Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 96-8 (1996) · Peer Review - Confidentiality Agreements
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
Peer Review Safety Code Violation Escalation Obligation Engineer A Engineer B Safety Codes
prevails over
Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Signing Obligation Engineer A Peer Review Program
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Competing Duties Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Reporting
- Engineer A Competing Duties — Confidentiality vs. Safety Reporting
- Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discovery
- Engineer B Safety Code Violation Discovery During Peer Review
- Peer Review Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Override Threshold — Engineer A
- Public Safety at Risk from Engineer B Design Work
- Public Safety at Risk from Engineer B Work
Featured
Engineer A Self-Policing Profession Peer Misconduct Reporting Foundational Duty
prevails over
Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Signing Obligation Engineer A Peer Review Program
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Competing Duties Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Reporting
- Engineer A Competing Duties — Confidentiality vs. Safety Reporting
- Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discovery
- Engineer B Safety Code Violation Discovery During Peer Review
- Peer Review Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Override Threshold — Engineer A
- Public Safety at Risk from Engineer B Design Work
- Public Safety at Risk from Engineer B Work
Peer Review Confidentiality Non-Override of Safety Code Violation Reporting Obligation Engineer A Confidentiality Agreement Limit
prevails over
Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Signing Obligation Engineer A Peer Review Program
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Competing Duties Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Reporting
- Engineer A Competing Duties — Confidentiality vs. Safety Reporting
- Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discovery
- Engineer B Safety Code Violation Discovery During Peer Review
- Peer Review Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Override Threshold — Engineer A
- Public Safety at Risk from Engineer B Design Work
- Public Safety at Risk from Engineer B Work
Engineer A Confidentiality Non-Override Safety Code Violation Reporting
prevails over
Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Signing Obligation Engineer A Peer Review Program
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Competing Duties Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Reporting
- Engineer A Competing Duties — Confidentiality vs. Safety Reporting
- Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discovery
- Engineer B Safety Code Violation Discovery During Peer Review
- Peer Review Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Override Threshold — Engineer A
- Public Safety at Risk from Engineer B Design Work
- Public Safety at Risk from Engineer B Work
Engineer A Peer Review Imminent Harm Immediate Notification
prevails over
Engineer A Peer Review Program Collegial Improvement Participation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Public Safety at Risk from Engineer B Design Work
Engineer A Peer Review Imminent Harm Immediate Notification
prevails over
Engineer A Peer Review Safety Code Violation Sequential Escalation
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Graduated Escalation Obligation — Peer Review Safety Discovery
- Potential Safety Risk Without Confirmed Imminent Harm — Engineer B Work
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A Peer Review Confidentiality Maximum Disclosure Facilitation vs Engineer A Peer Review Safety Code Violation Sequential Escalation
Engineer A Peer Review Program Collegial Improvement Participation vs Engineer A Peer Review Safety Code Violation Sequential Escalation
Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Signing Obligation Engineer A Peer Review Program vs Peer Review Safety Code Violation Sequential Escalation Obligation Engineer A Structured Pathway
What the board concluded
- If Engineer A determines that Engineer B’s work is or may be in violation of state and local safety requirements and endangers public health, safety and welfare, the appropriate action is for Engineer A to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of this issue.
How comparable cases resolved the same tension
Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Signing Obligation Engineer A Peer Review Program yields to Engineer A Self-Policing Profession Peer Misconduct Reporting Foundational Duty. The yielding obligation ("Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Signing Obligation Engineer A Peer Review Program") 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) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
18-10
Conflict of Interest—Peer Reviewer...
|
Engineer A Peer Review Safety Code Violation Sequential Escalation BER 96-8 | Engineer A Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Signing BER 96-8 | Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discovery |
|
93-3
Appropriate Notification And Review Of...
|
Engineer B Client Confidentiality Instruction Faithful Agent Compliance BER Case | Engineer B Peer Review Notification and Consent Fulfillment | Client Covert Review Instruction to Engineer B; Notification Duty vs. Faithful Agent Duty Conflict; Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Absent — Engineer A Design Review |
|
22-8
Independence of Peer Reviewer
|
Engineer B Peer Review Notification | Engineer B Confidentiality Review Scope | -- |
|
79-7
Review of Original Engineer's Design
|
Engineer B Post-Completion Terminated-Relationship Review Without Notification Permissibility | Engineer B Peer Review Knowledge Requirement Purpose-Limited Interpretation | Engineer A Connection Terminated Years Prior to Review; Engineer A Original Design Completion and Payment State; Ownership Change Triggering New Engineering Inspection |
|
10-8
Selection of Firm—FOIA Request
|
Engineer B Present Case Public Procurement Misrepresentation Check Transparency Recognition | Engineer A Public Procurement Qualifications Confidentiality Self-Protection Obligation | Engineer A Qualifications Submitted to Public RFQ |