Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 22-7 (2022) · Impaired Engineering
Professional obligations conflict, and the board applies no fixed rule for which one wins.
Each resolution is recorded as three edges:
competesWith (the tension),
prevailsOver (the obligation the board allowed to win in this case), and
defeasibleUnder (the situation under which the yielding obligation gives way).
The same tension is then traced across comparable cases, where its resolution shifts with context.
Hover any obligation or state to see its definition; click to open it in OntServe.
How this case resolved it
Engineer Intern C Non-Aiding Unlawful Practice Violation Instance
prevails over
Engineer Intern C Subordinate Complicity Prohibition Violation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer Intern C Unlicensed Responsible Charge Delegation
Featured
Engineer A Impaired Practice State Board Reporting Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer A Friendship Non-Justification Non-Reporting Violation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Friendship-Based Non-Reporting Rationalization
- Engineer A Impaired Licensee Friendship Non-Reporting
Engineer B Impaired Practice Cessation Violation Instance
prevails over
Engineer B Responsible Charge Active Supervision Violation Instance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Insufficient Responsible Charge
- Engineer B Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment Concealment
- Engineer B Structural Design Error - Deficient Design Harm Materialized
Engineer A Non-Aiding Unlawful Practice Post-Discovery Obligation Instance
prevails over
Engineer A Friendship Non-Justification Non-Reporting Violation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Friendship-Based Non-Reporting Rationalization
- Engineer A Impaired Licensee Friendship Non-Reporting
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A Cooperative Practice Alternative Identification Instance vs Engineer A Impaired Practice State Board Reporting Obligation Instance
Engineer B Impaired Practice Cessation Violation Instance vs Engineer B Professional Seal Affixation Competence Violation Instance
What the board concluded
- It was unethical for Engineer A to not report Engineer B, in spite of the fact that Engineer A and Engineer B were friends.
- It was unethical for Engineer B to continue work in an impaired state in which he could not competently perform engineering design, could not guide and direct his subordinates, or properly review their designs or drawings.
- Engineer A was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board.