CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 4 1. The conduct described in the Findings of Fact constitute grounds for disciplinary 5 action pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-3552(A)(1) and (3) and violate the provisions of A.R.S. § 32- 6 3501(9)(i) which states, “Any conduct or practice which is contrary to recognized standards of 7 ethics of the respiratory therapy profession or any conduct or practice which does or might 8 constitute a danger to the health, welfare or safety of the patient or the public.”
9 2. The conduct described in the Findings of Fact constitute grounds for disciplinary 10 action pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-3552(A)(1) and (3) and violate the provisions of A.R.S. § 32- 11 3501(9)(k), which states, “Violating or attempting to violate, directly or indirectly, or assisting in 12 or abetting the violation of or conspiring to violate a provision of this chapter.”
13 3. The conduct described in the Findings of Fact constitute grounds for disciplinary 14 action pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-3552(A)(1) and (3) and violate the provisions of A.A.C. R4-45- 16 or renewal of a license to practice respiratory care.”
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 21 1. The Board has jurisdiction over Respondent pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-3251 et seq. 22 and the rules promulgated by the Board relating to Respondent’s professional practice as a 23 licensed behavioral health professional.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Commissioner has jurisdiction over Respondent as well as the subject matter of this proceeding, and such proceeding is held in the public interest.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The application form’s disclosure questions specifically require disclosure of insurance administrative matters.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-1606, 32-1663 and 32-1664, the Board has subject matter and personal jurisdiction in this matter. The conduct and circumstances described in the Findings of Fact constitute violations of
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 19 1. The Board has jurisdiction over Respondent pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-3251 et seq. 20 and the rules promulgated by the Board relating to Respondent’s professional practice as a 21 licensed behavioral health professional.
22 2. The conduct and circumstances described in the Findings of Fact constitute a 23 violation of A.R.S. § 32-3251(16)(m), engaging or offering o engage as a licensee in activities 24 that are not congruent with the licensee’s professional education, training, or experience.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 17 1. The Board has jurisdiction over Respondent pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-3251 et seq. 18 and the rules promulgated by the Board relating to Respondent’s professional practice as a 19 licensed behavioral health professional.
20 2. The conduct and circumstances described in the Findings of Fact constitute a 21 violation of A.R.S. § 32-3251(16)(k), engaging in any conduct or practice that is contrary to 22 recognized standards of ethics in the behavioral health profession or that constitutes a danger 23 to the health, welfare or safety of a client, as it relates to the following section of the AAMFT 24 Code of Ethics: 25 …
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 17 1. The Board has jurisdiction over Respondent pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-3251 et seq. 18 and the rules promulgated by the Board relating to Respondent’s professional practice as a 19 licensed behavioral health professional.
20 2. The conduct and circumstances described in the Findings of Fact constitute a 21 violation of A.R.S. § 32-3251(16)(v), engaging in any sexual conduct between a licensee and a 22 client or former client.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. 18 1. The Board has jurisdiction over Respondent pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-3251 et seq.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The Commission, under the provisions of Section 252(e)(1) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996,4 is required to review negotiated interconnection agree- ments. It may only reject a negotiated agreement upon a finding that its implementation would be discriminatory to a nonparty or inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.5 Based upon its review of the Agreement between CenturyLink and Onvoy and its findings of fact, the Commission concludes the Agreement is neither discriminatory nor inconsistent with the public interest and shall be approved.
