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 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 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
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
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
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.
How comparable cases resolved the same tension
Engineer A Friendship Non-Justification Non-Reporting Violation yields to Engineer A Impaired Practice State Board Reporting Obligation Instance. The yielding obligation ("Engineer A Friendship Non-Justification Non-Reporting Violation") recurs across cases; the obligation that overrides it and the context under which it yields differ case by case. This is the case-law move: not a single rule, but a family of context-indexed resolutions.
| Case | Obligation that prevailed | Yielding obligation | Context (defeasibleUnder) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
92-6
Public Welfare - Hazardous Waste
|
Engineer B Safety Obligation Hazardous Waste Public Welfare | Engineer B Business Relationship Non-Justification Regulatory Reporting | Business-Relationship Preservation Displacing Regulatory Reporting |
|
02-11
Duty To Report Violation—Anonymous Complaint
|
Engineer A Current Case Self-Policing Foundational Reporting Duty | Engineer A Collegial Pre-Reporting Engagement Non-Requirement Serious Violation BER Case | Engineer A Peer Violation Observation State |
|
22-2
Sharing As-Built Drawings
|
Equal Pre-Bid Information Access Enforcement Engineer D Pre-Bid Request Pattern | Engineer D Good Intent Non-Justification Informal As-Built Sharing | Engineer D Informal As-Built Sharing Without Formal Permission |
|
65-9
Public Criticism of Proposed Public Highway Route
|
Consulting Engineer Open Letter Temperate Non-Malicious Peer Critique Compliance | Consulting Engineer Open Letter Adverse Peer Critique Non-Malicious Non-Violation Finding | Consulting Engineer Prior Highway Connection |
|
79-7
Review of Original Engineer's Design
|
Engineer A Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Violated by Complaint Filing | Engineer A Honest Technical Disagreement Collegial Non-Retaliation Violated | Engineer A Registration Board Complaint Against Engineer B; Engineer A Reputational Harm from Predecessor Design Criticism |