678.111
Denial, revocation or suspension of license or probation or reprimand. In the manner prescribed in ORS
chapter 183 for a contested case, and except as provided in ORS 678.138, the
Oregon State Board of Nursing may revoke, suspend, deny or impose conditions on
a license issued by the board, or on an inactive or retired status granted by
the board, and reprimand or place on probation, subject to terms imposed by the
board, a person licensed by the board for any of the reasons described in this
section, including the following:
(1) Conviction of
the person of crime where the crime bears demonstrable relationship to the
practice of nursing. A copy of the record of the conviction, certified to by
the clerk of the court entering the conviction, shall be conclusive evidence of
the conviction.
(2) Gross
incompetence or gross negligence of the person in the practice of nursing at
the level for which the person is licensed.
(3) Any willful
fraud or misrepresentation in applying for or procuring a license or renewal of
a license.
(4) Fraud or
deceit by the person in the practice of nursing or in admission to the practice
of nursing.
(5) Impairment as
defined in ORS 676.303.
(6) Conduct
derogatory to the standards of nursing.
(7) Violation of
any provision of ORS 678.010 to 678.448 or rules adopted under ORS 678.010 to
678.448.
(8) Revocation or
suspension of a license to practice nursing by any state or territory of the
United States, or any foreign jurisdiction authorized to issue nursing
credentials whether or not that license or credential was relied upon in
issuing that license in this state. A certified copy of the order of revocation
or suspension shall be conclusive evidence of the revocation or suspension.
(9) Physical
condition that makes the person unable to conduct safely the practice for which
the person is licensed.
(10) Violation of
any condition imposed by the board when issuing a limited license. [1957 c.316 §18
(enacted in lieu of 678.110); 1973 c.584 §11; 1975 c.205 §4; 1979 c.744 §51;
1981 c.369 §7; 1983 c.221 §2; 1985 c.23 §7; 2001 c.275 §2; 2009 c.756 §31; 2019
c.358 §28; 2022 c.38 §9; 2023 c.228 §36; 2025 c.124 §10]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2023 · leading case:
Shank v. Bd. of Nursing, 185 P.3d 532 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
Shank v. Bd. of Nursing, 185 P.3d 532 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 11× “[Petitioner] failed to appropriately communicate information regarding Patient R’s condition to other members of the health care team, thereby violating ORS 678.111(1X0 and OAR 851-045-0015(l)(b) and (3)(h).”
Augustus v. Oregon State Bd. of Nursing, 392 P.3d 788 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 5× “In late 2012, the board issued a “Notice of Proposed 60 Day Suspension of Nurse Practitioner Certificate” to petitioner, based on allegations of fraud and conduct derogatory to the standards of nursing in accordance with ORS 678.111 and OAR 851-045-0070. 3 At petitioner’s…”
Watts v. Oregon State Bd. of Nursing, 386 P.3d 34 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “As a result, the board issued a Notice of Proposed Denial, citing ORS 678.111(l)(c), which authorizes denial of a license for “[a]ny willful fraud or misrepresentation in applying for or procuring a license,” and OAR 851-045-0070(6)(e), authorizing denial for “[r]esorting to…”
State v. Burke, 818 P.2d 511 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “050, credit union certificates of approval may not be issued, ORS 723.”
Corcoran v. Bd. of Nursing, 107 P.3d 627 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “The board alleged that petitioner’s conduct violated ORS 678.111(l)(f) and (2), and OAR 851-045-0015(l)(l) and (m), and (2)(a), (c), and (g).”
Ward v. Oregon State Bd. of Nursing, 502 P.2d 265 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 14× “[2] ORS 678.111 provides that a license to practice professional nursing may be revoked for any of the following causes: "* * * "(1) Conviction of the licensee of any felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude if the conviction occurs after a license or temporary…”
Miller v. Bd. of Nursing, 836 P.2d 749 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 3× “Petitioner also argues that ORS 678.111 and OAR 851-45-015 infringes on his right to free speech under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution and the First Amendment.”
Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 586 P.2d 816 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “2d 554 (1973), the court held that acts which are inchoate of conduct expressly proscribed by the Board of Nursing enabling statute are, as a matter of law, "conduct derogatory to the morals or standards of professional nursing," under former ORS 678.111(7) and, therefore,…”
Franklin v. Emp. Dep't, 294 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “In defense of the EAB’s reasoning, set out above, 254 Or App at 659, employer now states the following: “[Claimant] voluntarily gave up her opportunity to argue that her underlying conduct did not amount to ‘conduct *663 derogatory to the standards of nursing” in violation of…”
Flint v. Bd. of Nursing, 324 Or. App. 94 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“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”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 678.111(1) — 2 cases
Shank v. Bd. of Nursing, 185 P.3d 532 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“[Petitioner] failed to appropriately communicate information regarding Patient R’s condition to other members of the health care team, thereby violating ORS 678.111(1X0 and OAR 851-045-0015(l)(b) and (3)(h).”
Franklin v. Emp. Dep't, 294 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“In defense of the EAB’s reasoning, set out above, 254 Or App at 659, employer now states the following: “[Claimant] voluntarily gave up her opportunity to argue that her underlying conduct did not amount to ‘conduct *663 derogatory to the standards of nursing” in violation of…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 678.111(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Burke, 818 P.2d 511 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).
“050, credit union certificates of approval may not be issued, ORS 723.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 678.111(1)(d) — 1 case
Augustus v. Oregon State Bd. of Nursing, 392 P.3d 788 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“In late 2012, the board issued a “Notice of Proposed 60 Day Suspension of Nurse Practitioner Certificate” to petitioner, based on allegations of fraud and conduct derogatory to the standards of nursing in accordance with ORS 678.111 and OAR 851-045-0070. 3 At petitioner’s…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 678.111(1)(f) — 2 cases
Shank v. Bd. of Nursing, 185 P.3d 532 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“[Petitioner] failed to appropriately communicate information regarding Patient R’s condition to other members of the health care team, thereby violating ORS 678.111(1X0 and OAR 851-045-0015(l)(b) and (3)(h).”
Flint v. Bd. of Nursing, 324 Or. App. 94 (Or. Ct. App. 2023).
“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”).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 678.111(7) — 2 cases
Ward v. Oregon State Bd. of Nursing, 502 P.2d 265 (Or. Ct. App. 1973).
“[2] ORS 678.111 provides that a license to practice professional nursing may be revoked for any of the following causes: "* * * "(1) Conviction of the licensee of any felony or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude if the conviction occurs after a license or temporary…”
Megdal v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 586 P.2d 816 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“2d 554 (1973), the court held that acts which are inchoate of conduct expressly proscribed by the Board of Nursing enabling statute are, as a matter of law, "conduct derogatory to the morals or standards of professional nursing," under former ORS 678.111(7) and, therefore,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 678.111(l)(c) — 1 case
Watts v. Oregon State Bd. of Nursing, 386 P.3d 34 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“As a result, the board issued a Notice of Proposed Denial, citing ORS 678.111(l)(c), which authorizes denial of a license for “[a]ny willful fraud or misrepresentation in applying for or procuring a license,” and OAR 851-045-0070(6)(e), authorizing denial for “[r]esorting to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 678.111(l)(d) — 1 case
Augustus v. Oregon State Bd. of Nursing, 392 P.3d 788 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“In late 2012, the board issued a “Notice of Proposed 60 Day Suspension of Nurse Practitioner Certificate” to petitioner, based on allegations of fraud and conduct derogatory to the standards of nursing in accordance with ORS 678.111 and OAR 851-045-0070. 3 At petitioner’s…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 678.111(l)(f) — 4 cases
Shank v. Bd. of Nursing, 185 P.3d 532 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
“[Petitioner] failed to appropriately communicate information regarding Patient R’s condition to other members of the health care team, thereby violating ORS 678.111(1X0 and OAR 851-045-0015(l)(b) and (3)(h).”
Corcoran v. Bd. of Nursing, 107 P.3d 627 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).
“The board alleged that petitioner’s conduct violated ORS 678.111(l)(f) and (2), and OAR 851-045-0015(l)(l) and (m), and (2)(a), (c), and (g).”
Miller v. Bd. of Nursing, 836 P.2d 749 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).
“Petitioner also argues that ORS 678.111 and OAR 851-45-015 infringes on his right to free speech under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution and the First Amendment.”
Franklin v. Emp. Dep't, 294 P.3d 554 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“In defense of the EAB’s reasoning, set out above, 254 Or App at 659, employer now states the following: “[Claimant] voluntarily gave up her opportunity to argue that her underlying conduct did not amount to ‘conduct *663 derogatory to the standards of nursing” in violation of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.