Natalie Henderson Versus Louisiana State Board of Practical Nurse Examiners

NATALIE HENDERSON NO. 24-CA-265

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF PRACTICAL COURT OF APPEAL
NURSE EXAMINERS
STATE OF LOUISIANA

ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 845-908, DIVISION "N"
HONORABLE STEPHEN D. ENRIGHT, JR., JUDGE PRESIDING

January 29, 2025

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY
CHIEF JUDGE

Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Jude G. Gravois, and Timothy S. Marcel

AFFIRMED
SMC
JGG
TSM

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE,
LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF PRACTICAL NURSE EXAMINERS
P. Lindsey Williams
John W. Becknell, III

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
NATALIE HENDERSON
In Proper Person

CHEHARDY, C.J.

Plaintiff, Natalie Henderson, seeks review of the trial court’s judgment

affirming the decision of defendant, the Louisiana State Board of Practical Nurse

Examiners (“the Board”), to suspend her practical nursing license. For the reasons

that follow, we affirm the Board’s ruling.

Facts and Procedural History

Ms. Henderson was licensed in Louisiana as a practical nurse on September

7, 2011. On April 19, 2022, the Board received a complaint alleging that Ms.

Henderson had abandoned her patients while employed at River Place Behavioral

Health Hospital (“River Place”). The Board notified Ms. Henderson of the

complaint and began an investigation, which included subpoenaing information

from River Place. The investigation and responses to the subpoena uncovered

additional allegations of wrongdoing, including failing to perform basic nursing

skills, insubordination, and unprofessionalism. The Board subsequently issued a

subpoena to the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office after learning that Ms. Henderson

had been arrested for aggravated assault on her former domestic partner.

The Board issued a formal Complaint on March 23, 2023, notifying Ms.

Henderson that a hearing would be held on April 27, 2023 to address the charges

therein. Ms. Henderson appeared and participated in the Zoom hearing without

counsel. The hearing officer heard testimony from Jason Krause, a Registered

Nurse and the Chief Nursing Officer at River Place who filed the formal complaint

regarding Ms. Henderson’s conduct on the job. Over Ms. Henderson’s objections,

Mr. Krause testified that on April 5, 2022, she arrived late for work at 7:30 p.m.,

left her assignment without notice from 12:45 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., left again from

3:15 a.m. to 4:40 a.m., and then left early without relief, abandoning her

assignment at 6:30 a.m. When she was contacted for an explanation of her

behavior, she did not want to meet with her supervisor. Mr. Krause also testified

24-CA-265 1

regarding a March 30, 2022 Employee Corrective Form, in which Ms. Henderson

was written up for a violation of policies and procedures, including a failure to

document, unsatisfactory work quality, and carelessness, with specific incidents

occurring on March 22, 25, and 27, 2022.1 According to Mr. Krause’s testimony,

this was Ms. Henderson’s final written warning, due to the severity of certain

medication variances. He stated that if there were other violations of practice or

policy, Ms. Henderson would be terminated. Mr. Krause and the human resources

director both signed the form, but Ms. Henderson refused to sign. Subsequently,

Ms. Henderson sent Mr. Krause a text message resigning her post, and sent further

texts threatening him with litigation.

After Mr. Krause’s testimony, an audio recording of a conversation between

Ms. Henderson and Mr. Krause, which Ms. Henderson had recorded

surreptitiously, was played for the hearing officer.2 Ms. Henderson also testified on

her own behalf. She indicated that she felt she was being targeted for reporting

adverse conditions in her various jobs. She believed that Mr. Krause had reported

her because he was upset with her for not talking to him after she had been written

up for work infractions. She contended that the behavioral techs on her shift at

River Place would sleep on the job and submitted into the record pictures of people

sleeping at their desks. Ms. Henderson further testified that she often felt unsafe

because, she claimed, there was not proper security at the facility. Ms. Henderson

reiterated that she is an advocate for all her patients and that she would never

1
The March 30 Employee Corrective Form stated that on March 22, 2022, Ms. Henderson
documented that an HIV patient with seizure disorders refused medications, but there was no
follow up with a provider. On March 25, she did not document it on the medication
administration record (MAR), and the patient missed needed seizure and HIV medications, yet
she noted that the patient “tolerated all meds well.” On March 27, Ms. Henderson charted that
the patient refused all meds, without any documented follow up with a provider for the seizure
and HIV medications. According to Mr. Krause’s testimony, the Form also noted that over
several nights—at least 20—many patients did not have their arm bands scanned, and no
medications were scanned, but it was documented on the MAR that medication had been given.
2
Counsel for the Board stated on the record that Ms. Henderson’s secretly recorded audio
recording actually corroborated Mr. Krause’s hearing testimony.

24-CA-265 2

abandon a patient. She also stated that the patients never had the

armbands/wristbands that Mr. Krause claimed they had, implicitly suggesting that

this was why she may not have been following protocol when distributing

medication. She further contended that she was not trained regarding how to

replace a patient’s armband.

In written reasons, the hearing officer found Mr. Krause’s testimony to be

credible, but did not find Ms. Henderson to be credible, nor was she someone who

analyzed situations in a fair and balanced manner. The hearing officer determined

that Ms. Henderson did not take responsibility for her own actions, that she had

unfounded explanations for the allegations against her, and that her reasons for her

absence from her unit and her patients were not justifiable.

The hearing officer further noted the charges against Ms. Henderson from

the Orleans Criminal Sheriff’s Office for aggravated assault with a firearm and

simple battery. She was classified as a “fugitive” after she failed to appear in an

Orleans Parish court to answer those charges, though the notice to appear was sent

to the wrong address. Early in the morning on June 9, 2022, members of the U.S.

Marshals Service located Ms. Henderson while she was jogging in Jefferson

Parish, handcuffed her, and found that she was wearing a fanny pack containing a

handgun with several loose rounds. The Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office arrested

her as a fugitive and for battery of a police officer. The charges related to the June

9th arrest indicate that Ms. Henderson yelled profanities, spit in the face of law

enforcement, attempted to strike a task force member with her elbow, and struck a

task force member in the lower leg area with her right foot.

The hearing officer concluded as a matter of law that Ms. Henderson had

violated La. R.S. 37:969(A)(4)(c), (f), and (g), as she was unfit, or incompetent by

reason of negligence, habit, or other causes; guilty of unprofessional conduct; and

24-CA-265 3

violated other provisions, including La. Admin. Code 46:306(T)(3) and (T)(8)(a, b,

g, i, j, l, p, and t).3

In a July 28, 2023 Order, the Board suspended Ms. Henderson’s practical

nursing license until she complied with certain enumerated stipulations, which

included obtaining a psychological evaluation conducted by a licensed certified

psychologist or psychiatrist of her choice, and participating in any treatment or

aftercare programs that may be prescribed. Additionally, the Board required Ms.

Henderson to complete courses (1) Dealing with Authority in the Workforce

Management, and (2) HIV/AIDS Training and Education for Healthcare

Professionals. The Board also ordered Ms. Henderson to pay a $1000 fine for the

violations detailed in the conclusions of law, and a $1500 hearing assessment fee.

On August 25, 2023, Ms. Henderson filed a Petition for Judicial Review of

the Board’s Order in the 24th Judicial District Court. On March 5, 2024, the trial

court heard the matter. The trial court issued a written judgment on May 17, 2024,

affirming the Board’s Order. The judgment further noted that Ms. Henderson

“failed to meet her burden of proof that Respondent’s decision was in violation of

La. R.S. 49:978.1(G).” Ms. Henderson now seeks review in this Court.

3
La. Admin. Code 46:306(T)(8) states, in relevant part:

8. being guilty of unprofessional conduct;
a. failure to practice practical nursing in accordance with the standards
normally expected;
b. failure to utilize appropriate judgment in administering nursing
practice;
***
g. improper use of drugs, medical supplies, or patients’ records;
***
i. falsifying records;
j. intentionally committing any act that adversely affects the physical
or psychosocial welfare of the patient;
***
l. leaving a nursing assignment without properly notifying appropriate
personnel;
***
p. inappropriate, incomplete or improper documentation;
***
t. violating any provisions of R.S. 37:961 et seq. (the practical nursing
practice act), as amended or aiding and abetting therein.

24-CA-265 4

Law and Analysis

A party aggrieved by a final agency decision in an adjudication proceeding

is entitled to have that decision reviewed by the district court of the parish in which

the agency is located. La. R.S. 49:978.1(A) and (B). The agency shall submit to the

reviewing court the original or a certified copy of the entire record of the

administrative proceeding under review unless stipulated to the contrary by the

parties. La. R.S. 49:978.1(D); Matter of Ford v. Louisiana State Bd. of Practical

Nurse Examiners, 22-481 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/26/23), 361 So.3d 1200, 1206. A party

aggrieved by the district court’s decision is entitled to appeal to the appropriate

appellate court. Id. (citing La. R.S. 49:979). An appellate court reviews the

findings and decision of the administrative agency, not the decision of the district

court. Id. (citing Sylvester v. City of New Orleans Through Code Enforcement and

Hearings Bureau, 17-283 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/11/17), 228 So.3d 285, 287).

La. R.S. 49:978.1(G) sets forth the exclusive grounds upon which a

reviewing court may reverse or modify an administrative agency’s decision on

appeal. That statute provides:

The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the
case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify
the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been
prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences,
conclusions, or decisions are:

(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;
(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;
(4) Affected by other error of law;
(5) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of
discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or
(6) Not supported and sustainable by a preponderance of
evidence as determined by the reviewing court. In the
application of this rule, the court shall make its own
determination and conclusions of fact by a preponderance of
evidence based upon its own evaluation of the record
reviewed in its entirety upon judicial review. In the
application of the rule, where the agency has the opportunity
to judge the credibility of witnesses by first-hand
observation of demeanor on the witness stand and the

24-CA-265 5

reviewing court does not, due regard shall be given to the
agency’s determination of credibility issues.

See also Spears v. Louisiana Board of Practical Nurse Examiners, 16-587 (La.

App. 5 Cir. 6/15/17), 223 So.3d 679, 687. Any one of the six bases enumerated in

La. R.S. 49:978.1(G) is sufficient to modify or reverse an agency determination.

Blanchard v. Allstate Ins. Co., 99-2460 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/18/00), 774 So.2d

1002, 1004, writ denied, 01-285 (La. 3/23/01), 787 So.2d 997.

Nevertheless, given the jurisprudential presumption of correctness of an

agency’s actions, the appellant bears the burden of proving that the record contains

no facts that would establish the validity of the charges levied against her. Spears,

223 So.3d at 688. If a reasonable interpretation of the evidence supports the

agency’s determinations, the agency’s decision is accorded great weight and will

not be reversed or modified in the absence of a clear showing that the action was

arbitrary or capricious. Westbank Pharmacy of Belle Chase, LLC v. Louisiana Bd.

of Pharmacy, 23-1268 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/31/24), 391 So.3d 66, 69.

On appeal, Ms. Henderson argues that the Board erred in using hearsay

evidence to suspend her nursing license. Ms. Henderson further questions whether

the suspension of her license was in retaliation because she is a “whistleblower.”4

Ms. Henderson notes that she has filed several complaints regarding previous

employers, because her oath of nursing requires her to report “suspicions or known

instances of abuse and neglect, especially in vulnerable populations[.]” She states

that she has reported medical failures at Orleans Parish Prison, where she

previously worked, and that she was a whistleblower after Hurricane Ida when Bob

4
In her pro se brief, Ms. Henderson asserts several other arguments that are not before us, as this
appeal addresses only whether the Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in suspending her
nursing license. For example, Ms. Henderson contends that her civil rights were violated, that
she was forced to work in a hostile work environment, that she is being retaliated against because
she is a whistleblower, and that she is being punished for work-related issues that were not her
responsibility. Ms. Henderson also contends that she suffers from PTSD and that she is a victim
of domestic violence.

24-CA-265 6

Dean housed nursing home patients in a warehouse with no food, water, or proper

medical equipment.

Ms. Henderson further argues that she did not abandon patients, as she has

been charged; she merely took breaks in her car like everyone else. She states that

she never left the facility grounds, and that she still made rounds on her patients

every two hours, but she claims she was the one who was “targeted” and

“harassed.” She contends the allegations against her are false and based on

incompetent hearsay, and that the reporter, Jason Krause, is a liar. Finally, she

argues that no evidence was introduced at the hearing to show that any of her

patients suffered any harm during the time that her employer alleges she was out of

the unit.

Furthermore, Ms. Henderson argues that the Board should have never

considered the criminal charges against her in reaching its decision. She claims the

Board’s consideration of this irrelevant and prejudicial evidence was arbitrary and

capricious. Finally, pursuant to the mental health evaluation she obtained at the

Board’s request, Ms. Henderson argues that she is competent and of sound mind,

and that her nursing license should be reinstated.

In response, the Board argues that hearsay evidence, if competent and

relevant, is admissible in an administrative hearing. Honoré v. Dep’t of Pub.

Works, 14-0986 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/29/15), 178 So.3d 1120, 1129. The general

rule in administrative hearings is to allow hearsay evidence and to recognize that

the inability to cross-examine the declarant affects the weight that the evidence

carries. Chaisson v. Cajun Bag & Supply Co., 97-1225 (La. 3/4/98), 708 So.2d

375, 382. The Board points out that Ms. Henderson offers no authority for her

position that hearsay is disallowed in this context.

The Board further contends that the preponderance of the evidence, which

includes the testimony of Mr. Krause and the documentary evidence of additional

24-CA-265 7

complaints, supported the Board’s findings that Ms. Henderson is unfit and

incompetent by reasons of negligence, habit, or other causes, and that she is guilty

of unprofessional conduct. As such, the Board argues that its decision to suspend

Ms. Henderson’s license to practice practical nursing in Louisiana was fully

supported by the record. Its decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of

its discretion, and should be affirmed.

After a thorough review of the administrative record, we find the Board

introduced, and the record contains, sufficient evidence in support of the charges

against Ms. Henderson, and she has failed to meet her burden of proving that the

record contains no facts to establish the validity of those charges. With regard to

the charge of abandoning patients, Ms. Henderson freely admits that she left the

unit for long periods of time to sit in her car, but she argues that because she did

not leave the River Place grounds, she should not have been charged with

misconduct. We disagree. No facility can function properly if the nursing staff is

permitted to repeatedly leave the unit for extended periods of time without notice.

That no major harm came to any of the patients in Ms. Henderson’s absence is

immaterial.

Furthermore, Ms. Henderson’s only defense to the charges that she failed to

properly document medication distribution is that none of the patients had

armbands. However, Mr. Krause’s testimony on this issue contradicted her claim,

and the hearing officer found Mr. Krause’s testimony credible. We have no reason

to disregard the hearing officer’s findings in this regard. We also note that Ms.

Henderson’s conduct during the administrative hearing further demonstrated her

unwillingness to work within certain protocols, adhere to established policies, or

take responsibility for her actions.

24-CA-265 8

As to the criminal charges levied against Ms. Henderson, the administrative

record reveals that none of these charges were prosecuted or resulted in a

conviction, that Ms. Henderson successfully completed a diversion program on

July 31, 2023, and that she has petitioned for an expungement. Furthermore, the

Board’s formal charges against Ms. Henderson do not appear to be based on the

criminal charges that are unrelated to her work as a licensed practical nurse. Stated

differently, even without evidence of the assault charges, the record contains

sufficient evidence to support the Board’s conclusion.

The Board’s decision to suspend Ms. Henderson’s practical nursing license

was not arbitrary or capricious, nor did it violate any of the grounds enumerated in

La. R.S. 49:978.1(G) that would permit reversal. Ms. Henderson may still practice

practical nursing, albeit on a probationary status, upon compliance with all

conditions enumerated in the Board’s Order.

CONCLUSION

The decision of the Louisiana State Board of Practical Nurse Examiners is

affirmed.

AFFIRMED

24-CA-265 9

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. WISEMAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
JANUARY 29, 2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-CA-265
E-NOTIFIED
24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)
HONORABLE STEPHEN D. ENRIGHT, JR. (DISTRICT JUDGE)
JOHN W. BECKNELL, III (APPELLEE)

MAILED
NATALIE HENDERSON (APPELLANT) P. LINDSEY WILLIAMS (APPELLEE)
3220 MORRICE DUNCAN DRIVE ATTORNEY AT LAW
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70126 848 SECOND STREET
GRETNA, LA 70053