ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a disciplinary order from the Missouri State Board of Nursing, affirming additional probationary terms on a licensed practical nurse after finding she violated the conditions of her probation.
The court’s ruling supports the Board’s decision to impose further restrictions on Jamie Snethen's nursing license following multiple probation violations, according to a Feb. 25 opinion in the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Snethen’s appeal challenged the board’s actions on three grounds: that the board abused its discretion by denying her request to postpone her probation violation hearing, that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that the board’s alcohol restrictions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
A three-judge panel, consisting of Presiding Judge Gary D. Witt, Judge Lisa White Hardwick and Judge Edward R. Ardini Jr., rejected these arguments and upheld the trial court’s decision.
Snethen’s legal issues stem from a history of criminal convictions, including a 2007 misdemeanor for careless and imprudent driving, a 2014 felony for possession of methamphetamine and a 2015 federal conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.
Following her release from federal custody, Snethen sought to renew her nursing license in 2017.
In 2018, the board granted her a probated license under strict conditions, including a five-year probation period during which she was required to abstain from alcohol and controlled substances and submit to regular drug and alcohol screenings through a third-party administrator (TPA).
The board’s 2018 order detailed specific requirements, including daily check-ins with the TPA between 5:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and a prohibition on consuming any products containing alcohol.
Violations included missed check-ins, late check-ins and providing diluted urine samples. Despite acknowledging these conditions, Snethen was later accused of repeated non-compliance.
In November 2022, the board filed a complaint alleging that Snethen violated the terms of her probation.
The complaint cited five missed check-ins, two late check-ins, six diluted urine samples and a positive test for alcohol metabolites.
The board scheduled a probation violation hearing for Nov. 30, 2022.
Snethen requested a continuance five days before the hearing, citing difficulty securing legal representation and the recent death of her grandmother.
The board denied her request, and Snethen appeared at the hearing without an attorney.
During the hearing, Snethen admitted to violating her probation, stating, “This is my fault and mistake.”
She attributed her positive alcohol test to consuming regular NyQuil, which she claimed her fiancé had purchased by mistake.
She explained the diluted urine samples by saying she drinks large amounts of water and had tried a caffeine-heavy nutritional supplement.
Snethen testified that she had taken steps to improve her compliance, including setting reminders to check in with the TPA.
Despite her admissions and efforts to correct her behavior, the board found that Snethen’s violations undermined its ability to monitor her compliance and protect the public.
The board revoked her existing probation and imposed a new five-year probation period with similar restrictions, including the alcohol prohibition.
Snethen sought judicial review of the board’s decision in the Cole Circuit Court, which upheld the board’s disciplinary order.
She then appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, arguing that the board’s refusal to delay her hearing denied her a fair opportunity to secure legal representation and that the evidence did not substantiate further discipline.
She also contended that the alcohol prohibition violated the ADA.
The appellate court, however, found no abuse of discretion in the board’s denial of Snethen’s continuance request.
The court noted that Snethen had received notice of the hearing on Nov. 12, giving her over two weeks to seek legal counsel.
The court also determined that the board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, including TPA records documenting her probation violations.
Lastly, the court rejected her ADA argument, concluding that the alcohol restrictions were necessary for public safety and did not constitute unlawful discrimination.
“We will not substitute our judgment for that of the administrative agency on factual matters,” the court stated, affirming the board’s authority to impose discipline to ensure compliance and public protection.
With the appellate ruling, Snethen remains on a new five-year probationary period, subject to the same monitoring conditions, Ardini wrote.
The appellant is represented by David F. Barrett.
The respondent is represented by Adam G. Grayson and Karen Bretz.
Attorneys declined to further comment on the case.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District case number: WD87187