperative and stated that she

10 did not want to provide a blood sample. Officer Langeveld explained to Respondent that she was

under arrest for felony DUI and that if she did not cooperate, the sample would be taken by force.

11 Respondent became semi-cooperative and at approximately 3:15 a.m., she allowed the

12 phlebotomist to draw a blood sample. Respondent was medically cleared by Marin General

13 Hospital and she was taken to Marin County Jail where she was booked into custody. Her blood

14 sample tested positive for alcohol in the amount of .23%.

15 24. On or about January 27, 2016, a criminal complaint titled People of the State of

16 California vs. Gabriele Annette Bransgrove, case no. SC196027A was filed in Marin County

17 Superior Court. Count 1 charged Respondent with a felony violation of VC 23153(a) [driving

18 under the influence of alcohol causing injury or death]. Count 2 charged Respondent with a

19 felony violation of VC 23153(b) [driving with a blood alcohol content of .08% or more causing

20 injury or death]..

21 25. On or about June 7, 2016, the complaint was amended as to Count 1 to allege a

22 misdemeanor violation of VC 23153(a), and Count 2 was amended to allege a misdemeanor

23 violation of VC 23153(b). Count 1 was dismissed on the motion of the District Attorney.

24 Respondent was convicted on her plea of guilty to Count 2, and she admitted the prior DUI

25 conviction. She was advised that her blood alcohol level was .23%.

26 26. Respondent was placed on supervised probation for three years. The supervision was

27 for the purpose of restitution determination/collection. Upon notification by probation of

28 collection, the jurisdiction would revert to a conditional sentence under the terms and conditions,

9

ACCUSATION CASE No. 11-2016-001|

which are as follows: serve sixty days in custody of the Marin County Sheriff with credit for one

N day, pay fines, attend and complete a post-conviction Drinking Driver Program and submit proof

w of completion by June 7, 2018, abstain from use of alcohol/intoxicants, pay restitution to the

victim, driver's license suspended for one year. She was also ordered to submit to a blood, breath

UI or urine test if arrested for driving under the influence. An ignition interlock device was ordered

O to be installed in her vehicle.

SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE

8 (Unprofessional Conduct: Failure to Report Convictions)

27. Respondent failed to report her June 7, 2016 conviction to the Board within thirty

10 days of the date of conviction in violation of CCR section 1399.156(h)(3).

11 PRAYER

12 WHEREFORE, Complainant requests that a hearing be held on the matters herein alleged,

13 and that following the hearing, the Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology and Hearing Aid

14 Dispensers Board issue a decision:

15 1. Revoking or suspending Speech-Language Pathology License Number SP10814,

16 issued to Gabriele Annette Bransgrove.;

17 2. Ordering Gabriele Annette Bransgrove to pay the Speech-Language Pathology and

18 Audiology and Hearing Aid Dispensers Board the reasonable costs of the investigation and

19 enforcement of this case, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 125.3; and,

20 3. Taking such other and further action as deemed necessary and proper.

21

22

23 DATED: December 8, 2016 PAUL SANCHEZ

24 Executive Officer

25 Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology and Hearing Aid Dispensers Board Department of Consumer Affairs

26 State of California Complainant

27

SF2016201901 28 41623344.doc

10

ACCUSATION CASE No. 1I-2016-001

Case No. 11-2016-001...Case No. 11-2016-001 ACCUSATION 18 Respondent. 19 20 Complainant alleges: 21 PARTIES 22 1. Paul Sanchez (Complainant) brings this Accusation solely in his …

Documents