moorebluejacket

The actual issue is this: within Calif, no student nurse can work on the floor or work with patients unless they receive a waiver that is only provided in the Calif Nurse Practice Act and the Calif Business and Professional Code. The waiver allows students enrolled in a Calif authorized nursing school to work under a preceptor in a clinical setting. The original 2007 to 2012 ISU California only LVN to BSN distant learning nursing school was deemed illegal and stripped of its CABRN authorization, those students who did clinicals within Calif did not receive the waiver and were practicing nursing without a license. If ISU links up with Calif VA facilities so the Calif students can do their clinicals within Calif, the rules/laws that cover nurses in California are not applicable to those Calif students. Once the student graduates and wishes to take the NCLEX the distant learning California student considered an Indiana student and Indiana laws cover them. If the student passes the NCLEX and wishes to take their NCLEX in California or work in Calif, the graduate is considered an out of state nurse and must apply to the CABRN and their transcripts will be evaluated. There is no guarantee that thses students will be accepted in Calif. What bothers me is there is no Calif BRN to monitor the ISU program now. Given the issues that caused the CABRN to retroatively remove the approved status of ISU, who will be the watchdog now. Lack of CABRN oversight over ISU's nursing school may become a severe problem to the Calif students and Calif taxpayers.

The wording of the emil and letter is MISLEADING. ISU has NO APPROVED NURSING SCHOOL IN CALIFORNIA. The truth is this: ISU has now slipped into the category that only Excelsior occupied. Any California student who attends the ISU LPN--to-BSN program and graduates, is considered out of state nurses. These graduates will have to prove to California BRN that they had appropriate education to be eligible for a California license--just like any out of state student who wishes to be licensed in California. DO NOT BE MISLED. The CABRN has made NO comments about ISU's nursing school because it is an out of state university and not within the jurisdiction of the California Board or its rules. It does not matter whether the clinicals were done in a federal facility or not.

There has been some correspondence online and sent out by ISU and TCN that alleges ISU is again a CABRN approved nursing school operating within California and offering clinicals in US federal facilities. These are the facts: 1. ISU is an Indiana nursing school who operates an on campus nursing school as well as an online nursing program. For the online students, clinicals are done in the student's state. 2. December 2012, the CABRN withdrew the approval of ISU's nursing school in California due to severe issues (such as: from 2007 to 2012, ISU lied, mislead the CABRN and attempted to cover up the problem issues). The CABRN retroactively withdrew its approval from 2007 to December 2012. 3. There is no longer an LVN-to-BSN program within California. 4. Because there is no approval for ISU California LVN to BSN program, the Board's President stated "the CABRN has no jurisdiction over ISU, an out of state university." Thus, the correspondence that states that the CABRN "concurred" with ISU, is misleading. Accprding to California law, the CABRN has no authority or jurisdiction over an out of state nursing school; it has only jurisdiction over California schools. The use of the word 'concur' leads the reader to believe that the CABRN has made a finding or approved ISU and its out of state nursing school. 5. ISU is now in the same category as Execlsor. Any California student who attends a non-approved California school and graduates, will be considered an out of state student and subject to the rules that apply to all out-of-state students who want to work within California. 6. Any California who wishes to continue their education and graduate from the ISU online nursing school would be enrolled in the LPN-to-BSN program NOT the LVN-to-BSN program, which retroactively ended 2007-2012. 7. Finally, the CABRN has not concurred or given its approval to the ISU LPN-to-BSN program that ISU offers to California students because the out-of-state program could never be approved by the CABRN. 8. WARNING: Those applying to the ISU California LPN-to-BSN program do so at their own risk because California the Nurse Practice Act and the California Business and Professional Code does not apply to out of state, non-approved nursing schools.

Does the back of your contract state that if you were never admitted into the program TCN will refund full contract price? This is the contract statement that many of the recently scammed students are making TCN live up to. Since the CABRN has stated that there is no nursing school and should have never received approval in 2007, the ISU students can not be admitted--for those who were not in the program. You stated you started your TCN studies in 2003. The ISU program did not get approval until 2007. Did you study for the ISU challenge exams?

ISU and TCN are intimately involved and TCN is an associate of the ISU nursing program. In fact, the studyguides that ISU is fostering upon new students are written by ISU nurses or administrators. ISU and TCN are so intimately involved that at the California BRN meeting in which the CABRN attorney made his ruling against ISU, TCN represented itself as well as ISU at the meeting.

The program you describe is not ISU's LVN to BSN program--or was. The program you describe sounds like Excelsior. The TCN program required clinicals as well as classes. The clinicals were normal nursing school clinicals with no shortcuts--or at least by California nurse practice act and the California Business and Professions Code there were not supposed to be short cuts. It was the shortcuts and timesheet fraud uncovered Spring 2012 that the VA nursing instrutors at the Long Beach Medical Center practiced and then the ISU nursing administrations' cover-up that caused the CABRN to investigate the ISU LVN to BSN program. The CABRN's attorney found in 2012 that the CABRN had been mislead when ISU applied for approved status and continued to mislead the CABRN during its investigations. The attorney found that the CABRN would retroactively remove the ISU LVN to BSN program going back to the initial approval in 2007. from the approved CABRN schools.

The TCN contract states that if the student is not admitted into ISU, the student will receive a full refund. TCN wrote the contract but is failing to honor it. Many California ISU students have taken TCN to small claims court, which in California is now up to $10,000. When facing the lawsuits, TCN has tried to settle for less than the contract amount but require the student to sign away their constitutional rights. Such as freedom of speach. TCN wants the student to sign an agreement that the student will never say anything against TCN for the rest of the student's life or TCN is owed from the student a minimum of $1,000 for each breach. The original contract has no such strings or requirements. Also, TCN will try to keep a percentage of the contract as an 'educational fee' that can be applied to another program. However, in California, there are no other programs available and the student should be the person to decide if they want to apply to another program associated with TCN not TCN. Recently when TCN went to court in San Diego the middle of March 2013 to represent itself in a small claims suit, the judge heard both sides and then asked the TCN representative if he had brought its checkbook because the judge was certain that TCN wanted to do the right thing, i.e., honor the contract. The student won the small claims lawsuit for the maximum small claims amount of $10,000 plus court and fees. TCN has 30 days to appeal the judgment and in a week or so the appeal timeframe will end. If you are a California student who signed a TCN contract, you do not have to settle for less than $10,000 plus court and filing fees. The contract is iron clad and the courts have ruled that TCN has to honor the contract.

What is your experience with Megace Suspension for weight loss and anorexia? How did your patients do on it and was it well tolerated?

Have you administered Megace suspension to increase weight and appetite? If so, how did your patient's appetite and weight increase?

The Califoria Nurse Practice Act and the Business and Professional Code specifically states that California nursing schools MUST PROVIDE CONCURRENT didact and clinical classes. Failiure to provide concurrent classes means that those students (as in the ISU nursing students) are not covered under the exemption that allows nursing students to work in a clincal with it is part of the didactic program. Without concurrency, the ISU students were PRACTICING NURSING WITHOUT A LICENSE--as anounced by the CA BRN in its November Board meeting--and have committed a misdemeanor and they can be prosecuted, wile ISU remains free to pull the same scam on other students.

ISU did not return your emails or phone calls--did that give you any indication that the School is fradulent? Since you were in the first semester, you did no clinicals. You have not been declared by the CA BRN as practicing nursing without a license because as a student who was not in concurrent didactic and clinicals, the nursing student exemption that covers nursing students in clinicals did not apply. Thanks to ISU's fraud, mismanagement, and malfeasance, ISU put all those students who took clinicals which were not concurrent, the students are at risk for a misdemeanor. Now ISU is attempting to do the same with another California university nursing school. Iwould imagine that the California BRN will check everything ISU submits because ISU lied and mislead the Board--according to the BRN. California State Universities will have nothing to do with ISU. Possibly some private school who may wish to link with ISU because the distant learning nursing program is worth millions. Since you have acceptd ISU's settlement, then that is the end of the issue for you. For others, they are seeking other venues for full reimbursement.

My mistake. You are talking about ISU not TCN. Since ISU continues to discuss the issues, you still have time to take any action you wish. What I have seen is ISU will discuss settlement if you send a certified by mail with return receipt Demand Letter to them demanding (what do you want?) full refund, full refund of all fees and tuition, or? I have a friend who has posted here who did this and ISU is talking to her offering only refund of her tuition--no book, testing fees, etc. She wants all fees, etc and it taking the issues to a different California venue. Now that the California BRN has stated that ISU was NOT AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE A NURSING SCHOOL IN CALIFORNIA because it partnered with a non-authorized nursing program, and ISU's program did not have concurrent didactic with clinical program making the clinical students labled as practicing nursing without a license and guilty of a misdemenor, possibly ISU will change their refund policy. BTW any out of state (aka foreign) business who does business in Calif had to have a person or company located within Calif to receive service of legal papers. If it did not set up an agent before it did business, then the company cannot defend itself. You may wish to check with the California Secretary of State's office to see if ISU is a registered out of state/foreign entity eligible to do business in Calif.

According to the CA BRN Board, your and other students' complaints were investigated and the outcome discussed publically during the September and November Board meetings concerning the problems outlined. The Board's attorney made a ruling at last week's Board meeting. He stated that the LVN to BSN program DID NOT MEET the requirements for a California nursing school, and ISU did not meet the requirements from its inception in 2007 to the present date. The Nurse Practice Act and other California Codes required ISU to partner with a CA BRN authorized university nursing school. ISU apparently could not locate such a school, but it was able to partner with Sonoma State's nursing EXTENSION PROGRAM--which is not authorized. Because ISU had no authorized nursing school partner university, the original application and approval for the LVN to BSN program was invalid, but ISU began operating the school. ISU had great difficulty placing students in California clinicals. ISU originally submitted and received an approval a 1:1 nursing model, but because of its clinical problems, ISU independently changed the nursing model. The CA BRN had no knowledge of the change nor gave its approval. This is the program in which you complained about. The program was illegal in California. Finally, ISU could not provide concurrent clinical placements for its students although the CA Nurse Practice Act demands it. The opinion states that the ISU STUDENT NURSES WERE PRACTICING NURSING WITHOUT A LICENSE, per the CA BRN attorney, and have committed a misdemenor, for which they could be prosecuted. There were other illegal issues that the CA BRN found, but I hope this information provides you with some solace.

Keeping an open mind means just that--being open to the truth. The November 2012 Board Meeting discussed the ISU LVN to BSN program. The Board found that ISU was operating an UNAUTHORIZED LVN to BSN nursing program in California. To be authorized, ISU had to partner with an authrized California nursing school. What ISU did was partner with a SSU extension program--which does not qualify as a Califonia nursing school parthership. Since 2007, ISU was operating an UNAUTHORIZED NURSING SCHOOL IN CALIFORNIA. When the Memorandum of Agreement ran it course in 18 Jan 2012, ISU continued to operate as usual. However, it has no MOA (MOU) and should have closed it doors in California. It did not. What it did scam the Board by stating it had an amendment to the expired MOA. ISU failed to mention that once a MOA (MOU) is expired, there can be no amendments to a expired agreemennt--unless it is an approved nunc pro tunc amendment. Yet, somehow ISU got the SSUpurchasing manager to sign the amendments (despite the requirement that a co-sigature of the SSU nursing dept was required and the statement from the CSU Chancellor's office that he would have never signed the original MOA/MOU or any amendments). Plus, there are no signature dates on the amendments and there is no effective date either. All in all, the Amendments and the MOA/MOU were void. The ISU story in California is continuing to unravel. The original program was NEVER AUTHORIZED by the Calif BRN--per the Board's legal counsel and the program ISU was offering the California students should have stopped in 2007--if not 18 Jan 2012--but ISU continues to operate the program as if it is business as usual. For the next 12 months, ISU continued to offer classes to California students and collect tuition from those California students for a nursing program that does not exist. These are the facts, which is based on the Nursing Practice Act (California) and the Caif professional code.

The Calif Board of Registered Nursing Board meeting held in the San Francisco area last week found that ISU was operating an unapproved nursing program in the State of California, according to the the Nurse Practice Act and Professional Code. The Board noted that those codes were very specific: any out-of-state nursing school who wished to offer their program in California had to partner with a valid Board authorized California nursing school. What ISU did was to partner with Sonoma State, who does operate a nursing school. However, ISU never partnered with the Sonoma State Nursing School, but it partnered with SSU's extension program. The Board was very specific: to be authorized to provide nursing classes or a nusing school in California, the out-of-state university must partner with an approved California nursing school. ISU only partnered with the extension program at SSU; the LVN to BSN program is not approved in California. Students enrolled in the LVN to BSN ISU program were not enrolled in a California authorized school. The board noted that it was ISU who was operated the program, hired lecture and clinical instructors, negotiated contracts with medical facilities and instructors. Sonoma State University, dept of nursing, was not involved in the LVN to BSN ISU program. ISU's proglems don't end here. Further, ISU has considerable presence in California, but it failed to sign up with the Calif Secretary of State. According to the Calif Code any company who has considerable presence and does business within California, must be registered with the Secretary of State to protect itself. If the company is not registered and should something happen, such as a lawsuit is filed agaisnt the company, the company could not defend itself because it failed to become a registered California business.