BER Case 96-8
Rs · Resource
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/96#BER_Case_96-8
Properties
Instance of
Confidence
0.97
Created by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Document title
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 96-8
Importance
high
Used by
BER in current case analysis to ground reasoning about peer review confidentiality and public safety escalation obligations
Used in context
Cited as precedent establishing that a peer reviewer who discovers potential safety code violations during a confidential peer review must first discuss the issue with the reviewed engineer and, if unresolved, notify proper authorities, notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement
Source Evidence
Source text
This principle was illustrated in BER Case 96-8.
Text references
In this case, Engineer A served as a peer reviewer as part of an organized peer-review program developed to assist engineers in improving their professional practice.
This principle was illustrated in BER Case 96-8.
the BER decided that if Engineer A determined that Engineer B's work is or may be in violation of state and local safety requirements and endangers the public health, safety, and welfare, the appropriate action would be for Engineer A to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B
TTL
@prefix case96: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/96#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case96:BER_Case_96-8 a proeth:BERCasePrecedent,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "BER Case 96-8" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Resource" ;
proeth:confidence "0.97" ;
proeth:createdby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "96" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:documenttitle "NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 96-8" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-27T21:44:14.315827+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "96" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-27T21:44:14.315827+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:resourceclass "BER Case Precedent" ;
proeth:sourcetext "This principle was illustrated in BER Case 96-8." ;
proeth:textreferences "In this case, Engineer A served as a peer reviewer as part of an organized peer-review program developed to assist engineers in improving their professional practice.",
"This principle was illustrated in BER Case 96-8.",
"the BER decided that if Engineer A determined that Engineer B's work is or may be in violation of state and local safety requirements and endangers the public health, safety, and welfare, the appropriate action would be for Engineer A to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B" ;
proeth:usedby "BER in current case analysis to ground reasoning about peer review confidentiality and public safety escalation obligations" ;
proeth:usedincontext "Cited as precedent establishing that a peer reviewer who discovers potential safety code violations during a confidential peer review must first discuss the issue with the reviewed engineer and, if unresolved, notify proper authorities, notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 96 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T22:02:18.111642"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 96 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
96
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-27T21:44:14.315827+00:00
First case
96
Generated
2026-02-27T21:44:14.315827+00:00
Attributed to
Case 96 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-27T22:02:18.111642
Generated by
ProEthica Case 96 Extraction