11. a. The license of a radiologic technologist may be suspended for a fixed period, or may be revoked, or the technologist may be censured, reprimanded, or otherwise disciplined, in accordance with the provisions and procedures defined in P.L.1981, c.295 (C.26:2D-25 et seq.), if after due hearing it is determined that the technologist:
(1)Is guilty of any fraud or deceit in the person's activities as a radiologic technologist or has been guilty of any fraud or deceit in procuring a license;
(2)Has been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction, either within or without this State, of a crime involving moral turpitude, except that if the conviction has been reversed and the holder of the license discharged or acquitted, or if the person has been pardoned or the person's civil rights
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
11. a. The license of a radiologic technologist may be suspended for a fixed period, or may be revoked, or the technologist may be censured, reprimanded, or otherwise disciplined, in accordance with the provisions and procedures defined in P.L.1981, c.295 (C.26:2D-25 et seq.), if after due hearing it is determined that the technologist: (1) Is guilty of any fraud or deceit in the person's activities as a radiologic technologist or has been guilty of any fraud or deceit in procuring a license; (2) Has been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction, either within or without this State, of a crime involving moral turpitude, except that if the conviction has been reversed and the holder of the license discharged or acquitted, or if the person has been pardoned or the person's civil rights restored, the license may be restored; (3) Has or had any medical problem, disability, or substance use disorder which, in the opinion of the board, would impair the person's professional competence; (4) Has aided and abetted a person who is not a licensed radiologic technologist or otherwise authorized pursuant to section 4 of P.L.1981, c.295 (C.26:2D-27) in engaging in the activities of a radiologic technologist; (5) Has undertaken or engaged in any practice beyond the scope of the authorized activities of a radiologic technologist pursuant to P.L.1981, c.295 (C.26:2D-24 et seq.); (6) Has falsely impersonated a duly licensed or former duly licensed radiologic technologist or is engaging in the activities of a radiologic technologist under an assumed name; (7) Has been guilty of unethical conduct as defined by rules promulgated by the commission; (8) Has continued to practice without obtaining a license renewal as required by P.L.1981, c.295 (C.26:2D-24 et seq.); (9) Has applied ionizing radiation to a human being without the specific direction of a duly licensed practitioner as defined herein; or to any person or part of the human body outside the scope of the specific authorization; (10) Has acted or is acting as an owner, co-owner, or employer in any enterprise engaged in the application of ionizing radiation to human beings for the purpose of diagnostic interpretation, chiropractic analysis, or the treatment of disease; (11) Has expressed to a member of the public an interpretation of a diagnostic x-ray film or fluorescent image; (12) Has used or is using the prefix "Dr.," unless entitled to do so pursuant to a degree granted, the word "doctor" or any suffix or affix to indicate or imply that the radiologic technologist is a duly licensed practitioner as defined herein when not so licensed; or (13) Is or has been guilty of incompetence or negligence in the person's activities as a radiologic technologist. b. Proceedings against any radiologic technologist under this section shall be instituted by filing with the board a written charge or charges under oath against the radiologic technologist. The charges may be preferred by any person, corporation, association or public officer, or by the board in the first instance. A copy thereof, together with a report of the investigation as the board shall deem proper, shall be referred to the commission for its recommendation to the commissioner. If the commissioner determines the matter to be a contested case, the commissioner shall either designate three or more members of the board as a committee to hear and report on the charges and shall set a time and place for the hearing or shall refer the matter to the Office of Administrative Law for hearing before an administrative law judge, pursuant to the "Administrative Procedure Act," P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.). For the purpose of this section, the board, its committee, or the administrative law judge shall have power to issue subpenas for the appearance of witnesses, and to take testimony under oath. Upon review of the record of the hearing, the commissioner may affirm, modify, or reject the written report and recommendation of the committee or the administrative law judge. If the commissioner finds that the charges have not been proved, the commissioner shall order them dismissed. If the charges are found to be true, the commissioner may, in the commissioner's discretion, issue an order suspending or revoking the license of the accused, or otherwise disciplining the accused. c. When the license of any person has been revoked or annulled, as herein provided, the board may, after the expiration of two years, accept an application for restoration of the license. L.1981, c.295, s.11; amended 2017, c.131, s.84.